Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 12 June 14 >

Contents

[edit] June 13

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 delete (20:10, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Nutrocity" (Libel page)). - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrocity

No google hits; appears to be a made up word Samw 00:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism, blatant POV ("wack job"), seems to basically be spam for its attached link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this "wack job" of an article. Mr Bound 02:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know if there is a speedy delete for a page that seeks to libel a whole class of people rather than just one, but I guess not. This is just the usual petulance. Geogre 03:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn neologism POV. Speedy as unencyclopedic insult fine by me. -- Infrogmation 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a biased article; even if the word exists, the article could be rewritten for a NPOV. --Rschen7754 04:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this ridiculous article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be more of an attack on Christian apologetics, and this article has no place here, even if I do agree with the author to a degree. Jamyskis 07:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic -CunningLinguist 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as attack page. the wub (talk) 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, it's gone. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 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 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reitsma

Non-notable researcher. Google finds about 6 relevant hits. --InShaneee 00:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 02:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Page rank boosting and advertising for his blog. Vanity. (N.b. I didn't nowiki the websites, but someone should while the thing is on VfD.) Geogre 03:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Jamyskis 07:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and probably vanity. (I nowikified the links btw) the wub (talk) 08:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reitsma spelled backwards: Amstier. ~Mbsp
  • Delete vanity Epolk 18:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:14, 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 delete (11:06, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Mike Wasdin" (Prank/libel)) - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Wasdin

Notability not established Samw 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, speedy if possible. I wish pure vanity was a clearly defined speedy. Mr Bound 02:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gone. Speedied. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 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 delete (11:05, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Bikehelmet" (Libel page)) - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bikehelmet

  • Delete. Non-notable. One google hit for real name. Rmhermen 01:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as either attack page or nonsense. Actually, probably a mixture of both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity/non-notable, I'd say speedy as attack as well due to the "road head" thing. Mr Bound 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's gone. Speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 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 Merge to Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX. -- Jonel | Speak 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B4U

This song, although *somewhat* popular in Bemani circle, does not warrant an article. DELETE SYSS Mouse 01:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge if we have an article on DDR songs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As per Lenahan's comment, is there a large article on DDR songs? Can someone provide? Mr Bound 02:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am afraid not. SYSS Mouse 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unreleased, non-charting, not producing lines of influence, not the first or only. If it's some kind of game's music, then it's not going to be investigated outside of that game. Geogre 03:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not the case here: B4U was licensed to EMI in Dancemania albums, but stil... SYSS Mouse 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Could be merged with Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX, although it probably belongs in Beatmania IIDX 4th Style, not sure which it appears on first. This song appears in at least 3 separate series of games, DDR, Beatmania IIDX and Dance Maniax and has been released on various soundtrack albums. Kappa 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is unclear, is this a song or a style of song? As the article is quite poor it seems it could be merged somewhere. The sheer amount of Dance Dance Revolution crap that wikipedia seems to have become a dumping ground for makes me wonder what people are thinking. -R. fiend 05:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe they think information on Dance Dance Revolution is part of the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dance Dance Revolution if someone can be bothered to get a list of all the songs from the games (I've only played the first one) Jamyskis 07:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per what others have said. -CunningLinguist 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, althpugh I have no idea where... the wub (talk) 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge it into a big DDR article and forget about it.--EatAlbertaBeef 15:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX, as that's where User:Poiuytman has been merging songs (example: Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Music). --SPUI (talk) 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and remember it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, I've already included the sparse information (minus the POV and plus a reference) in Dance Dance Revolution 4thMIX#Music. This is how other DDR song articles have been handled in the past, see Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Music and DDRMAX: Dance Dance Revolution 6thMIX#Music, which have content that once existed at MAX 300 and PARANOiA Survivor MAX. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete with the Naoki page, or a DDR music page. B4U most certainly doesn't deserve its own entry. "Dumping ground for DDR crap?" surely Wikipedia has worse problems than this.. Ameltzer 00:06, 22 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 - content should be kept, but might best be merged - SimonP 23:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of Canada

page is redundant and created for a purely POV purposeAndyL 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please provide page that this is a redundancy of. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep is my vote. This has nothing to do with redundancy or POV. Mr Bound 02:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • To answer your question, the article is redundant of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Monarchy in Canada. Elizabeth II of the UK and Elizabeth II of Canada are both, in fact, one and the same. Some parts of this article can be relocated to the first, others to the second. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If someone's functioning as the monarch of two separate nations, I think it's unusual enough to warrant a pair of articles. Mr Bound 02:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • She's acting as the monarch for over a dozen countries, by your argument we should also have Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Elizabeth II of Grenada etc as seperate articles (I suggest you click on those articles and see where they all point). And it's actually not "unusual", in all other cases where a monarch has been monarch of more than one country (including the cases of previous British monarchs), we've had a single biographical article. See, for instance James VI of Scotland and I of England. AndyL 02:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Please also see Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Elizabeth II of Barbados, Elizabeth II of Belize, , Elizabeth II of Papua New Guinea, ]], Elizabeth II of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Elizabeth II of Saint Lucia, Elizabeth II of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Elizabeth II of the Solomon Islands, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu all of which redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 02:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Changing my vote to abstain on this basis. You made your case, it just took a little while to get me to realize this issue extends past one article. Good research. Mr Bound 02:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Just to note "someone functioning as the monarch of two separate nations" is an extraordinarily common phenomenon in European history. The Spanish thrones were run separately, but ruled by a common monarch, from 1516 to 1713 or so; the English and Scottish thrones had the same deal from 1603-1707, and the English (and then Great British) and Irish thrones from 1539 to 1801. The crowns of France and Navarre were united from 1589 to 1620; the Holy Roman Emperor also held all the various Spanish thrones, the various thrones of the provinces of the Netherlands, the Free County of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Sicily, and the Duchy of Milan form 1519 to 1556; the King of Poland was also Grand Duke of Lithuania for most of the period between 1386 and 1569...do I have to go on? 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • True. However, the Commonwealth is unlike any other legal entity in history. It combines personal constitutional sovereignty of a Monarch over 16 nations, without any nation claiming privilege over any other, and with an extensive legal framework governing each nation aimed at protecting it from any pretense of forming an Empire. I don't think your point is a bad one altogether, but the Commonwealth Sovereign today is unprecedented in some meaningful ways. Xoloz 06:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand has existed for some time. However, these, nor Queen of Canada is appropriate either-- see my post below. gbambino
The article is not redundant as it covers only information which is specifically attached to Elizabeth II in her separate role as Queen of Canada. This information is not (and should not be) covered on the page Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, nor is it appropriate for Monarchy in Canada as that page is specifically for the institution of the Crown in Canada, rather than any specific Canadian Monarch. "Queen of Canada" has been suggested, however this will not work either as it is too ambiguous and does not differentiate between monarchs (ie. The future King Charles III of Canada would not be differentiated from the past King George VI of Canada with a page simply titled as "King of Canada.")
AndyL is completely off base in stating this page was created for POV purposes, and throwing out such an accusation shows clearly his ignorance of the status of the Crown in Canada and the Canadian monarch's role. gbambino
I refer to your argument in Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom regarding naming of that article and also to your POV that Eliabeth II is Canadian. AndyL 02:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for directing people to my other points, however, this has nothing to do with The Queen being Canadian, but rather only to do with Elizabeth II in her role as the Queen of Canada. gbambino
  • Redirect (to Queen of Canada). No reason not to have redirects for each of the nations in a Sovereign's realm, at least for the reigning Sovereign. Xoloz 02:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add now, after lengthy consideration, a Move for this content to Queen of Canada as is the precedent with Australia and New Zealand. The content is quite good. Xoloz 09:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Elizabeth II of Canada article you will notice that there is quite a lot of informaion pertaining to Elizabeth II and Canada only -- information which is not, nor really could be, contained on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
If you don't feel that listing Canadian information in the El. II of the UK article is appropriate (a feeling I do understand), use a Canadian Gov't page, or create a new page under Canadian Gov't. I agree this information is encyclopedic, but it can't be listed this way without establishing a precedent which will likely aid redundancy with respect to Her Majesty's other Realms. Xoloz 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Xoloz, there is already an article on Monarchy in Canada. Many of the commonwealth realms, I think, have similar articles (And those that don't should have them added). Any biographical information pertaining to her rule of the various commonwealth realms ought to be contained within the biographical article - we include information about Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's rule of Spain in his article, for instance, or about James I of England's rule over Scotland. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, as below, some consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown as distinct from the reigning invidual Sovereign. Second, the Commonwealth is a legal creature unlike any Empire before. El II is personal Sovereign of 16 nations. I oppose 16 articles on Elizabeth II. I wonder about adding a Queen of Canada article to discribe the Sovereign's role (as an invidual) in Canadian life. Monarchy in Canada might then refer to the legal concept of the Crown, and the complex web that binds Canada to the Commonwealth. On this question, I can't decide, but I have put some thought into it. Xoloz 06:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I've tried to point out several times, the fact that the queen is personal sovereign of 16 countries is not unique at all. Up until the French Revolution, most monarchs had multiple, completely separate titles. That said, I could see some value in separating Monarchy in Canada from Queen of Canada. But there would be a lot of overlap. john k 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I've said above, while multiple realms combined under one personal sovereign are not uncommon in history, El. II's position is unique legally. The Commonwealth is unprecedented post-imperisl legal construction, in which the personal sovereign absolutely disclaims any imperious intentions, and takes pain to cast herself as Queen of each land. It is also true that Elizabeth is special in that she is not an object of history yet, but a reigning sovereign. We offend the current form of the states presently existing if we do not do justice to her various roles. Xoloz 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect: It's foolish in the extreme to create an article like this, unless the same authors are going to make Queen Elizabeth II of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland, Queen Elizabeth II of Gibralter, Queen Elizabeth II of the Bahamas, Queen Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Queen Elizabeth II of the Falkland Islands, etc. Imagine how many more articles would be needed for Queen Victoria! Queen Victoria of India anyone? Geogre 03:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Comment - try removing the word "Queen" from those links and see what they do. At least for the separate sovereign nations (that is, the Bahamas but not Scotland) will get you a redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Jonel 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Falkland Islands, as the Falklands are a British Crown territory not an independent nation. Also, Queen Victoria would not need seperate pages, as during her reign all British colonies were under the one British Crown, and even British Parliament. Since 1931 the situation has been completely different as the Crown is now one body operating distinctly within 16 seperate independent countries, making Elizabeth II one Monarch who acts disctinctly as Sovereign of 16 nations. gbambino
Her Majesty is Queen of all Her Realms and Territories. The Style "Queen of the Falkland Islands," a territory, is merely disfavored, not incorrect. I'd suggest "The History of the Reigning Sovereign" as a subsection in Monarchy in Canada. The Crown and the Reigning Monarch are distinct, I agree, but are related enough to justify sharing an article if the distinction is made clear therein. My concern is that one or the other of Her Majesty's Realms should not receive privileged treatment before the rest. I dislike Queen El. II of the UK, for this reason, but that name is a necessary practical compromise with a basis in history. Xoloz 03:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Victoria was Empress of India, and would have considered Queen of India, as a title, to be an insult. The title Empress of India warrants a separate article, because of its historical significance in Imperial politics. Xoloz 03:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emperor of India john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This still doesn't address the facts that a) Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada is a seperate role, with a seperate history, to hers as Queen of the UK, and b) by the Statute of Westminster, the UK is not a more important Realm than any of the others. Also, what happens to the previous King of Canada, George VI, and what will happen with the next monarch, Charles III? gbambino
So you are suggesting we have 16 different Elizabeth II articles then? AndyL 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, yes-- it may depend on whether there is enough information to warrant the creation of a page. Though some pages would be longer than others, New Zealand compared to Belize for example, there could indeed be 16 different pages relating to the Queen's 16 different roles and the history attached to each Realm. This would be accurate, and fair (as Xoloz points out, there is a problem with giving the UK a privileged position above the other Realms). The size of the Elizabeth II of Canada page alone confirms that Elizabeth II really does have a distinct history as Queen of Canada. There is no reason why it would not be the same for Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and other Realms. gbambino
I understand your concerns, Gbambino. UK law states that none of Her Majesty's Realms is privileged. I wish I could rename the main article to simply "Her Majesty Elizabeth II," but this is not practical, given the Monarch's historical ties to England (and thus, the UK.) Sixteen articles, sadly, would risk discriminating against some of Her Majesty's Realms that are less powerful globally. I am afraid that the best solution is the one I suggested earlier. Xoloz 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, this area of policy is a mess. There is a page called Queen of New Zealand but not Queen of Canada. You could Rename this Queen of Canada, and have separate sections for Crown/Personal Monarch. This defeats the problem of 16 Elizabeth -- while she does have a distinct role in every Realm, too much information on her person would be redundant. However, since Queen of New Zealand is a precedent, make Queen of Canada.Xoloz 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Queen of Canada already exists, it redirects to Monarchy in Canada. AndyL 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So it does. Using Queen of Canada for this is a possibility, however, given Queen of New Zealand and my hope that we wouldn't have sixteen articles about the same person. Sixteen articles about sixteen different roles that are held by the same person -- Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada -- that is a different matter. Xoloz 05:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that there should be an article in Wikipedia about the role that Elizabeth II has played in Canada; it is important. If someone can suggest a better name for the article, I would be willing to change my vote to have Elizabeth II of Canada redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. But only if this content remained separate from Monarchy in Canada and her UK page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with Monarchy in Canada? Any things specific to Elizabeth II's life ought to go into her biography article. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This specific monarch's role in Canada is unique to the other monarchs. I believe this level of detail is too detailed for her biography article. -- JamesTeterenko 06:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very good article on the role of the Queen in Canada. There is no reason why we can't cross-reference the articles. We could easily have an article on her role in Australia and other places where the Queen has a constitutional role. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
God damn it! We have an article about her role as queen of Canada. It is called Monarchy in Canada. We also have Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand. As to the other commonwealth realms, I think it is mostly discussed in broader politics articles. john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No JohnK, Monarchy in Canada is not about Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Canada, it is, and rightly so, about the larger institution of the Crown in Right of Canada, and the/any Canadian Sovereign's role in it-- the page was renamed from "Queen of Canada" to "Monarchy in Canada" for that very reason! Compare the two pages, Monarchy in Canada to Elizabeth II of Canada, and I'm quite sure you'll see the difference I and others here are talking about. gbambino
John K, some might consider "Monarchy" to refer to the Crown which, as you probably know, is a distinct concept from the reigning sovereign as a particular individual. Xoloz 05:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge info into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and appropriate article on the government and/or recent history of Canada; Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; Delete redundant/useless information. Also, as Elizabeth I of England was never (as far as I know) Queen of Canada, isn't this Elizabeth technically I of Canada? -R. fiend 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Current UK law, and law in each of Her Realms, addresses this problem. Her regnal number is determined by English order. In Scotland, however, there has been much controversy over this question. Xoloz 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Rather dubiously. Nobody complained about William IV or Edward VII, did they? john k 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree that the concern is slightly spurious, but some Scots have been seriously making objections since James I, the VI. I am sure somebody was in 1830 and 1901, although they may have been in the Highlands, in hiding. Xoloz 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, with useful and uniquely Canadian information going into Monarchy in Canada where it belongs. Lord Bob 05:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The two are the same person, just acting in a different capacity. Aside from that, this is an excellent article. Falcon 05:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and move this page to Queen of Canada and use the standard redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. That makes the most sense. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not wholly opposed to "Queen of Canada", but it seems to be a convenient yet temporary solution only as there has so far been only one King of Canada (George VI) and one Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II). When thinking ahead I wonder what will happen when Charles III (should he choose that name) ascends to the Throne-- there will then be two Kings of Canada in history; George VI and Charles III. Which will the "King of Canada" article be assigned to? Of course, this situation is some years off, but none-the-less is something to consider.
Also, if there is already a "Queen of Australia" article, a "Queen of New Zealand" article, and there is to be a "Queen of Canada" article, will there then be a "Queen of the United Kingdom" article as well? gbambino
This exists as a redirect to British Monarchy. Xoloz 09:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to her main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and redirect - Queen's different legal positions in different regions can be included in the article about her and mentioned about the articles about the regions. They do not need separate articles. Would she be the first Elizabeth reigning in every territory UK acquired after the 17th century? Skysmith 09:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Skysmith 09:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) edit after consideration)
Unfortunately, this does not address the point that if the information on her role as Queen of Canada is included on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, then the UK is therefore being given priority over the other 15 Realms, which is not a legal reality, only an opinion. As well, the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article will eventually become immense! gbambino
  • Rename. No objection to the content here - is useful. However, we when we have biographical articles which are named for the person, they are about people, not about their holdings of particular offices. Lots of people hold offices that might want to have main articles about that office-holding-period, not just monarchs. We wouldn't expect to see George W. Bush, Governor of Texas or George W. Bush, President of the United States be different articles, instead we have George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States. If no consensus to rename would support merge with Monarchy in Canada. Morwen - Talk 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. An article for all positions are not needed, just separate sections in one, larger, article. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous comment (doesn't count towards consensus):

We should keep it in. It is an excellent page about the "Canadian Monarcy" And it is THE page to inform about the Elizabeth's role as Queen of Canada. User: Allard (the Netherlands) posted 13th June 2005

  • I don't think it is anonymous, since Allard tried to sign it. I do think it is a comment, not a vote, because it wasn't signed properly. Xoloz 08:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - information relating to her role as Queen of Canada should be transferred to Monrachy in Canada so that that article covers the evolution of the institution, including any future monarchs. Information relating to her as a person should go into the main article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which does note that she is Queen of other countries as well. Ground Zero 15:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Most of the article should be merged with Monarchy in Canada, and then redirect the article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I can see the need in having an article specifically about this monarch's relation/visits/influence to Canada, but this title is too confusing to accomplish that. --NormanEinstein 15:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've changed my mind a bit on this one. I'd like to see the article kept and Renamed to Elizabeth II and Canada. Some of the information in the article, royal visits etc, is pretty good and would be lost in a merged article. With a little rewriting, this article should be focused specifically on this particular queen's relationship with Canada. --NormanEinstein 14:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Who was Elizabeth I of Canada? Gdr 15:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (no merging). An admittedly quick scan of the contents of Monarchy in Canada and Elizabeth II of Canada shows me that there is nothing useful in the latter to merge to the former. It's already stated on many fronts how she is also the Queen of Canada, and most of the content in this VfDed article can already be seen in all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 17:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
    • My suggestion, if the final consensus is to Merge with Monarchy in Canada, is to create a new heading in that article (something like Elizabeth II) to address any concerns people have about including information specific to her. --Deathphoenix 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Notwithstanding anyone's views on the monarchy, it seems counterproductive to have two (or more) biography pages on the same person. CJCurrie 18:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. For the same reasons as listed above. Along with the fact that the GG is the final step in any Federal legislation, Elizabeth II's relationship to Canada is merely symbolic. Destinova1 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per john k. Martg76 22:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, isn't she actually Elisabeth I of Canada? Who would be the first Elisabeth other than her? Martg76 22:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because her name is Elizabeth, not Elisabeth. And, as noted above, there is not Elizabeth I of Canada. Designating her as Elizabeth II in all realms avoids the confusion of James I of England and James IV of Scotland, who were the same person. Ground Zero 23:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This argument serves as another illustration of the fallacy of this article. This kind of "confusion" is common practice in the numbering of monarchs in European history. Just consider one of the examples given above: Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor = Rudolf II of Bohemia = Rudolf of Hungary = Rudolf VI, Archduke of Austria. It's always the same person. Redirects and, if necessary, disambiguation pages easily solve the "confusion" problem. Martg76 22:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If you wish, see my extensive comments on why Elizabeth the II is not quite like historical figures. In sum: The Commonwealth is a unique legal creation, a product of post-imperial thought. Though many rulers have had multiple domains, none has ruled under a constitutional system that so thoroughly disclaims imperial pretention, and has extensive codified laws aimed at making sure no one Sovereign realm takes precedent over any others. Also, Elizabeth lives, and is not a dusty historical figure; she has many subjects who cherish her, and who care deeply about her role in their countries. At the same, I think 16 articles on one person is redundant. As above, I have voted to move this to Queen of Canada. Each country deserves an article on their Queen, and her position, but Elizabeth needs only one article in her name, with her personal bio, etc. Xoloz 04:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Monarchy in Canada, redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. James F. (talk) 23:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although by design the distinction between the separate legal persons of the Crown in the Commonwealth Realms is blurry, the Head of State of Canada certainly merits an article. It might help to work out a policy on how the different roles should be split between Wikipedia articles, and apply that consistently across the different Commonwealth Realms. The statement "page is redundant and created for a purely POV purpose" is clearly incorrect. User:Peter Grey
    • In VFDs we only consider comments votes by editors with more than 100 edits. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion" 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "but their votes may be discounted" AndyL 13:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That decision whether to discount rests with the admin., who renders a judgment at debate close, not with anyone else. As always, "may" is not "must," so the decision to discount is an administrative choice. Xoloz 04:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes but it's routine on VfDs to point point out when a poster has made fewer than a dozen edits and has only been editing for two daysprior to joining a VfD and it is routine to discount such votes, particularly if, as in this case, the person has voted in response to a plea for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board.AndyL 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • With reference to this comment and others like it by AndyL, I would like to cite the guideline of not biting the newcomers. Please don't! We need them to keep wikipedia running, and their opinions are just as valid. These votes you so badly want to discount are clearly not made in bad faith, and your desire to discount them seems channelled entirely towards furthering your opinion of delete. If anything is in bad faith, it is that. Don't be a WikiSnob, please. Falcon 22:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge specifics to Monarchy in Canada, redirect article to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Elisson | Talk 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As a Cdn. Citizen. Elizabeth II of Canada works for me. She is my Queen.

(Unsigned comment by 172.154.199.22) Xoloz 08:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep she is a notable monarch. There is a Monarchy in Canada article however I believe Queen Liz II has done enough for Canada to merit an individual article on her own. JamesBurns 09:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • She has an article on her own, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. AndyL 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm only guessing that he means an article on her own for Canada on its own. Xoloz 17:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect This information can be placed elsewhere. User 142.110.227.32 14 June 2005
    • (Unsigned -- or rather, defectively signed -- Comment by 142.110.227.32) sign with four tildes please. Xoloz 17:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've seen a lot of votes to merge contents to Monarchy in Canada while redirecting to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I could be wrong, but I think this breaks the requirements of GFDL. You need to preserve the history of the content, so therefore, I believe if you merge anything from ArticleX to ArticleY, you must also redirect it to ArticleY, not to another article. --Deathphoenix 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - The history is preserved as long as the originating article isn't actually deleted. Redirecting to a different article than the one that the information was merged into might make the history more difficult to find (and whoever does the merging should include something to the effect of "merged from Elizabeth II of Canada" in the edit summary), but it's still there. Consider also the case of us merging information from one article into two or more others - the original can only redirect to one of them. That's not a problem for the GFDL. -- Jonel 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Also, the "history" of the article only goes back to June 10. It was orgiinally created as a redirect in 2004, but content was only added a few days ago. Not terribly important.

.Ground Zero 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, regardless of how many roles she has, and what the legal relationship of thse roles are, she is only one person. I think that one article (at most) per person is sufficient. Dsmdgold 22:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone deletes it, I shall just have to put it up again. I will not tolerate my monarch's page being just a part of another monarch's page. It clearly makes it seem as if her British realm is above all the rest (which, if you "delete" people would actually READ the statute of Westminster, could figure out is totally untrue). This is a real downplay to the Canadian throne, and sounds like pure republican propaganda to me.Maxwell C. 23:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Watch out. Though the consensus seems to be against it being deleted, if this (or some other VfDed article) were deleted, and you were to just put it up again, this would qualify as a speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Certainly true, but see my comments above. Unlike dusty historical figures, Her Majesty is an active head of state beloved by many subjects of many realms. I would expect it is likely some wll respond passionately if their concerns are not accomodated. I don't encourage such action, but I am not without some sympathy either. Xoloz 04:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging into an article which is alreay 37K long is exactly opposite to the ways of wikipedia to split articles when they grow. This article is clearly big enough to warrant independence. mikka (t) 02:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, there are only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles. AndyL 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a joke. There's only about two paragraphs of the article that aren't already present in other articles because you moved those paragraphs from this page to those ones! gbambino
Yes, and I moved them before mikka made his comment so my point stands.AndyL 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's precisely my point-- your moving them affected people's opininon on the page.gbambino 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It evidently influence mikka to vote keep. Are you saying we should discount his vote? I don't think you've thought about the implications of your comments.AndyL 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Someone clicking on a link marked "Queen Elizabeth" in a Canadian article will expect to find a comprehensive biography of the Queen, not this article. Incidentally, even if the Queen was styled Queen Elizabeth I of Canada, she wouldn't be, as there hasn't been a Queen Elizabeth II of Canada using the same logic, and you only need numerals for differentiation between monarchs of the same name. Queen Victoria isn't called Queen Victoria I, though if there were to be another British Queen named Victoria at some future point, then both would need a number to distinguish them. Pete 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merge biographical content there, and content related to the role of the monarch generally to Monarchy in Canada. --Michael Snow 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Vote interference, gbambino has been trolling for votes on the Monarchist League of Canada message board[1] (see Canadian Monarchial info on Wikipedia). AndyL 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another baseless accusation which is really, really beginning to reflect badly on you, Andy. I appealed to members of the Monarchist League for input into a discussion. It seems you are frightened by information coming from people who may know more about a particular subject than you do. gbambino
No, this is an attempt to interfere with the vote. You have appealed to people who hold a certain point of view (they belong to the Monarchist League, after all) who are not Wikipedia editors. That is clearly an attempt to sway the vote in your favour. The administrator who ersolves this VfD should take this into consideration when determining the outcome of the vote. Ground Zero 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Be careful to get your facts straight before making accusations. I never once appealed for a vote, and, in fact, never directed anyone specifically to this 'vote' page. I'm sure anyone reading my words will be aware of that. I asked for input and help regarding all the articles related to the Monarchy here, specifically stating that factual arguments were needed, and bias was to be avoided. Indeed, I asked for assistance because of the onslaught of Andy's edits, almost all goverened by his deeply republican POV. And lastly, anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, including members of the Monarchist League, whether that suits you or not. gbambino
Of course they can. There are numerous monarchist editors here. The issue is bringing in people who are not regular contributors to Wikipeida for the purpose of getting your way on a particular issue. Your characterization of Monarchist League members as being people who are knowledgeable about the monarchy, and republicans like AndyL as being ignorant of the monarchy are not helpful. Monarchists and republicans both have a point of view. Ground Zero 16:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What precisely is a "regular contributor"? How many times does one have to edit here before their points are respected? "Don't bite the newbies" but don't take them seriously either? This isn't an exclusive club. There are debates going on here which need input from people who are educated on the Crown. Certainly, republicans can also be educated on the Crown, and if they can provide factual arguments, then that is perfectly fine, regardless of whether I agree with republicanism or not. However, what is of concern is that AndyL is actively editing almost every page dealing with the Crown and Canada, and his arguments for a good number of his actions are guided by an ignorance of the institution, and a lot of baseless republican POV arguments which I've heard before. As is completely clear, POV holds no place here, only fact. I did not call on monarchists to bring their POV (in fact, I specifically discouraged it), but rather only to bring knowledge and facts to the debate. I only happen to know monarchists who are well educated on the Crown. If anyone would like the input of a knowledgable republican, please invite them over. gbambino
Gbambino, are you claiming that no votes on this page are the result of your intervention on the MLC board? There is evidence to the contrary, witness Peter Grey. AndyL 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't stop someone from 'voting' here, but I most certainly did not ask anyone to. As I said, I never even drew anyone's attention to this page. And again, what's wrong with outside opinion? It's already been established that 'newbie votes' hold less weight than those of regular contributors. But really, the votes here don't concern me. Whether this page stays or goes doesn't concern me. What is important is that Wikipedia deals with the Crown, the Sovereign, and her relationship in and with her Realms, in the most accurate and correct manner. That's what the debate about this page was supposed to deal with. gbambino
I thought we were just discussing and voting on what to do with this article. We're writing an encyclopedia, not honouring or dishonouring people. --Deathphoenix 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify things for AndyL and anyone else here right now, I am a regular contributor to the Wikipedia AND a monarchist. I am NOT someone whom Gbambino has just "called up" from the monarchist board to vote here. And since when was the Wikipedia a democracy anyways? I thought the Wikipedia's goal was to provide the most factually correct information possible, NOT to allow people to come and "vote" on the content of articles, and which articles are to exist or not, depending upon their (possibly incorrect and often biased) opinions.Maxwell C. 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article adds information that is specific to the role of Elizabeth II in Canada, how she conducts that role and reactions from Canadians. So there should be an article. If it were redirected to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom we would lose that info. A merge would unduly increase the size of the UK article (especially if other members of the Commonwealth also added similar info). So we'd better keep it. It could be renamed "Queen of Canada" if need be. Sunray 18:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Oh yes, and perhaps we could get a different picture! Sunray 20:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Why would we need another picture? The current one is a cropped version of Her Majesty's official Canadian portrait and looks quite nice.Maxwell C. 00:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information in this article should be retained somewhere. The discussion of where it is retained and how to link all of the information about QEII should be taken to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Chuck 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- The fine points of merging such an excellent body of writing into a single article is enough to make me shudder - the resulting document couldn't possibly have the easy flow and high style this exhibits, and would ignore the fact that such a monarch is indeed two rulers inhabiting the same body. I'd hazard a guess that they even disagree with one another on occasion. <G> The other fact I can't but help thinking over is the extreme effort that merging the two would require to do the task justice. If it's done too hastily, you end up with limping dijointed text. Chronology which intermixes key events for diff nationstates, and possibly repeats of things like the article battleship which commented no less than three times in the space of a screen page on the 21 kt speed of the new steam turbines for the original HMS Dreadnought — I'd be far better editing time fixing something like that, than picking on this excellent effort. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. CommentS: One strength of the Wikipedia is the luxury to keep such things; and more — To keep them well organized. Did you see the article in the Village Signpost Click_here quoting an editor of En. Brittanica that Wiki-articles were too long, and most readers don't want so much information to wade through?
  2. A telling point on a merged output product. Another, similar but disparate arguement can be made for keeping a brief historical name article as many editors are careless and/or ignorant that many such have their own chapter of history. Take a look at Dalian and Lushun for instance -- each name there (and a host of redirected alternate spellings) represents an era in history that such an merged article obscures in the format.
  3. This is not an exact parrallel, but I want a Wiki where one can type (or websearch) using a name in a published book, magazine or other critically edited work by an author of note to find the right information. e.g. Tsushima, Tsu-shima, Tsu Shima, Tsu-Shima are all alternative forms of the same islands/Battle, but which historian was I reading to finally stumble across Wikified Tsushima. It matters not, they are all equally valid, but many such names are being lost. Worse, Wikipedia is becoming gradually decoupled from the extant voluminous body of historical references that have their own contexts.Redirects are fine, but whose to say the Monarchy won't someday be split into seperate ruling Queens? Not I. My Crystal balls not that good.
  4. More to the point, if someone on the web is searching for Freda the Queen of Canada, I suspect more than a little, they are searching from and concerning an interest in her August Majesty's Canadian History, and care not at all, or only a little about her other titles. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there are separate monarchs for Canada and the UK in the future, we would, of course, have articles on each of them. but because they are different people. For instance, if Canada decided to make Prince Andrew King after Elizabeth dies, and then she dies, then we'd have Charles III of the United Kingdom and Andrew of Canada as separate articles. But we wouldn't keep articles on Andrew of Canada and Andrew, Duke of York. john k 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Postdlf 05:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful article. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Betsy Windsor. — Dan | Talk 02:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redir. Radiant_>|< 09:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful article, not to mention Wikipedia is not paper so why on earth not have separate articles on her from the viewpoint of each of her realms? Apart from which, the redirect to the UK article is demeaning to her non-UK realms (writes a UK-er). -- Arwel 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. There's one person who has different rôles; I can see no reason for multiple articles on her (any more than, for example, we should have one article on Samuel Johnson (lexicographer), Samuel Johnson (wit), Samuel Johnson (poet), etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a substantial article in and of itself and if merged into Elizabeth II of the UK would either result in much lost content or an excessively long and unwieldy article. Whig 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rename to what? john k 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as the other article keeps the "of the United Kingdom." --Ibagli 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: The above user has made fewer than 100 edits, and the vote should not be counted. (Mind you, *none* of these recent votes should count toward consensus -- the matter has already been decided.) CJCurrie 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The voting period has not officially ended since no final decision has been made. Just because it's beyond the normal VFD period, doesn't automatically close it. By the way, IMO "Queen of Canada" is merely symbolic and is a tremendous waste of Canadian taxpayer's money when she or any of the royal family visit. I think if the final decision is to keep, this will open a whole can of worms but I'm not going to vote due to my personal anti-Queen bias where I would say delete. RedWolf 06:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, under the guidelines in Wikipedia:Consensus we have consensus to merge/redirect since more than 2/3 of voters have voted that way. Why this VFD is still open is beyond me.AndyL 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope that my vote above (for Delete Redirect, my mistake) counts for something, because I am actually a monarchist, and I believe in the Commonwealth. I vote delete redirect because I think this title is superfluous and its content is already covered in several other articles (among them Monarchy in Canada and Canadian politics). The article Queen of Canada, as a redirect, should be more than sufficient, and having an Elizabeth II of COUNTRY_NAME for every Commonwealth country, in my opinion, is superfluous, difficult to maintain, and utterly confusing to a reader wanting to simply learn about her. When we write an encyclopedia, we should also write with the user (reader) in mind, and I think having all these articles is just confusing, especially when you can have Monarchy in COUNTRY_NAME instead. What if, knock on wood, something were to happen to the Queen? Would we then have to create a whole bunch of new articles for George VII of COUNTRY_NAME (as the name Prince Charles will adopt when he becomes king), one for every article that currently exists for Elizabeth II? --Deathphoenix 14:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed, we must keep in mind that this is not a vote on deleting the monarchy or on deleting the current monarch. This is only about whether or not this Wikipedia article should exist separately from other Wikipedia articles on the same person. Ground Zero 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge+Redirect, I'm all for having an article on her function as queen of canada, but this is a bio page. --W(t) 15:53, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • temporarily keep, and begin a discussion about elizabeth II. i just finished examining pages, talk pages, and edit histories in an attempt to get up to speed on this complicated debate about wpedia's treatment and titling of articles regarding elizabeth II . this Vfd is only part of the debate, and there are a lot of unresolved issues. closing this Vfd because of consensus will only intensify the problem, unless the closing, merging, and redirecting is accompanied by more discussion elsewhere. i dont think there are enough people who are both well educated on the wpedia history of the subject and participating in good faith/NPOV/for-the-good-of-the-wpedia. i dont mean to say there are none, but i think there is not enough as a ratio to the other noise here and elsewhere. for that reason i would support an Rfc over a survey, as vote numbers dont seem too meaningful right now. at the moment my opinion is that there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of Canada except as a redirect. however, i also feel there should not be a page titled elizabeth II of the United Kingdom except as a redirect. is there a reason why we cannot use elizabeth II? i saw it suggested at least once but did not see a response. within the biographical article about elizabeth II, there should be limited information about her relationships with her various regencies interspersed with general biographical data. where there is more detailed encyclopedic information about a given specific country, it should be summarized in a section on the bio page and linked as "main page at X". there is useful, NPOV data currently to be found at elizabeth II of Canada. i would classify elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as some combination of POV and deficient in quality and professional feel. with all that said, i fear that 'merge and redirect' will result in one party of this dispute claiming a victory where none was achieved; hence, my vote to keep until a policy can be forged. Burgher 19:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your points that this is a complex issue for many to deal with, let alone Wikipedia. That one crown operates as a legal institution distinctly yet completely equally in 16 separate countries, and that there is one sovereign who has a personal history in, and relationship with, those 16 nations, is a situation which is is unique to history, and a little difficult to understand at first. Add to this the points that the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms is no longer purely British, yet has no official name either, as well as Wikipedia's existing standards for the naming of monarchs, and it becomes clear that with no precedent it becomes a complex matter to organise and explain accurately in an encyclopaedia. 16 "Elizabeth II of (insert Realm)"s may not be a viable solution, but that eliminates Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Merging the information contained in Elizabeth II of Canada to Monarchy in Canada ignores the fact that there is a distinction between the institution of the Crown in Canada and the actual person who is Sovereign of the Crown, which is correctly handled in the split between Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy articles.
NOTE This user, User:Burgher, has been on wikipedia for approximately two weeks and has made fewer than 50 edits.AndyL 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE not only are you making my point for me, but you are wrong on both of those counts by a large margin. try "since january" and "fewer than 250" for more accurate versions of "approximately two weeks" and "fewer than 50". i personally see a great deal of content in my vote which could be responded to, would you care to do that? i have to go back a long way to find the last time user:AndyL has done something constructive in this debate. i do apologize for neglecting to sign my vote, i completely forgot. incidentally, none of my nearly 250 edits have had anything to do with this issue, and i learned everything i know about the dispute today, by taking about four hours to read everything i could find. i fail to see why my vote should not count in full without a note like this. Burgher 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, I misread your contributions list though I don't see how that "makes (your) point". If you made yourself even a rudimentary user page it might lead to people not assuming you're brand new. AndyL 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm personally not precisely sure how to handle this, yet. But the facts are out there, and, when one gets their head around it, the relationship of the Crown and Sovereign to the Commonwealth Realms is actually fairly straightforward. The problem arises when trying to fit it into Wikipedia. Though, I remain confident that it can be done. --gbambino 21:20, 21 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 Merge. -- Jonel | Speak 05:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constance Hall

Un-notable Australian Big Brother contestant. The first one to be disqualified but otherwise not notable. MrHate 02:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect -- and merge to Big Brother (Australian TV series). I don't think we'll be hearing much more from her. - Longhair | Talk 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect is ok, but delete is ok, too. This is not the winner of the "competition," just some chick. Geogre 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series)--AYArktos 03:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Niteowlneils 03:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with redirect.--Cyberjunkie 03:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect.' (or alternatively, delete). Ambi 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series). Keep on second thoughts she probably is notable/notorious enough for an entry. JamesBurns 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The decision to expel her and the other housemate is an important part of the development of the show especially as the show's bid for more single housemates has led to a much raunchier program than previous years and hence more controversy. Capitalistroadster 07:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I hate Big Brother as much as the next man, but contestants usually end up having their fame extended beyond the house, which to me establishes notability. That said, this really only applies up to around the 3rd series in any country. Jamyskis 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The winner of the first Australian series, Ben Williams doesn't have an article. I didn't even know his name without checking. -- Longhair | Talk 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per what Jamyskis said -CunningLinguist 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete game show contestant, and not even a winning one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, first one to be disqualified establishes notoriety. Kappa 10:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Big Brother (Australian TV series), even though I really see no harm in deleting. I feel that finalists in Idol are notable, they have shown some skill in getting there, but Big Brother? ...Sigh, if there are people interested in that TV-show I guess that a merge is better than a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect. Scimitars Law: as number of reality TV shows approach infinity, notability of reality TV show contestants approaches zero. --Scimitar 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. What else has she done? -- BD2412 talk 15:56, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Merge to the BB series, since it is easy to re-split on the off chance that she does something notable. Brighterorange 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think we should have articles on everyone who has ever appeared on TV somewhere. KFP 18:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Radiant_>|< 09:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - no notability outside context of TV show. Alphax τεχ 06:16, 22 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 20:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Funny Valentine

These lyrics should not be there... Florilegist 02:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Check for copyvio. Mr Bound 02:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: First, copyrighted material. Second, incomplete, so no transwiki to source, even if the lyrics were free. Geogre 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand: It is one of the landmark songs, as it has been a bravura piece by crooners since its writing. I'm in favor of articles on very few and extremely important popular songs, and this qualifies, but we ought to discuss it as a landmark. Geogre 12:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've put in a legit stub. It may be okay now. --Arcadian 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Arcadian's stub. RickK 04:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub, but it really should be expanded; if we are going to have articles on songs they should have some real substance, not just a short list of facts. Also, the potential copyvio in the history could be a problem if this isn't in the public domain. -R. fiend 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with R. fiend that an article on a song should typically be more than a short list of facts, but I think there is certainly a legitmate interest in some songs (like this) that have a history beyond a single artist or medium. In some cases there may not be more than a few facts, or at least a few important facts. For example, if this particular song was performed by six other artists but their versions were never popular, I don't see that we add value here by mentioning the appropriately forgotten versions. DS1953 05:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jamyskis 07:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable song with Allmusic.com stating that there are nearly 1300 versions of a song

titled "My Funny Valentine" most of which relate to this song. BTW, there is a Miles Davis live album of the same name which is considered by some to be one of the best versions of standards ever recorded. See [2]Capitalistroadster 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Apparently, Chet Baker had a big hit with it in the 1950's and the song was sung in Pal Joey by Kim Novak. I might have at expanding this myself.Capitalistroadster 08:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I'm in favour of keeping most songs, and one as famous as this definitely needs an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fleshed it out a little more, using Capitalistroadster's posting as a starting point. Question: is it copyvio to include the chords? I added those in because they're so familiar to jazz musicians. I think that including the chords is fair use, but I could also see the other side of the argument, and wouldn't object if they were removed. --Arcadian 12:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is definitely not a copyright violation to include the chords the way you have done. Copyright only covers the author's actual expression. For example, to quote a passage from a book you would need to rely on "fair use" because you are using the author's own words. If you briefly summarize the author's book in your own words, that simply does not violate his copyright. There are obviously areas in between, but your listing of the chords clearly is not even in the grey area. DS1953 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool -- thanks. --Arcadian 01:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see some curious individual wondering what "my funny valentine" means or is a reference to; it sorta sounds like a common expression. --Robojames 18:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important song from the period of unpopular music. FWIW, at least some brief quotation of the lyrics, perhaps illustrating the use of the title in the song, would certainly be fair use. Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version. --FuriousFreddy 19:40, 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.

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 action needed. Golbez 21:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee harvey oswald

This page duplicates Lee Harvey Oswald, adds no material and ends with a POV on the current president. No need to merge into existing content. Bollar 03:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- I guess it was a speedy deletion.

  • Comment - The original contents of the article were speedily deleted and a redirect created pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald. -- Jonel 03:34, 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 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM(forum)

No new info; unlikely redirect Samw 03:42, 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 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemuria as the Homeland of Dragons and Naga

Chock full of weasel words, original research, and pure, unsupported nonsense held by a vast minority. At most it should probably be deleted, and at the very least, completely rewritten. --brian0918™ 04:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep --Atun There is no reason for this page to be deleted. It was created recently, and I am working to extensively revise it. It is being updated regularly, and growing into a more acceptable article. Remove it from the 'Deletion' page until it is finished. Then make your judgements. Perhaps after the page is finished, we can decide whether to break it up and move the information to other articles. At this time it is easier to upload this stuff to this article. The article can be fixed in more minor ways, such as the title, after it has been completed in some acceptable form.
  • Delete. The material on Australian aborigines claiming to sight dinosaur-like creatures, however, should be transferred to a new article focusing on such sightings in the Australian region. What remains could be incorporated into Lemuria (continent) and Naga (mythology). Decius 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) The Lemuria (continent) article is very short and incomplete, and I've incorporated some elements from User:Atun's article into Lemuria (continent). There is no need for two Lemuria articles. Transfer what can be transferred to various articles. Decius 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Cryptozoology is not the place for detailing the Australian cases. The Australian cases should be collected in a new article. Decius 05:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the Lemuria part of the title has nothing to do with the rest of the material, which could be better placed into Cryptozoology. RickK 04:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Rick. JamesBurns 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research bordering on patent nonsense. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of the "original research" may have value, in that it brings together *real* research from disparate sources. The author should be let complete his text (within reasonable time) and the totlaity can then be edited, or reshuffled into t=wherever people think it should be, with any stubs elided away. --Simon Cursitor 08:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kind of interesting, but definitely falls under original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - tries to catch too much, making it an essay instead of an article - not unlike an article on The Pacific Ocean as the Home of Sea Serpants and Mermaids would be. -- BD2412 talk 16:06, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research that's questionable at best. -- Hadal 03:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and ruminate on meaning of vast minority. Dystopos 14:51, 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 DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ana Lita

Doesn't seem notable to me. 200 Google hits, 25% from one site (her organization), another 20% or so seem to be just lists of usernames for a dating site Weed all that out, and you've got less than 100 hits. --Xcali 04:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • DELETE Sounds like a resumè. --Rschen7754 04:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A couple of facts, roughly an "about us" entry from an institutional web site, no discussion or context. No CV's. Geogre 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. Postdlf 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/cv. --Etacar11 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - No encyclopedic context. IHEU organization possibly notable, however. --FCYTravis 20:59, 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 21:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Stear

Despite what Google claims in its estimate, if you browse through them, you'll find only about 150 hits, many of those from his own site(s). Not notable. --Xcali 04:54, 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 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate-whorage

Dict def that probably doesn't even deserve to be moved to Wiktionary. DeleteSasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: barely beat me to this VfD. Neolgism. Dictdef. POV. Wikibofh 05:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 05:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 05:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef -CunningLinguist 07:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even a dicdef. Jamyskis 07:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neo-nonsense. -- BD2412 talk 15:51, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Eyeon 16:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like something somebody made up...--EatAlbertaBeef 22:31, 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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pollocracy

neologism. Returns only 32 hits on google. Also see Pollocratic. I vote to delete them both. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Things "begining to evolve" do not belong in Wikipedia. We want only the highly evolved here. --Xcali 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, six Google hits. RickK 05:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. The sources using the neologism are notable enough for me, but it was only created to describe this political ideology as a temporary measure. Maybe good for rewriting as and when the term comes back. Jamyskis 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Further to my previous comment, most -ologies use Latin or Greek words as roots, meaning that this would be a society run by chickens. Oh dear. Jamyskis 09:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • We should write a BJAODN on that :) delete.

Radiant_>|< 09:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism -CunningLinguist 07:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I do suspect that society is secretly being run by chickens. -- BD2412 talk 16:08, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Bockbockbock Bock bock bock bock bock! bock bock! BAAAWK! Eyeon 16:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worst neologism ever: had to look to see whether it meant government by hoi polloi or government by chickens; turns out it's about public opinion polls. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 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. Golbez 21:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tongrentang

Delete. Terrible ad about an insignificant Chinese company. It will never become a full article, and if we took out all of the self-promotion there would be nothing left. Falcon 05:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as spam. Jamyskis 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep in light of rewrite. Jamyskis 20:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, cleanup. Real company, very big in China, really is centuries old. This comes from the Chinese gov't.. See also google: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,600 for "Tong Ren Tang" OR Tongrentang. As I said in another vfd once, you wouldn't vote to delete a total advertisement for Coca Cola, you'd fix it. -- BD2412 talk 16:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • I've added some info about their legal problems - it's definitely not an advert anymore! ;-) -- BD2412 talk 02:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per BDAbramsom. Thanks CunningLinguist. DS1953 20:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and thanks BD2412. Kappa 22:53, 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 21:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andre dehon

Seems a little too much like vanity to me. I fail to see how it would meet conditions of Wikipedia:Importance so I'm putting it up on VfD. I abstain. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

User just added Andr�_DeHon which i am assuming is to be dealt with here as well as it is an exact replica of Andre dehon.
Nevermind that, that page got speedied. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Daniel Case 05:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all articles on teachers so long as all articles on schools are kept, though move to proper capitalization. RickK 05:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I agree with RickK in a sense, but only notable teachers should be kept. Assistant profs don't fit this bill. Jamyskis 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I agree completely with Jamyskis -CunningLinguist 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Doesn't pass the Random J. Professor test. An assistant prof. Geogre 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anybody else think RickK is being a trifle sarcastic? As much as I like keeping academics, he really isn't exceptionally notable. --Scimitar 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no case for notability in the article. --Etacar11 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sad to see another case of unhelpful sarcasm from RickK. Obviously, if Schools are kept, that is less of a reason to keep even marginally notable personnel, who might be included in the school article. Xoloz 04:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, agree with Rick although this article is borderline at best. JamesBurns 06:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • When it comes to schools, I am neither a "deletionist" nor an "inclusionist" -- I may never vote on one. I think it'll be quite sad, though, if Wikipedia expands to include more articles of questionable notability because of a rise in sarcastic/"cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face" votes. I suspect this strategy will only result, eventually, in all teachers being included, because I'm sure many "inclusionists" would rather add teachers then delete schools. If some voters formerly inveterately opposed to schools honestly believe that school inclusion is logically irreconcilable with teacher deletion, then so be it. In all earnestness, however, and without personally impugning anybody, I have to wonder about about the sincerity of votes so cast. Are sarcastic votes bad-faith, and if so, may they be stricken? I only ask the question. Xoloz 07:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If it was your average school teacher yes I would have voted delete and I normally do. IMO associate professors and some professors are borderline at best - they are slightly above your average school teacher. I guess it raises the question of whether people who vote Keep for all schools are voting to make a point rather than voting on merit? JamesBurns 09:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • "Inclusionists" do vote to make a point. They think schools are notable. This is a debatable issue on which they have good-faith convictions. A sarcastic vote here is potentially different. If one really believes in a high bar of notability, but votes contrary to that belief for other reasons (eg. I don't like the guy who voted X, so I vote Y, even though I really believe X), one would be voting in bad faith. I am not saying this has been done, because I don't know anyone's motivations, but there is a prima facie case for wondering whether it might have happened here, so I raise the concern. I do understand your reasons, and was not wishing to question any specific vote. I only want to point out how counterproductive sarcastic votes might become if they rise in popularity. Xoloz 09:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • We need to be consistant, don't we? If every school is kept, then why aren't the teachers? They certainly have as much notability as the schools they teach at. RickK 22:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
            • That is an argument, and if you really believe that, vote away. I must say, though, I find it an extremely unwise argument. I think most agree that the US Mint is unquestionably notable; every employee is not. As below, the city of San Francisco is unquestionably notable, but not every city worker is. Also, see recent vote on Richard J. Doscher in which many, including yourself, felt an employee of Yuba City was not notable, yet Yuba City is. Xoloz 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, entirely disagree with RickK. Radiant_>|< 09:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just because schools are by definition notable, doesn't mean the teachers are. For one, everyone in a town or city might know about a school (in a medium sized city that is around a quarter of a million people, notable enough for me), but they likely won't be able to name the headmaster or teachers. We have companies on here, but we don't list all of their employees. The same should apply to schools, unless the teacher is noted for something. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability of junior prof not at all established. carmeld1 16:28, 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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RPGclassics

Looooooooooooong, POV article about non-notable web forum. RickK 06:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Vanity. You beat me to it. It's also copyvio from the forum's site. --Xcali 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy I edited a bit too fast, it's not encyclopedic in the least. --Vile Requiem 06:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As what I originally posted on the article itself was for it to be cleaned up, and it has, my vote is Keep. --Vile Requiem 04:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Gamaliel 06:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable -CunningLinguist 07:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as vanity and copyvio. Jamyskis 07:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy if only for vanity. -Tadanisakari 07:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio, though I would argue that RPGclassics.com *is* a notable site. I've certainly heard of it before. -- Jonel 02:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Author claims permission. If verified, my vote is Keep. -- Jonel 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - Forum may be notable but we don't need the gory details of every forum drama that ever took place. --FCYTravis 08:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, just a random webpage. Radiant_>|< 09:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:18, 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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Alan Walker

He became a famous businessman in only two years. Then why haven't I heard of him? Why hasn't Google heard of his company? Why can't we speedy stuff like this?--Xcali 06:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete patent vanity, should be able to be speedied. --FCYTravis 07:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, blatant and shameless vanity, apparently also exaggerating and/or lying about his own feats. Jamyskis 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Because two editors is not enough. As Jamyskis says, this appears to be exaggeration or falsehood. No cited sources. WP:BIO criteria not met. Delete. Uncle G 12:21, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's vanity, of course, but I also think that "vanity" is the one charge where VfD nominators (and voters) are most likely to make a mistake. Consequently, "vanity" isn't a speedy. At the same time, I fully share everyone's frustration. Geogre 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Vanity isn't a reason for speedying, but patent nonsense is, and there is absolutely zilch proof that much of this article is correct. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 23:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, vanity, vanity. --Etacar11 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:41, 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. Golbez 21:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tad Horino

An actor who's only scene was removed from the movie (whose name isn't even spelt right in the article)! Need I say more? Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, needs expansion - stub was only created yesterday, he's a real actor and has been in a fair number of films/tv shows. [3]. -- Lochaber 12:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: He's still awfully minor. If the entry is expanded by the end of VfD voting, I'll reevaluate. Geogre 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep per imdb link provided by Lochaber. Kappa 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I still think he's has not gained enough noteriety, most of the roles listed don't seem to warrant an article. However, if this article can be expanded, i'll keep an open mind. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - expanded. DS1953 19:48, 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. Golbez 21:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Safra

Article does not establish notability. RickK 06:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn. --FCYTravis 07:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. She was 6th on the Rich List 2002 [[4]] and by definition is notable simply by being married to a notable billionaire. She still is ranked at No. 71 of the richest people. Jamyskis 08:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anybody worth £650,000,000 is pretty much notable by default; that's just such a humongous chunk of money that when she decides to make a move, she can't help but have an impact. That's a lotta oomph right there. -- Captain Disdain 10:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Her money makes her notable. Capitalistroadster 12:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But she is notable nonetheless. CalJW 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I expanded the entry quite a bit. Unfortunately, Google has once again proven to be a pretty crappy research tool for things like this; Lily Safra certainly gets a lot of hits, but the results are often contradictory or vague. Thus, the stuff on her earlier marriages is nowhere near as detailed as I'd prefer, and I can only hope that it's accurate. Still, at least it puts her in the proper context now and establishes notability; hopefully someone who is actually familiar with the subject can fix anything I screwed up... -- Captain Disdain 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep also notable as heiress of famous murder victim, so not just a billionaire. Xoloz 04:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable heiress. JamesBurns 06:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. - n. —RaD Man (talk) 09:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. carmeld1 16:59, 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 Merge. -- Jonel | Speak 05:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pash Cracken

Seems like a minor minor minor minor character. Don't think it qualifies for it's own article. If anything, merge into the minor characters listing. Delete. Mergeafter a that nice rewrite. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into List of minor Star Wars characters. I get some 1500 goodle hits on this name, and the list will take just about any Star Wars related character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I abstain from voting at the moment, I would like to point out that while there is a character named Pash Cracken in the Star Wars universe, I beleive the info in the article to be incorrect. I find nothing on any character named "Jason the Wise" and I dont beleive midi-chlorians were ever "created". -CunningLinguist 07:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Jamyskis 07:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A merge in light of the new changes would suit me fine. Jamyskis 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I mean, c'mon, "cousin of Jason the Wise the original Jedi who created midi-chlorians"... that's all of the article, and it's just hoaxy nonsense. There's absolutely nothing salvageable here. -- Captain Disdain 10:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What with the changes and all, I'd be fine with a merge -- still not anywhere near notable enough for his own entry, though. -- Captain Disdain 15:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT. Info does seem to be incorrect though so I'll clean up a little. -- Lochaber 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - info should be correct now, ready for merging if that's how it goes. -- Lochaber 12:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Rewritten again: yours was good, Lochaber, but some factual inaccuracies. (What can I say: I'm a huge nerd.) Everybody please re-vote, the article is no longer a hoax. (I say Merge.) ~ Marblespire 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a prank/hoax. (sigh) For the fan-defenders, there is no merge of lies, but Redirect Only would be a possible dispensation. Has anyone looked at the Minor Characters list to be sure that it doesn't contain a link (as if to a separate article) for this? I prefer to delete. Geogre 12:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has been rewritten Please reread and review your votes. Cracken is a minor canon character, so I vote merge. --Scimitar 14:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per WP:FICT --Carnildo 22:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the rewritten article. -- Jonel 02:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 09:59, 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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Rose

Vanity? I can't find any hits for "Gareth Rose" +gay or "Gareth Rose" +proud which refer to this person. RickK 06:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 08:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails the Google test miserably. -Tadanisakari 07:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:27, 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 06:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mixedfolks

Appears to be an ad. Intresting site, though. ConeyCyclone 21:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless notability can be established beyond being yet another site for people to talk to one another. 3,000 Google hits, many of which are Wikimirrors. Mere forums are not of encyclopedic importance unless they've made some wider impact. --FCYTravis 22:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising but not spam. Jamyskis 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable and advertising Tobycat 00:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:43, 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 21:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drowning Fish and Espen Dahl Hjort

Teenage band vanity. The one article so far which has been written about the individual members (Espen Dahl Hjort) says he's 15. Band formed in spring of 2005. RickK 07:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable, speedify if possible. --FCYTravis 07:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable. - Longhair | Talk 08:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually he turned 16 today. btw.

    • Comment - Happy birthday to Mr. Hjort :) --FCYTravis 10:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

  • Comment - fine, delete us, but I'll be back when I deserve my own wikipedia article :)
    • Comment: Hey, thanks for not taking it personally. We hope to see you again when you meet our criteria. --Scimitar 14:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bandity: Do come back when you've gotten some notability. Being a professional musician is a very tough gig. Geogre 12:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: I have no problem understanding you guyz.. Sorry to waste your time on little things like this. See ya
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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hobo nation

Forum neologism. RickK 07:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy - neologism that gets 166 Google hits. --FCYTravis 07:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Noxious advertising. Geogre 12:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spamvert idiocy. This article wins the rare and coveted prize of condemnation to Wiki-Hell!!!-- BD2412 talk 22:56, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. A promo for some non-notable neologism and has nothing to do with real hobos. Kaibabsquirrel 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:44, 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. Golbez 21:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Moni

Band vanity, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No reviews, no physical albums - Group appears to have put out DVDs and albums in Japan - potential anime games as well? Withdrawn! --FCYTravis 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Passes the Google test. They seem to have made a movie about them. Looks like it's a significant enough group to merit an article. -Tadanisakari 08:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appear to meet Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 08:43, 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. Golbez 21:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladonia (micronation)

Sigh. Delete all micronations. RickK 08:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)OK, I'll withdraw the nomination. RickK 19:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable and made up country (not part of any major work of fiction. Mgm|(talk) 08:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to Neutral, based on evidence by Uncle G below. - Mgm|(talk) 14:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Destroy all micronations! And monsters too! --FCYTravis 08:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unlike many micronations, this micronation has made physical territorial claims which have been the subject of a 20-year-long court battle (compare Principality of Sealand), which was a partial defeat for Lars Vilks [5] [6]; and has been the target of 3000 very confused Pakistanis applying for immigrant status [7]. Of course, the article tells told us none of this. This is not someone simply setting up a club on a web site, nor is it someone declaring a field to be an independent nation and then not telling anyone except Wikipedia about it. Real events have happened, real territory is involved, real people have been duped, and real structures have been physically removed by authorities at 4 o'clock in the morning. Weak Keep. Uncle G 13:58, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Uncle G - real controversy in the courts, specific physical territory claimed. Not merely some idiot throwing up a website and calling it his country. -- BD2412 talk 15:46, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G, and thanks for the evidence. Kappa 18:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep; not vanity Brighterorange 18:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep though most micronations are just stupid, this one seems somewhat notable and could have a real claim. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Uncle G has shown that this is one of the few notable micronations. -- Jonel 02:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move into Lars Vilks - Skysmith 08:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice. —RaD Man (talk) 09:03, 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.

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 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Trolls and Yahootrolls.com

Non-encyclopedic list of alleged trolls and non-notable Web forum with 40 Google hits - pages appear to be linked. FCYTravis 08:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonencyclopedic, moreover I would call this an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the page attacks trolls who are hardly notable. I hate trolls, but it is an attack page nontheless. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, and about as non-notable as humanly possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Roll eyes. Makes a 'washing off' motion with hands. -- BD2412 talk 15:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page. JamesBurns 06:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, There's much more esoteric crap to delete on wikpedia, these articles are devoted to a lively internet culture of vulgar character assassinations thinly veiled as political discourse...don't be so easily offended
  • Keep, There is nothing wrong with this page to merit deletion.
User:Sh1tleopard's only edit.
  • Keep, we are a part of the on-line culture, and have been in the media.
80.41.89.95's first edit.
  • Delete unencyclopedic, sockpuppeted. CDC (talk) 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete troll vanity garbage. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Yahoo trolls got in OC weekly! froggman5555
  • Keep You can't slander a Yahoo profile. If you think that your profile is a reflection of your real self..seek help immediately. It's only an internet messageboard folks! aphex_troll
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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blame Jamie

Was tagged as speedy but isn't eligeble. No vote from me. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Looks like a nice band but no albums means WP:MUSIC not met. --FCYTravis 09:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Investigate all those links, too, as it seems like a fan has peppered us with local bands. Good for them for working and gigging, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia at this point. Geogre 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:46, 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. Golbez 22:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Western

Was tagged as speedy "not a crystal ball" which isn't speedy criterion. No vote from me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, important, verifiable. Kappa 10:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Scimitar 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The other Train Operating Companies have pages e.g. WAGN, Virgin Trains and this new one has a place in Wikipedia just the same as those do. What little is in the article is factual, verifiable and definitely has no crystal ball element to it. Needs work, but so do many articles.-Splash 16:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearcut keep. CalJW 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Crystal clear keep. —RaD Man (talk) 09:02, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banyumasan famous peoples

This was listed as a speedy deletion because non of these people have an article, which isn't a speedy criterion. Apart from the fact peoples is an incorrect plural this may be keepable if the country, state or region exists. Can anyone verify? - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Also with this topic being so obscure, I doubt we could expect it to develop as fast as the speedy tagger wants. Can we have a list of red-links? - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • commen I think someone's getting into a bit of a pickle; Banyumasan (a mess), history of Banyumasan (in non-English language), Banyumasan_language (accuracy disputed), and from the look of Banyumasan wants to create several more articles with even odder titles (Brebes salted eggs anyone?). (By the way, peoples is the correct plural of people, people is the incorrect plural of person, the proper plural of person is persons). Randomly googling a few however does suggest that they are legitimate and mostly government ministers and the like. Dunc|☺ 09:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As Duncharris says, peoples is a perfectly fine plural. It's the wrong choice of word for the title, however. This title is in fact completely wrong. Look at Category:Lists of people by nationality for the correct pattern for the title to follow. Also note that List of Indonesians already exists, and yet contains none of these redlinks. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete notability of these people yet to be established. JamesBurns 06:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judging by this and other pages it is abandoned at birth. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or TABLE - give it two weeks or so, then see. IMHO, This is a probable stubb by a non-english speaker. See Talk:Tsushima Islands for examples of names that are similar and broken english. Many coresponding contributing editors there know their english is sub-standard, and move slowly to make careful good efforts. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 02:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nigger-rigging

Little used slang-term, and a racist one to boot. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 09:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictionary definition. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictionary definition. Kimchi.sg 09:31, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't a dictionary. -- Hoary 09:32, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • I think I've seen this get deleted in the past, but delete for the above reasons anyway. Anilocra - (hi!) 10:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, all-too-commonly used, but nothing more than a dicdef. Soundguy99 13:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is in common usage, however it is simply a derogatory dic-def. --Scimitar 14:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with nigger. Common use, may be a dicdef, but it's a dicdef in the context of a notably controversial term. -- BD2412 talk 15:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • Note - I've added a line in the section of that article that discusses combinations of the N word with other words. -- BD2412 talk 21:28, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Merge with nigger (by which I mean redirect). - DavidWBrooks 18:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect although it sounds like something Prince Philip would say. the wub (talk) 22:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. JamesBurns 06:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Unfortunately I've heard this term more than enough times already. --Unfocused 15:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete dicdef. Dystopos 14:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But for what it's worth, I know people (even those who aren't racists) use this term. ral315 19:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the 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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Cairns

Was tagged as speedy, but no reason was provided. Sounds like hoax and attack page to me. St. Mungo's + Paul Cairns doesn't yield google hits at all. Delete as hoax or inverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Nothing relevant on Google under "Paul Cairns" +chess either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, and apparently this one infested the main chess article as well. Thanks to Andreas Kaufmann for spotting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no famous chess player with such a name. Andreas Kaufmann 11:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:48, 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.

[edit] Smart 9000 (rapper and producer)

Smells like vanity - Jon P. Etnestad in Google throws up nothing, Smart 9000 throws up the odd reference but mainly nowt to do with the person himself. Jamyskis 10:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - His band, "Evig Poesi," has 527 Google hits, has released one album and played a festival in Norway. --FCYTravis 10:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the band itself Norwegian, or was that an international gig? Meelar (talk) 13:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the 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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi-tech employers in Markham, Ontario

Very short article stating that IBM and ATI employ some people in Markham, Ontario. Not particularly encyclopaedic or useful. Delete. Anilocra - (hi!) 10:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Concur. No need to merge this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless entry--Ian Pitchford 13:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. --NormanEinstein 15:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Geogre 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Argh, Geogre beat me to it. This is likely to be a magnet for anyone wanting cheap publicity for their Markham-based company. --Deathphoenix 17:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Morbidity

A halfway-finished policy proposal (marked as a stub even) that attempts to impose some kind of censorship on photos on Wikipedia. Which would be instruction creep, and note that WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Delete. Radiant_>|< 14:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia images are not censored to protect people's feelings. Whether an image is suitable for an article should be decided by community concensus or - in extreme cases - a vote. Mgm|(talk) 14:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other attempts to do the same thing actually managed to hang on long enough to get shot down. This one seems to simply have been forgotten. No reason to keep it around. --Carnildo 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 15:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Detele, Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Blue

Unencyclopedic. Candidate for speedy deletion? --Ian Pitchford 14:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complete article text: "Black porn star with big round, beautiful tits, known for the gold chain around her waist and her nasty disposition while getting fucked in the ass."

  • I've speedied it. Little article with no context. - Mgm|(talk) 14:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Although this article has already been speedied, I assume this due to lack of content rather than subject matter as there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about porn stars. 23skidoo 15:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of porn stars that don't pass the WP:BIO criteria. Being a porn star is not an automatic qualification for having a biography. Uncle G 16:32, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
        • Possibly, but there are plenty who are less notable than Vanessa Blue with articles. 23skidoo 17:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh yeah? Name three. -- BD2412 talk 21:30, 2005 Jun 13 (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.  Grue  14:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Achenar (Myst)

This, as well as Sirrus should be deleted and redirect to Sirrus and Achenar (after some info is incorporated). Not only they are identical, but article Sirrus and Achenar is more essential. Alternatively, if the articles aren't deleted, I propose entering more information from Myst IV: Revelation concerning the whereabouts of the brothers while separated in Haven and Spire. 62.74.5.246 16:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding this to the VFD list, since the nomination was incomplete.--Matteh (talk) 14:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an important character in the Myst series.--Matteh (talk) 14:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< 15:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge secondary Myst characters. -- BD2412 talk 15:53, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep notable character who appears in multiple Myst games. Google for "Achenar +Myst" brings 10,700 Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, sounds important within Myst, and plenty of material. Kappa 19:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sirrus and Achenar. I've never heard either of the two referred to by himself: it's always "Sirrus and Achenar" (or the occasional "Achenar and Sirrus"). --Carnildo 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on all counts. —RaD Man (talk) 09:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sirrus and Achenar. JamesBurns 09:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the 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 03:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja tune forum

vanity Melaen 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide or penpal agency. Geogre 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is it fundamentaly any different than the Slashdot entry ?

  • Merge with Ninja Tune. --Daniel Lawrence 17:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable forums. Brighterorange 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, forumcruft. RickK 20:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forum vanity. JamesBurns 06:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity klausk 10:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. RickK 22:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to parent label. Forum doesn't need its own article. --FCYTravis 22:42, 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 Merge. -- Jonel | Speak 06:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neophyte (Warhammer 40,000)

Cruft - too detailed - already covered by Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) --Doc (?) 15:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Merge anything "useful" with Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) (currently, a shining monument to cruft!) and delete. Anilocra 15:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • you can't merge and delete - merge leaves a redirect for copyright reasons, merge or delete?--Doc (?) 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, of course, you're right, merge and redirect. Anilocra 16:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: I'm no fan of this fanboi series of articles at all. Yet another game being treated on a level with the history of the world. Geogre 16:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, and I'm a Warhammer 40K fan! I'm going to try and clean up the 40K articles just give me a few years or so... the wub (talk) 22:18, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Vromopigada

I think this may be a hoax, but it's just believable enough (or I'm just gullible enough) to prevent me suggesting its speedy deletion. Google finds no entries on "Battle of Vromopigada", and "Vromipigada" only turns up one entry, a reference to its meaning "dirty wells". -- RobertG ♬ talk 15:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: At most, this should be merged into whatever war it's part of. We have no articles on the supposed peoples involved, and this may well be a prank. Throwing bodies into wells is a time honored war crime. Geogre 16:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The Maniots are the people of the Mani Peninsula, Greece. They fought several wars against the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, including the Venetian-Ottoman War of 1463–1478 when they were allied with Venice. Also, I note that πιγαδι means "well". My intuition says that the article is describing a real event for which there are few sources in English, but unfortunately it doesn't give enough information to pin it down. A date would help. Gdr 17:16, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found an online reference that may point towards the story

Let us not forget that hundreds of Kuyucu Murat Pasha (Ottoman general, died 1611, who massacred rebels in the Taurus mountains and had their bodies thrown into wells.) though unless I'm very confused...it's the exact opposite of the Wiki's claim, that the Maniots were the ones desacrating bodies Sherurcij 22:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge - agree is too short w/o context -- if one is found. Might be a good candidate for RfC on Village Pump to see if context/depth develops. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
  • Keep. I come from Mani and all the locals and people I've talked to, have said there was such a battle. The exactlocation is known. It is said to have taken place in a field next to the road that goes up to Parasyros.

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 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Metaphysical

Non notable, reads like a total advert. 9 Google hits for Metaphysical + "Ed Churchman". -- BD2412 talk 15:33, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Delete: Appears to be self-recorded and self distributed. Good luck to all musicians with something original to say, but not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia at this time. Geogre 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable (not yet at least)Tobycat 00:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. StuTheSheep 05:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:51, 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 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Manitou

Unverifiable nonsense (?). Google gives 57 unique hits for "Chief Manitou", none of which bear any resemblance to this. Looks like some sort of joke article. Delete Anilocra 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Prank and juvenile joke. Geogre 16:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete joke/hoax. --Etacar11 23:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:52, 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 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bioplintcarnorythmics

I'm no scientist - so apologies if in ignorance I'm wrong. But no googles for this - nor the scientists cited leaves me suspicious --Doc (?) 15:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - a "non-existent field of science". Hmm... Anilocra 15:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RobertG ♬ talk 15:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transforming a graviton into a protein? Give me a break. Delete. -- BD2412 talk 21:31, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete total b.s. --Etacar11 23:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete utter nonsense. Plus, refers to 'secret' writings - so surely uncitable and unpublished. -Splash 00:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--pure gibberish. StuTheSheep 05:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. JamesBurns 06:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - rapidly. Complete nonsense.--Ian Pitchford 10:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Orbitally rearranged monoatomic element and send to FAC. Sorry, it's getting late in France. Delete and let me go to bed. Physchim62 21:31, 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 keep. —Xezbeth 15:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Harrington

Bryce is nice, but I don't think he's noteworthy enough to have an article of his own. silsor 15:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The author of the article swung the vote by notifying editors who would be particularly interested in Bryce (contributors to the Inkscape article), so I withdraw the VFD. silsor 05:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, i guess I am just not nerdy enough to quite get his notablity, but if everyone else thinks it's fine... Keep. --Lord Voldemort 21:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A programmer. I'm sure he's good, but he's not very notable at present. Geogre 16:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created the article. I think it meets the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Importance, which say it should be considered not notable if "only a small number of people (eg. 100 people) are currently interested in the subject." Inkscape has a big user community, and I think easily more than 100 people might be interested in the article. --Bcrowell 17:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Concur w/above. If singers and bands deserve notability, an engineer working the cutting edge of tech certainly deserves space. Open Source Technology will make EVERYONES computer software cheaper and better - that affects milllions, or possibly billions. That's pretty notable. Also a sister project of sorts to the free software foundation - whose technology we use on Wiki - Look for the Gnu![[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 03:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing in current policy supports deletion. Darrien 04:49, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think he isn't a no-body. --minghong 04:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be involved in important enough projects, as with fabartus he's more interesting than many of the crappy singers and bands with articles. UkPaolo 19:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep he is a linux kernel tester and helped started Inkscape, both very important projects. NSR 00:59, 19 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. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paper bag

Ehh? --Doc (?) 15:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (although I'm reluctant to delete "paper bags are often used for holding liquid if they're made of plastic"). I can't imagine anyone will come to an encyclopedia in order to look up the formula for the capacity of a crisp packet. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A "paper bag made of plastic" is not a paper bag at all. It is a plastic bag. Uncle G 16:26, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that was my point exactly - I meant to put BJAODN or LOL at the end of the brackets to make it clear I wasn't being entirely serious. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - article needs expanding though.
  • Weak keep. — Phil Welch 17:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Uncle G has dramaticaly improved this - removing the nonsense. All that is left, however, is the maths formula for the volume of a bag. Move to Volume of a bag or simmillar (the material is surely irrelevant to the maths)- if that's agreed than I'm happy to withdraw my nomination/or vote keep. --Doc (?) 17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Handle in the same way that we handle cone, ice cream cone, and cone (geometry): Rename and disambiguate. An equal-weight disambiguation between plastic bag and paper bag (geometry) is one way. Uncle G 17:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • Agreed, Keep then --Doc (?) 18:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Uncle G's version. I am sure a useful argument could be written about paper bags but the original version wasn't it. Capitalistroadster 17:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. If/when someone writes an article about paper shopping bags, then we should move and disambiguate. Until then, leave as is. -- Jonel 02:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable packaging. Klonimus 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definetly notable so keep this. Actually, was quite informative... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions`
  • Keep, encyclopedic topic. Those formulae make me smile. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 09:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the cool wiki-effect by Uncle G--Unfocused 16:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP but Renamew/redirect or disambig as necessary — Paperbag (Container) ala Drum (Container) and check catagories. (Uncle G would have, N'est pas?) [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 03:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- A C Robin. I am interested in above comments. Obviously I was aware of the illogic of going from paper to plastic bags containing liquid. I did this because Paper Bag I thought was a better place to start. Thank you to whoever rewrote my mathematical formulae, I am not familiar with the format of formulae you use.
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 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Man Tool

This seems like vanadalism, it's unverifiable by googling "man tool" and "drum wrench" together, "man tool" alone has obviously non-drum-wrench related definitions Robojames 16:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - wouldn't be surprised if this is a "bet-I-can-sneak-something-into-wikipedia" bet. - DavidWBrooks 18:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: An article on manual tools? (Kidding.) Sneakery. Unverifiable and almost certainly a Beavis-ism. Geogre 18:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Drum wrench if slang can be verified. I don't think this is vandalism. The contributor here also created Drum wrench which is, in fact, a real tool. I'm assuming good faith on this one. Tobycat 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • change to Delete per discussion by Fartabus.Tobycat 18:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this was created by the same Anom user (I just checked) as posted Drum wrench which I nominated for Vfd based in part, on use of this term. Another euphemism with the same meaning would be third leg (and gals don't have one). Since that article is being kept, based on the voting, merging it makes no sense as it's already in that article. Redirecting it makes no sense either, unless you make it an disambigulation page pointing to other dirty euphemisms. If it's no longer in the Drum wrench arty, it takes away about half the content therein. So all a WOT to me. Seems to me, we'd have been better off keeping that exhaustive list of dirty euphemisms that was Vfd a couple weeks back. Then could just redirect and be done with these silly entries.[User:Fabartus|[ User:fabartus || TalktoMe]]
  • Delete — just to be consistent! [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 03:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This term may be applied, as an insider joke, to many different tools. Craftsmen have many funny names for their gear. If some of them are verifiable, they may be collected into a Craftsman slang article, similar to the Military slang one. mikka (t) 16:18, 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. Golbez 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kabuto- manga and anime character

Non notable article, made by a serial 'vandal' The vandal keeps adding semi-serious content to wikipedia, most of which is nonsense. Badly written, en unwikified. Ec5618 16:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. carmeld1 02:53, 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 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gum ball ice cream

Note: Put up for vfd by Theluckytamer, but actual vfd page not started by him

  • Speedy Delete The article says nothing that can't be guessed by the title. Sonic Mew 18:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete almost a speedy candidate. Very little encyclopedic content. JamesBurns 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • File under "duh" as in duh-lete. Gazpacho 02:38, 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. Golbez 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Thaddeus Drew

A student whose claim to fame is silver medal in epee in a provincial Winter-Olympics-lookalike for 12 to 17-year-olds. Insufficiently notable. Cryptic 16:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete drini ☎ 16:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Regional amateur athlete. Geogre 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 18:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete teen vanity. --Etacar11 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:54, 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 delete. – ABCD 03:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yonatan Abramski

Tragic, but not encyclopedic. No google hits. Delete. Gamaliel 22:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 07:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Charles Matthews 09:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Fawcett5 04:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. --Eliezer 09:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is the subject of the article notable? Gamaliel 18:22, 2 Apr 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 User:Khaosworks. sjorford →•← 16:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The muffin man

This really should be speedily deleted. And whoever nominated this didn't even bother to start this sub page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete drini ☎ 16:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep muffin man is a childrens song. who is the muffin man?
    • Full content: "The muffin man is a person. Keep Google" Unless you would like to do a rewrite, this is patent nonsense. Sonic Mew 16:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • After a quick check, I see that you are the topic creator. Your 'article' does not reflect your reason to keepit. Maybe you should actually write something about the topic! Sonic Mew 16:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For reasons I posted above. Sonic Mew 16:34, Jun 13, 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 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honicz

Some guy that posts on some forum. Utterly unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Some dude. Geogre 17:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Easy decision. -Tadanisakari 17:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's "infamous for his creative swearing" apparently. As such as I would like to know what "creative swearing" is, this isn't really an article. Possibly vanity and/or advertiseing. Sonic Mew 17:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity^3 klausk 10:23, 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 DELETE and then create redirect. Golbez 22:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klavier

  • Delete. Is this page really necessary? Obscure song lyrics from obscure band. Eyeon 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is any page really necessary? --Der Sporkmeister 16:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sporkmeister is the author of the article.
  • Delete. Copyright violation plus a paraphrase for the illiterate of the deep lyrics. Geogre 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • After you delete it, please redirect to piano. Gdr 17:54, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rammstein, who I wouldn't exactly call obscure, is a German band, so presumably the song is sung in German; is a translation of the lyrics still a copyvio? Also, not that it's going to do any good, but Eyeon, please review WP:POINT. There's no need for retaliatory VfD nominations. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    The translation is taken from the site linked, and is made by Jeremy Williams (which BTW has made much effort in translating all Rammstein songs) and he demands people to ask for permission before using the lyrics. I don't know if that has been done. -- Elisson | Talk 01:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then redirect to piano as Gdr proposed. But hey, Eyeon, obscure band? Please research a little better next time... -- Elisson | Talk 01:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Keyboard instrument. JamesBurns 06:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. Klavier (with a K) is correct in German, but the English equivalent is clavier (for which a dab page already exists). Further, if the word did exist in English, the redirect would be to keyboard instrument rather than to piano. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, a redirect to clavier under the "common misspelling" criterion might make sense, too.... --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 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 again, 3rd time # 09:52, 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 Meelar deleted "Todd grossman" - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd grossman

Vanity. (This appears to have been incorrectly VfDed, speedied, and recreated, so I'm leaving the previously made votes below, I assume they still stand. --W(t) 16:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Delete Kid vanity.
  • Speedy delete -- Infrogmation 01:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Geogre's Law failure. Some dude. He is a vice president of a company, and he's 25. Ok. Now, what's on TV? Geogre 17:04, 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 DELETE. Golbez 03:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davey_Winder

Vanity - being a journalist doesn't make somebody noteworthy.Wordmonkey 16:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The article fails to establish notability. He's a freelancer for PC and porn mags. Ok. So, how many awards won? How many landmark investigations? How many in-depth series on CGI porn and computer-assisted copulation has he done? Geogre 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. --Etacar11 23:55, 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 03:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Hamilton

Vanity. --W(t) 16:51, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. Unless the Mason's come to get me. Will nobody help the widow's son? Leithp 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it! Brighterorange 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (sigh) It's possible that he was involved in some historically significant rulings or events, but this is one of those local history bits. Essentially, this article boils down to "Some dude with a nice house who really liked being a Mason." Not encyclopedic. Delete. Geogre 19:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:56, 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 03:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hootis

Neologism vanity. --W(t) 16:52, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity indeed. Quite why this person thinks his in-jokes are encyclopedic escapes me. Leithp 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This reminds me of why I say that puberty is a disease state. Solipcism. Geogre 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:57, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Tomorrow

Someone is on a misguided quest to write a substub on every song Perry Como ever recorded. This is one of the worst, as it has no information not in Como's article (the only legit link to it). While I have my own personal criteria for songs, I don't necessarily expect everyone to follow it. I do, however, strongly believe that if wikipedia is going to have an article on the each of the several million songs ever written, they should have substance, not a short list of two or three facts. Maybe all the song substubs that give only performer and author (and there are many) could be merged into a table that lists such information. -R. fiend 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I like your criteria. Can we refine it and make it an official guideline? --Xcali 18:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable song, and allow for organic growth. Kappa 18:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep almost all released songs. This one was apparently a major feature of a Grammy-nominated album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The song shows no significance other than its single appearance. It did not define a generation, speak for an under-represented segment of society, chart well, influence other songs, or establish a pattern by which others would be crafted. An article on it is far, far, far too granular. Geogre 19:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Grammy nominations make it notable enough for mine.Capitalistroadster 00:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's actually worse than this article and some like it is this template kicking around that writes bad articles for you, so you don't have to (because, you know, Wikipedia can never have enough bad articles). All you have to do is plug in the song, the writer, and the year and it lists those facts for you in awkward prose. The worst part is in order to improve the article you have to delete the template and start from scratch. I mean, really, if you can't be bothered to put an iota of effort into an article just leave it. -R. fiend 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable song. JamesBurns 06:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Allow for eargasmic growth. —RaD Man (talk) 08:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Grammy nominated songs. --Unfocused 16:02, 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 03:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogworking

Non-notable neologism. --W(t) 17:15, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yet another weblog-related neologism. Rhobite 17:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteblogging - And another. --FCYTravis 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blogdeleting is the proper form. I am blogyawning over all the blognarcissism and blogirrelevance. My reaction is "blug." Geogre 19:06, 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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis related movies

This article was previously marked as {{d}} but it does not quite qualify as such. The question is should we have an article that lists Tennis related movies. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Two whole movies! This is not much of a list. It could possibly be merged into tennis, but the list on its own is pointless unless a lot of detail can be added. Sonic Mew 18:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that too much people are interested in this to be a whole separate article. Varnav 18:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As a general rule, I don't think lists are encyclopedic. --Xcali 18:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - more vandalism from Ozdusters. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikiacc 21:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete double default with this article. Game set and match. JamesBurns 06:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 08:06, Jun 14, 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 to The Ant and the Grasshopper. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grasshopper and ants

Created by serial vandal. The actual story this article covers was about a single ant. Ec5618 18:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Different version, different contents. (No vote as yet.) Sonic Mew 18:09, Jun 13, 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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lion related movies

This would work best as a category, if worth doing at all. Bill 17:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). Note: I'm not the guy who proposed the delete, but found a Vfd tag already there; some kind of server glitch seems to have wiped out all trace of the first editor, though. (There's been a lot of that in the last 6 weeks or so, by the way: has anyone else noticed it?)

  • Delete agreed --Xcali 18:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete same reasons as Tennis related movies, (above.) Sonic Mew 18:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We can make a separate article listing movies related to every thing in this world. But we'd better not. Varnav 18:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is not one Tarzan movie here --Doc (?) 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article on an intersection between categories. silsor 18:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - there's no server glitch, this nutter's putting VfD tags on articles he creates. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 08:05, Jun 14, 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 (kept). -- Jonel | Speak 06:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Carew-Gibson

Another non-notable evictee from the Big Brother (Australian TV series). Any controversy she caused was mere hype originating from the shows producers itself. At best this is a redirect back to the main article. -- Longhair | Talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Big Brother (Australian TV series). Sonic Mew 18:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the BB article or an article about the season. Brighterorange 18:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Scimitar's Law: As the number of reality TV show contestants approach infinity, the notability of reality TV show contestants approach zero, as represented by the formula N(notability)= 1/n (number of people). --Scimitar 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no importance to this, and there is no brouhaha that will be remembered by most folks longer than a single case of constipation. Geogre 19:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no point merging bio articles of this size. Kappa 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no one will want to read about her in a month's, or even a week's time. Not even worth merging. MrHate 00:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with main article. The main claim to fame is whether or not she had sex during her final week on the program. See [8] Capitalistroadster 00:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see Kappa's point on this. JamesBurns 07:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sonic Mew. Radiant_>|< 09:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete entry, maybe list the name as an early evictee contestant on Big Brother (Australian TV series).--Takver 01:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 07:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not a stub and has a bit of information. Would be a waste to delete. — Peter McGinley 09:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, nothing particularly useful that doesn't belong in the main article. Alphax τεχ 06:28, 22 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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shark related movies

Would work best as a category, if worth keeping at all. Bill 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I think we must eliminate all "something related movies" articles. Varnav 18:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - more garbage from Ozdusters. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though I just added Deep Blue Sea (the absence of which was just a glaring error). How about a List of movies with a "man vs. nature" theme, tho? -- BD2412 talk 21:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless list. JamesBurns 07:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 08:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, and I agree with Varnav. carmeld1 03:10, 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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-something

'Try something' else - this sure ain't notable --Doc (?) 18:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's a promo of a webpage Varnav 18:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising and announcement of a website. Wikipedia is not a web guide or a sprite guide. Geogre 19:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - same as above. Don Diego 19:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I wish I could delete this accursed sprite comic, but I will have to settle for its advertising on Wikipedia. Ashibaka (tock) 15:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly redirect to tri-. -Sean Curtin 02:08, 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 speedy delete (02:48, 14 Jun 2005 Cyrius deleted "Kiss related movies") - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kiss related movies

Not only is this list mistitled, it is also unmaintainable as nearly every film has some relation to kissing. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 18:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Silly, delete. --W(t) 18:46, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - this nutjob is creating garbage articles complete with their own built-in VfD heading. There's no need to waste time on these. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Even though the article has already been speedy deleted, I'm going to vote delete purely on principle. -- BD2412 talk 21:36, 2005 Jun 13 (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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anders Tarleton

Nonsense. --W(t) 18:44, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • It is just barely coherent enough to avoid the speedy delete. Hoax/nonsense/unverifiable/non-notable, etc., etc., etc. Delete. --Scimitar 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense/joke. --Etacar11 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable Samw 01:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What are you waiting for?
  • Delete. This is probably an article by a ten year old, so don't be too fierce. Denni☯ 23:35, 2005 Jun 17 (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 03:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brocade Fabric Manager

Not notable. --W(t) 18:48, 2005 Jun 13 (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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop metal

This article merely creates an uncecessary fork of goth metal and new metal, maybe of pop punk also, which are inherently more likely to become mainstream, due to the very nature of their sound. There is no such thing as pop metal. When conservative heavy metal music fans want to describe this sort of band, they merely tag them as posers. This article generates yet more needless discussion over genres, which is already a big enough problem. Thus, delete. --Sn0wflake 18:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete While music genres are always a topic for discussion, this article seems to have POV problems (unsigned comment by User:Varnav)
  • Utterly useless non-musical genre. delete or replace with a redirect to nu metal --KharBevNor 18:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely POV issue here, music genres seem to be bit of a mess at the moment.

* don't delete POV issues yes, but just needs a re-write rather than complete deletion of a valid genre of music. People who vote for deletion merely have their own judgement clouded my their musical tastes rather than the validity of the genre. * don't delete the key issue here is that wether you like it or not this is a genre of music commonly known and populary used to describe certain music/bands. keep * don't delete i found the article informative. little bit biased but otherwise fine. the guy who wrote the first comment is talking utter rubish. Three "votes" by the same anon. --Sn0wflake 19:35, 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 KEEP. Postdlf 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Bremer

Article needs to be completely deleted or drastically revamped Ariele 19:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) See further explanation at Why Vote for Deletion?

  • Keep - Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy before nominating this article in VfD. If you think it has NPOV, cleanup, etc., issues then discuss on that article's discussion tab, then put a template tag. Right now, the person is definitely notable and it is not listed as a "Problems that may require deletion." --Chill Pill Bill 19:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "...Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages within the system...." I am only submitting the idea. If you only knew how difficult it was for some to keep this article on here as NPOV as possible during its early development. There were issues and attempts at removing or revising its contents before. Ariele 21:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh by the way, the VfD listing is not a joke. Press releases indicate Bremer allegedly criticized the newly elected Bush administration back in 2000 for not doing enough "home-land securitying". If only there were more (links would be good) on his Congressional testimonies prior to the year 2000 as the article suggests that Bremer was a "regular" on Capitol Hill. Questioning what I have read. Ariele 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Which is, again, not a reason for deletion. If you don't like the POV, fix it yourself, or slap a {{pov}} tag on it. You seem to have done some research on this subject already; why not apply it to the article? There's currently no discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you raise (unless they've been archived or removed, forgive me if that's the case as I haven't the time to go through the talk history) so it seems to me that no effort has been made to fix the article. Bremer is an important figure and warrants an article – why do you want it deleted? If you brought it here just to get more eyeballs on the article, this is the wrong forum, as you can see from the responses. Listing it at WP:RFC would be the way to go, IMO.
  • And therefore, your vote is necessary to KEEP or DELETE. If you recall, this article was submitted by someone else for deletion and I (a newcomer at the time) supported "DELETE". My opinion has not changed. And yes, I have attempted to "fix" the problem but as you can see in the discussion, there were indeed issues and anti-Bremer sentiments. If you were watching this article, you will find that the direction this article will be taking is not going to be a favorable one. Ariele 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • erm, exactly what is wrong with this article? Keep The JPS 19:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DS1953 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important article - should be developed further. --Ian Pitchford 19:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable person. --InShaneee 20:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep nothing wrong with it as far as I can see, it doesn't seem to have any NPOV issues or any other problems. --Sstabeler 21:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No immediate POV problems that I can see, and no real reason for deletion.

Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keepimportant international figure, important figure in the history of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Bush Administration. Deletion would be a mistake
  • Keep. POV issues are not reason to delete an article, and the reasoning given at Chill Pill Bill's talk page does not make it sound like the POV is unfixable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable person. Article needs some POV balancing or more careful phrasing but the article should definitely remain. I'm surprised it wasn't already in the Wikipedia, actually. The article on Chill Bill Pall's page appears to imply that because he doesn't feature on GWB's page he must therefore not be notable; that is just an oversight on GWB's page.-Splash 00:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article isn't new. It was a feature article in 2004 until it was demoted recently. I should have phrase my sentences better. --Chill Pill Bill 03:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Detailed article on notable person. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is this VFD a joke? --Bletch 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Come on now. We could just delete George W. Bush right along with this one. POV can be fixed without a VfD. -- Jonel 03:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I do dislike Bremer so. I still cannot understand this VfD's reasoning. Xoloz 04:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely notable figure in Iraq. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 100% Keep — was this nomination some type of joke? — RJH 16:08, 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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shootings in the United States Of America

Unmaintainable list - 1,000's every day - nothing to merge - and pretty pointless as a redirect --Doc (?) 19:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Doc. Not only unmaintable, but not definitive. <>Who?¿? 19:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The full text is: "The following is a list of shootings. Ronald Reagan President. JFK. Abe Lincoln." They left out Alfalfa, so I'm voting to delete. (And because it's unmaintainable and non-definitive.) Ground Zero 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. RickK 20:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, this user has been creating nonsense articles with five different accounts now. Eliot 20:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this ridiculous article, then recreate as a redirect to Gun politics. -- BD2412 talk 21:19, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 09:53, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 06:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samsø højskole

Not notable. Most google links are not in English, maybe it belongs in the DK wiki? Vegaswikian 19:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep anything which belongs in the DK wiki. 463 google hits isn't bad for a Danish weight loss center. Kappa 19:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't really see how this is notable. Martg76 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Kappa's votes are becoming more and more extreme. RickK 00:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article needs expansion and explanation. A special school for obese students is pretty notable. Klonimus 04:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the article has been expanded with data that appears to conflict with some of the origional information. This new data also reads like advertising from someone associated with the school. Vegaswikian 06:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article needs to gain some weight though. JamesBurns 07:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, this seems to be a tertiary school or a special school and they are notable. But send to cleanup, the last paragraph should rid itself of all the "you"s. Incidentally, I do disagree with Kappa's opinion that anything on the Danish Wikipedia must also belong on the English one. The Danes follow their own standards for notability (they might choose decide that all Danish professors are notable for instance), the English-speakers can follow their own. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that each wp can have its own standards, but I strongly oppose the idea that the English wp should focus more on Anglophone related topics, which is what Vegaswikian seems to imply. Kappa 21:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • ACK. Martg76 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I was thiking that the DK wiki would have an article and then we could copy/translate, sorry I don't know the correct term, to the EN version. Vegaswikian 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Kappa, I agree with you that we should not be anglophone. What I disagreed with you was that anything on Danish Wikipedia must also belong on English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 09:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article on a unique weight loss school. --Unfocused 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Stereotek 10:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: ask for opinion some Danish editor here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm the author of the entry for Samsø Højskole", and I must say I'm a bit dissapointed about this discussion. When I heard about the idea of Wikipedia, I cheered because I thought that it was a worldwide compilation of information, where everybody with valid information could make an entry. (Granted the entry could be better, but I will try to expand it in time) On this school we have Sweedes, Norwegians, Estonians who are all trying to fight a problem with weight, and my initial reason for the entry was to inform people all over that there is a place where you can get help. We do not limit our service to danish people, we see this as a very important piece of work to reduce health problems in the world. I am a teacher at this school, and I do not think of this as an advertisement, this is meant as information and help to those who might want to consider a lifestyle change. If I enter a search entry in Wikipedia, I would like to get as much relevant information as humanly possible, and that's what I want to provide..

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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supernal

Un-encyclopedic dic def, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Delete. Eliot 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete dicdef. DS1953 02:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 09:54, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 06:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tandem repeat locus

Transwikied dictdef, not enough information to merge. Delete. Eliot 20:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This doesn't strike me as something I'd look up in a dictionary. I am curious: What is supposed to happen if someone searches for that term in WP? Could it be that we transwiki articles that are more stubs than dictdefs? Rl 20:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A google search doesn't turn up anything except for genetics paper abstracts in the first 10 pages, so anybody who would look it up probably already knows what it is. (That seems to be what happened with the stub listed here.) It seems to me like this is a complex topic that needs to build on a simpler topic which doesn't exist in WP right now, like repeat locus, or maybe just some information which isn't in DNA sequence yet. Eliot 20:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like an important topic in DNA. Kappa 20:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into DNA sequence until there's enough info to break it out into its own article. I study chemistry and I agree it's an important topic with regard to DNA. Mgm|(talk) 21:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable genetics topic. JamesBurns 07:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand: this is one the main tools for genetic fingerprinting. Bambaiah 13:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect until it grows. --Laura Scudder | Talk 15:43, 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 KEEP. Golbez 22:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red House, Buntingford

Non-notable building. --InShaneee 20:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, delete. -- claviola (talk to me) 20:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Buntingford or keep. Kappa 20:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep, listed building. Kappa 06:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a Grade II Listed Building (buildings of special interest). Other buildings in that group include the BT Tower and Centre Point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Listing is not an argument for keeping. The BT Tower and Centre Point would be notable even if they weren't listed (and they weren't until quite recently). I vote below. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, buildings are Listed because they are notable. James F. (talk) 23:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Heritage listed buildings because of special interest status are notable. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Listed buildings. DS1953 02:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence is given for its notability apart from its listing. Listing is not an attempt by the government to provide a useful list of historic buildings; it is to make planning permission harder to achieve when applying to alter such buildings. The Red House is only Grade II listed (the lowest), I believe. To give an idea of the scale of the task Wikipedia is taking on if this is kept, in South Buckinghamshire alone (not a large UK local authority) there are probably about 1000 listed buildings [9], including "2 Milestones at No. 82 flanking gateway, Oxford Road, Denham" and "Milestone 18 miles from London (outside Capswood Business Centre), New Denham", also "No 93a High Street, Burnham" and "Garden wall and entrance of Old Rectory, Rectory Road, Taplow". --RobertG ♬ talk 09:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment While the list isn't intended "to provide a useful list of historic buildings", its actual intent of "[making] planning permission harder to achieve when applying to alter such buildings" involves the compilation of such a list. These are important buildings and if someone wants to write an encyclopedia article about one, so much the better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Such buildings in my sentence referred to "listed buildings" not "historic buildings". I still think that a built structure is not necessarily notable because it is listed, however in this case on reflection perhaps I did get carried away. Changing vote to neutral. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There are ~ 500k Listed Buildings. See, erm, Listed building, and the stats I added a few years ago. James F. (talk) 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That will be an issue if and when someone ever programs a bot to enter them all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep From the article Listed building: listed building refers to a building or other structure officially designated as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance. Sounds like the definition of notable. Dsmdgold 23:47, Jun 14, 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 as an attack page. (09:06, 14 Jun 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted "Fatsak" (unverifiable vanity/possible attack page.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatsak

Inappropriate for wikipedia, vanity. Robojames 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, anon ip seems to not be happy with this nomination. Ambush Commander 20:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely does not belong here. -- claviola (talk to me) 20:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shanes 20:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. -- BD2412 talk 21:45, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as attack page. On the slight chance that it isn't an attack page, it's also nonsense. Excerpt: Likes to have sex with a jar of olives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as long as I'm reverting the creator's vandalism. Eliot 22:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense/vanity/attack page. --Etacar11 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a factual document of some of his exploits. I am trying to keep the content "clean", and this is not an attack page. Nor am I "fatsak", just one of the many people that admire his posting skills. TheArtist
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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puputupuna

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC.--InShaneee 20:14, 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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vortex one rock festival

advertisement for book in print. I suggest deletion. Lenthe 20:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I concur: delete Deus Ex 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:06, 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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PuppetHead Players

Vanity, non-notable filmmakers. Google gets 36 hits, including several wiki mirrors.--InShaneee 20:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, delete Deus Ex 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:06, 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 Since the author removed it himself, no reason not to delete it. Golbez 22:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Virtual University

An ad for a non-wikipedia project. --W(t) 20:46, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

it was intended as a brainstorming nucleus for Wikiversity proposals and material - all will be within wikipedia, its a vision to create some academic reviewed articles, example Antarctic krill - I did not move it to the wikipedia subnamespace, started it in the general namespace Uwe Kils 01:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
we got a first response from a scientist in the United Kingdom: Amalasingh found the project and dreams with us on his user page - I invited him to join an academic board for Wikiversity and I contacted other faculty in Norway and Australia and Germany to join - Uwe Kils 00:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Kils. Mgm|(talk) 21:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. I encourage you to send the soon-to-be User talk:Kils/Virtual University to colegues, Uwe, and it would, ultimately, work the same way as you wish — a link is a link. :) But the policy is that The Wikipedia: namespace is a namespace that provides information about Wikipedia and how to use it. In other words: it's in the wrong name space; a minor oversight. El_C 12:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you, El, but nobody will find it there, its not googled there - we had it in the normal namespace, then Weyes moved it to wikipedia namespace Uwe Kils 13:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - Gwalla moved it Uwe Kils 11:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I know, yes. But is it notable enough right now to be in the article namespace? As I said on your talk page, I strikes me as a policy proposal, so I'm not sure that, at this point, it falls under information about Wikipedia and how to use it. El_C 13:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did no such thing:
(cur) (last) 21:28, 2005 Jun 10 Gwalla (Virtual University moved to Wikipedia:Virtual University)
--W(t) 11:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Please keep: Amalasingh 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and move it back to the normal namespace - we will fill more and I invited more Uwe Kils 20:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a "brainstorming nucleus," as the article says it is. carmeld1 03:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
who says so? every article is just that - that's the nice difference to established/ old fashion / stuck organs like Encarta and Britannnica, and it is the reason for the amazing growth and popularity - we are just trying to address some of the critics and add some new ventures for academic usability - the "news" section is also not typical for an encyclopedia - we just want to promote / propose an academic track and hope to attract faculty and students - nobody forces you to read or contribute to this ;-) - Uwe Kils 12:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • archive - took the article off - little interest - we do it elsewhere - Uwe Kils Klönschnack 18:19, Jun 18, 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 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HeadxTrauma

Yet another garage band. ~35 Google hits --Xcali 21:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a problem with that? well if looks lackluster it's because i've yet to finish the biography but hey whatever!-author of the page

  • Delete. Yet another example of why band vanity should be subject to speedy deletion. -- BD2412 talk 21:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • Note to page author - it's not the lackluster (actually, it loos better than some stubs I've seen for legit topics). It's because a garage band does not belong in an encyclopedia. There are 6+ billion people in the world, so there are probably about 100,000,000 garage bands. If we had that many articles, the thing would be unsearchable, so we only have articles on the ones that are notable. Hey, maybe we should have a separate wiki for bands (we do for some other topics, e.g. Star Wars). Put that together, and your band can be in it. -- BD2412 talk 21:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WIKIBAND SITE!!..Genius my Friend..now who would i contact about that??-author of the page

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 Deleting with prejudice. I am dismayed at the sockpuppetry occuring here, and I must express my thanks to those of you who watched out for it and pointed it out when necessary. You make our jobs so much easier. --Golbez 22:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The pogroms in Istanbul

Although I am unfamiliar with the details of the Cyprus dispute, this article seems to be a POV attack designed to further the views of User:Argyrosargyrou, It is in a similar vein as Hellenic Holocaust and Hellenic Genocide, all created by this user and subsequently deleted. Hence, despite my lack of familiarity with the subject, I nominated this page for deletion. Scimitar 21:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Scimitar indicate that the nomination of this page for deletion is part of an attempt to peruse a Personal vendetta against me. Therefore the nomination should be declared invalid. --Argyrosargyrou 22:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page has become nothing more than a series of PERSONAL ATTACKS against me in violation of Wikipedia rules. The most recent attack is by ChrisO who has restored to using threats to prevent me from removing the repeated personal attacks. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Argyrosargyrou&diff=0&oldid=15140825) --Argyrosargyrou 22:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I warned Argyrosargyrou not to delete other users' comments on this VfD. He ignored the warning so has been blocked for 24 hrs for common vandalism. -- ChrisO 22:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think he did. Your warning is time stamped 22:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) and his last revert was at 22:17, 13 Jun 2005 and that was before the warning was given. He did nothing wrong. I believe you banned him out of your own personal prejudice, to prevent him from contributing to the discussion.--SaintJerome 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SaintJerome (talk · contribs) created this ID today, the first edit was to the Cyprus dispute page, where they made the exact same idiosyncratic edits that Argyrosargyrou makes. A possible sock puppet. RickK 00:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm reverting. You, of all people, have no right to claim someone is 'personally attacking' you after edits like this actual personal attacks. I invite you to read the actual policies, and request that you cease vandalising this page, and others user pages. --Kiand 22:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eh, STOP VANDALISING this page. There is nothing here that is classed as a 'personal attack' in any official or even not-yet official policy. --Kiand 22:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I would like to ask impartial observors to review evidence and vote please, as User:Argyrosargyrou has claimed I am pursuing a personal vendetta. If anyone other than User:Argyrosargyrou wishes to defend this article, I remain open to change my vote. --Scimitar 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes to delete

  • Delete. --Kiand 21:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User not impartial. Vote should not be counted. See Kiand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiand#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou --TheEmpire 17:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And how, under any circumstances, being asked to join an RfAr, and NOT doing so, make me impartial? Explain that one first. --Kiand 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Argyros' sockpuppet? Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another episode in Argyrosargyrou's campaign to push extreme POVs into Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This vote by ChrisO should not be counted since there is evidence to prove that ChrisO is pursuing a personal vendetta against Argyrosargyrou, including deliberately preventing that user from contributing.--Atriades 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? (note the use of the term "personal vendetta") Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more Argyrosargyroucruft. RickK 22:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This vote from RickK should not be counted since there is evidence to prove that RickK is pursuing a personal vendetta against Argyrosargyrou, including deliberately preventing that user from contributing. Evidence of RickK's conspiracy against Argyrosargyrou can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scimitar#RfA_on_Argyrosargyrou
This proves that the only reason Scimitar nominated this page for an RfD is because RickK influenced him beforehand by slandering Argyrosargyrou. More evidecen of the conspiricy to slander Argyrosargyrou can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scimitar#Argyrosargyrou and on SaintJerome's talk page.--Atriades 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would this perhaps be a sockpuppet? Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I highly recommend that anyone considering a 'keep' vote here, please read the current request for arbitration first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why do people feel the need to fight the Cyprus dispute in the Wikipedia? Can't they just armwrestle for it or something? --Xcali 22:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being unencyclopedic. Sigh, deep sigh... Calling it "pogroms" is as out of place as talking about "Turkish Cypriot Genocide". There were unrests, places were destroyed, but this is only good for a newspaper article - not an encyclopedia entry. Argyro, pursue your rants on internet pages you own. - Snchduer 23:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The vote by Snchduer should not be counted either because he is involved in a content dispute with Argyrosargyrou over the Cyprus dispute page. He is not voting on the content of this pages and is not even willing to discuss the page civilly, but is voting out of prejudice against Argyrosargyrou.--Atriades 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why should that prevent my vote from being counted? Argyro, stop sockpuppeting and read the rules on which votes are counted first. - Snchduer 18:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Argyros' sockpuppet? Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, irredeemable POV. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mixed feelings. The topic in itself may be Wikipedia-worthy, but definitely not with this title and this extremely POV content. In any other case, I would probably have voted keep but cleanup, but in this case, that would take so much time, and in the meantime the horrible content of this article would be able to do its work (whatever "doing its work" may be). Therefore: delete. Aecis 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) (@Argyros: let me spare you the effort of having to come up with how I could be pro-Turkish: I'm from the Netherlands, and during the last Eurovision Song Contest, we gave 12 points to Turkey, 10 to Greece and none to Cyprus. This clearly demonstrates how unbelievably biased I am ;))
  • Delete. Sigh... what's taking the RfA so long? Feco 03:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The vote by Feco should not be counted either since he is involved in a content dispute with Argyrosargyrou over the Cyprus dispute page and over the Hellenic Genocide page. Feco's voted is not against this page but against Argyrosargyrou --Atriades 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Give it up, Argyros. It won't work. Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another POV fork by Argyrosargyrou in his personal Wikipedia crusade. Sarg 10:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete More of the usual. --E.A 10:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The vote by E.A should not be counted since he is involved in a content dispute with Argyrosargyrou over the Cyprus dispute page as well and over various other Greco-Turkish issues. --Atriades 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, Argyros again... Aecis 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Kbdank71 19:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork, and also because of the painful sockpuppetry below. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is ridiculous. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. Now, under what grounds should my vote not be counted? --Carnildo 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The vote by Carnildo should not be counted as his user name includes the letter "C", which is not found in the Greek alphabet, clearly showing anti-Greek bias. ;-) -- ChrisO 22:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a political platform. Extreme POV warriors should go off and write their own encyclopedias. func(talk) 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the above votes for deletion are personal abuse and should be disconunted. I doubt that any of these voters have actually read the page in question. No one has pointed out anything that might factually inaccurate in the article let alone proven it to be nor have they even attempted to discus its contents, so I take that no one actually objects to the subject mater of the page at all. Obvious campaigning has taken place for votes for deletion as noted by other people, and these votes were cast because of unfounded slanders against its contributor. The discussion below which is all directed against the same person proves that. The above votes should be discounted and the entire RfD should be thrown out. If so-called sockpuppets are not allowed then neither are people ganging up against someone else, they are sockpuppets just as much. Sockpuppets of ChrisO and Kiand.--HeavensDoor 23:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a sockpuppet of myself. Oh, by the way, ChrisO and Kiand are bribing me with a Ferrari to ensure that I vote delete. Sarg 11:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I said 'red fiat made car'. Never said Ferrari. --Kiand 12:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Awww... Only Nazi holocaust deniers use red fiat made cars! Sarg 12:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have never, ever used a sockpuppet on the Wikipedia. Considering I have a totally static IP, it would be isntantly detectable. However, its clear that all the Keep votes are from the one person.
Also, I have read the article. Theres some MAJOR problems with it. Its completely and utterly hopeless unsavable POV. Its a huge mainly unwikified text dump from a Public Domain source and doens't come close to meeting the MoS. Its very poorly referenced - an autobiography or two, and a lot of redlinked books. And its by an author who is likely to getting banned by RfAr, meaning that their edits will all be reverted anyway. And thats just the start of reasons why it doesn't deserve to be in the Wikipedia.
I couldn't care less about what the article covers - its not a peice of history that interests me. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so it has to go. --Kiand 23:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never read so much nonsense that borders on holocaust denial in my life. Why don't you tell me that the stories of the Jews who were deported from the Europeans cities the NAZI's occupied should be banned from Wikipedia because they are too controversial. Why don't you actually read the books that are linked to and vist the web pages on the issues. It was PROVEN in a Turkish court that the Turkish government was responsible for the pogroms in Istanbul when the officials responsible were put on trial. How can you claim that something is poorly reference when you have not even read the references. Is the US Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 148, September 9, 1997 also a poor reference ? Have you visited http://www.hellenicgenocide.org/quotes/photos-cons-cem1.html which contains photographs of the destruction of Greek Churches and Greek owned property in Constantinople in 1955 and pictures of the Turkish mobs ? Are you telling me that "The Economist" which is quoted is not a good enough source.
And as for the RfAr its a complete joke as has already been pointed out. Arbitration what arbitration ? Its nothing more than a gang of your and ChrisO's sockpuppets ganging up against one person because he's challenged their one sided point of view and he knows about the issues that he is talking about better than them or you and that's what you and they don't like.--HeavensDoor 00:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's sad, Argyros, that you have to rape the Holocaust and its millions of victims just to get your lousy point across. This just shows how worthless you are, and how right the RfAr is. Aecis 09:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes to keep

  • Speedy Keep Attempt at political Censorship of historically proven facts --Argyrosargyrou 21:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Article author, on WP:RfAr --Kiand 21:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect, it is nothing of the kind. I explained my reasons at the beginning, and if you were more reasonable and less unilateral, I would never have put it up for deletion. (Incidentally, calling me a holocaust denier on my user page simply convinces me that this was the correct path to take). --Scimitar 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't waste your effort in trying to convince him this is not political censorship, Scimitar. It just won't work. Let him believe what he wants to believe. Convincing the Great Wall of China to do the moonwalk is easier than convincing Argyros. Aecis 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As a Christian I have known the history of the anti-Greek pogroms in Istanbul for a very long time, ever since I learned about Turkey's closure of the Halki Theological School in 1971. I see nothing in this page that is not historically accurate, biasd or unfair and I believe that certain users are only voting to delete this page because of unfounded prejudice against the person who created it, while I know that others, from what they have said on their talk pages are colluding with each other in order to peruse a pro-Turkish agenda. --SaintJerome 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users second edit outside of his own user space. --Kiand 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia rules are being used and twisted to whitewash history and prevent people with a knowledge of these events from contruibuting and censor their contributions. The events described in this page are no different to events that took place during the Jewish Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, and denials of those events in history would never be allowed so why deny the Pogroms against the Greeks of Istanbul.
Unsigned vote by User:64.76.83.118, first contrib., probable sock-puppet. --Kiand 21:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's an open proxy in Colombia. -- ChrisO 07:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Don't you suppose that the unsigned voter you are insulting might have been someone who was genuinely looking for something about the pogroms and after finding the information that he was looking for decided to vote to keep the page ? Even if he wasn't I was and I do not appreciate your attempt at censorship of information which I found extremely useful. I am disgusted with the way that this page was nominated for deltion based on personal prejudice and a lack of knowledge of the events. These historical events deserve to be recorded so that people can learn from them so that they can never happen again.--Jagrafes 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users first contribution, probable sock-puppet. --Kiand 21:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep My family were deported from Constantinople in 1964 so I can testify to you that this article is accurate. I resent that Kiand and others are trying to discardit other people who voted because they do not agree with their opinions. Isn't this an abuse of the rules ? How much are you getting paid by Turkey to deny this act of ethnic-cleansing ?
Sigh. New user, first contribution. Probable sockpuppet. --Kiand 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article is no more POV than any article on the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the NAZI hollcaust. The RfD on this page is an attempt at holocaust denial.--JohnChaucer 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users first edit. This user is an -obvious- sock-puppet of User:Argyrosargyrou, as he has all the same terminology and hysterical use of NAZI and holocaust denier--Kiand 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why are you so desperate to deny that tens of thousands of indigenous Greeks were deported from Istanbul after the Turkish state organised pogroms against them ? Why do you have to accuse everyone who vote to keep this page of being a sock puppet ? Are you ashamed of your nations guilt. I'm assuming that everyone who voted to delete this page is Turkish of course, after all you think everyone who has voted to keep this page is a sock puppet. I suppose you are going to call me one now.--NeilKinnock 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because you are. Users first edit, probably sock puppet. Oh, and I'm Irish; not Turkish. --Kiand 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please move the sockpuppets' reactions to a separate section of this page, so they don't obscure the equation, as it were. (I won't do it, because I'm off to bed :-)) Aecis 23:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep No valid reason for deletion. No attempt was made to discusses this article before it was nominated. This smacks of censorship. Kiand if you don't agree with the content of the article then discuss the point you do not agree with like a civilised human being, and Aecis stop trying to rig this vote. --Enforcer2 23:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sock. One edit. Come on, you KNOW the admins doing the count up are going to drop all these votes, you'll go to VFUD where its long-term users only, and get completely slaughtered with no support. Just give it up. --Kiand 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And how would I be rigging this vote? Are you man enough to prove your baseless accusations? Aecis 11:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The pogroms in Istanbul did happen ! --TheHolyGrail 23:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sock. 1 edit. --Kiand 23:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I vote strongly to keep this page. There were Turkish state organised pogroms in Constantinople in 1955 which resulted in most of the Greek, Armenian and Jewish population being forced to leave the city. If that was not enough in the 1960's Turkey forcibly deported the Greek population.--MaxPlank 16:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppet - 1 edit. -- ChrisO 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This RfD was never about the issue of the Pogroms in Istanbul but about a personal vendetta being pursued against Argyrosargyrou by E.A, Snchduer, ChrisO, RickK, Feco, and Scimitar.--Atriades 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users 3rd edit, not edited any other pages than this VfD. --Kiand 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like Argy, votes like Argy . . . --Scimitar 18:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Isn't a Scimitar a Turkish sword ? I would say that Scimitar who nominated this page is connected with Turkey in some way. Obvious anti-Greek campaign on Wikipedia by an organised group of Turkish historical revisionists, if you ask me. --TheDogsDinner 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users second edit. --Kiand 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a catchall for a host of Asian, Indian, turkish, and fictional swords, actually. But, on the basis of that compelling evidence, I feel the need to offer some of my own. Your only edits ever, are on this page. Why is that, exactly? --Scimitar 18:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The page on the pogroms is factually accurate and should be kept. --TheEmpire 17:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guess what... Sarg 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3 edits, all to this VfD. --Kiand 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The pogroms occurred and tens of thousands of indigenous Greeks were ethnically cleansed by the Turkish government.--HeavensDoor 23:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sigh... Aecis 23:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May as well keep up my tradion, eh?. One edit, sockpuppet. --Kiand 23:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did the Turkish government use a proper ethnic soap for the cleansing? --Carnildo 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh no! Now Argy's puppets will claim we used humour and that should get our votes discounted!! Because only HOLOCAUST DENYING NAZI's use humour, right? --Kiand 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just take a look at the evidence for a moment and judge this page ON ITS CONTENTS ALONE
Another night, another round of sockpuppets. Just give it up, dammit!
Two edits, definate sockpuppet. --Kiand 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If this resourse wants to stay an encyclopedia and not degenerate in one of the numerous opinion forums then this attempts to delete the artickles regarding the historic facts should stop(however please feel free to edit the artickle and discuss changes at the talk page). I prefer to see a vanity pages once in while (which will be abandoned any way) instead of seeing a useful artickles about historic events being constantly marked with a deletion tags only because they hurt someones pariotic feelings(or other feelings does not matter). This deletionism should stop.

If one checks list of users and admins here, then it will be possible to see that many wikipedians are now not engaged in writing the artickles, not even participating in editing wars, but mostly spend their days voting for page deletion(or keeping). WonderfulGabrichidze 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to prevent Wikipedia from degenerating into an opinion forum, then it's these übernationalistic rants that have to stop, not the attempts to delete them. Edits to articles by Argyrosargyrou have been attempted, but they have only led to immediate reverts by Argyrosargyrou or one of his sockpuppets, followed by seemingly incessant back-and-forth revert wars. Argyrosargyrou will not discuss his edits, and he is not willing to compromise or seek a consensus. He will only accept his way, with only the wording he chooses, and the words he chooses are not encyclopedic at all. And in those cases, I think it's better not to have an article at all, than to have an unencyclopedic, sometimes factually incorrect, one-sided POV rant by perhaps one of Wikipedia's biggest trolls. Aecis 23:00, 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 Deleted as copyvio. -- Jonel | Speak 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alam Payind

Vanity page, for the most part a direct reproduction of his existing cv page. --MC MasterChef 21:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Then use WP:CP, not WP:VFD. (The web site's home page states "Copyright 2001-2004 Middle East Studies Center @ The Ohio State University".) Uncle G 22:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • Ok, listed it under copyvios, but the CV was the only really substantive part of the article; do I remove it from the VfD list or no? --MC MasterChef 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 10:09, 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 22:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causes for fear of Airplanes and Flying

del. someone's essay. do not redirect to Fear of flying. mikka (t) 21:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Why not redirect? It's not the most obvious of search terms, but not entirely unlikely either. --W(t) 21:32, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • There is an infinite number of "not entirely unlikely" search queries. For starters, notice the capitalization; also try searches for "causes for fear" vs. "causes of fear". mikka (t) 21:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no content to merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirection is not a means for ensuring that every permutation of words in the English language is available as a redirect on the Wikipedia - particularly given the capitalization. Article is also very 'chatty' and has little cited fact in it.=Splash 00:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay with unlikely title (no redirect required). --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see your point. Delete. --W(t) 10:53, 2005 Jun 16 (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. Golbez 22:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Answers in Genesis

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:29, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Agreed, notability is not asserted in the article. Delete. --Scimitar 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be shown --Doc (?) 21:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Answers in Genesis is (alas) notable. This is not. Postdlf 22:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 22:50, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cited by the BBC [10], by Keith Korcz of the University of Louisiana as part of his philosophy course supporting material and by the Geological Society of America (founded 1888) as a resource site [11]: "NAiG publishes articles by Australian scientists (and others) that expose the fallacies of AiG in particular and young Earth creationism (YEC) in general". Also cited as a resource for the National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution [12], a conference supported by the National Science Foundation, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the Geological Society of America and organised by the Paleontological Society, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently, it is notable. The article, however, still needs a massive copyedit, cleanup, and those references included in it. Change vote to abstain --Scimitar 23:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Fair enough. I cleaned it up to include the citations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a very average/minor organisation in the creation/evolution debate, only notable for its personal attacks on Ken Ham.--nixie 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm seeing alot of relevent google hits, and in addition to Tony's list I've seen several other links to it from several credible websites. And the half million on the counter doesn't hurt. I'm still slightly suspiscious though. Jimbobsween 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A cautious keep per Tony Sidaway. DS1953 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems notable. JamesBurns 06:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Tony Sidaway. -CunningLinguist 07:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you have an article promoting Answers in Genesis, it seems to me censorship to exclude the contrary view. Strong keep:: no-one is obliged to read it --Simon Cursitor 07:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice. —RaD Man (talk) 08:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful for those wanting to track the development of this debate and tactics used. --Ian Pitchford 10:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. This article has potential, but needs cleanup. -- Zantastik talk 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep..Dunc|☺ 08:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article should be marked for cleanup when this vfd is over. - Jersyko talk 22:38, 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. Kertadjr, Wikipedia can't list every single website on the web. Try again when your site might be major enough. Golbez 21:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FriendSPOT

Delete for spam --Lord Voldemort 21:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-Notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forum advertising. JamesBurns 10:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No Delete we do not have ads in FriendSPOT. Reza Kertadjaja 16:26, 15 Jun 2005 (PST)
    Sorry, but anonymous contributors are not permitted to vote on VfD. Please consider registering an account. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Kept We are site focusing on Photo Sharing thru Social Networking, please take time to visit. I hope it made a difference. I just registerd as well as per reccomendation by Frazzydee Kertadjr 17:47, 15 Jun 2005 (PST)
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 Merged to Nickelodeon TV Weekend Blocks. -- Jonel | Speak 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friday Night Nicktoons

Non-encyclopedic. It's a block of airtime, not a TV show. merge and redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel) UtherSRG 21:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

See also Snick and Miguzi. - UtherSRG 11:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Er, couldn't you just boldly merge and redirect these yourself (as well as Toonami, which you missed)? -- Grev -- Talk 04:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I could. However, that is just as easily reverted. This will have the wieght of a vote behind it as to the whether it should be done or not. - UtherSRG 12:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • In future, try asking for comment on the article's Talk page; merge if there's no serious objection. If you've already tried a merge and had it reverted, then there probably needs to be a discussion. Try also Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you reach an impasse. VfD isn't meant for article disputes where nobody wants deletion to take place. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, Toonami is an actual channel in Europe, with a decent article. Sonic Mew 12:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has all the components of a tv show. Kappa 05:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, be bold! Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are several articals about blocks and you don't see them being voted on for deletion! --Wack'd About Wiki 23:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are two other such articles being voted on as well. I will endeavour to find more to bring to the attention of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. - UtherSRG 11:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • What the heck do you have against blocks? They keep TV channels more organized! --Wack'd About Wiki 20:12, 21 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 of the debate was Merged to Nickelodeon TV Weekend Blocks. -- Jonel | Speak 06:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snick

Not encyclopedic - block on airtime, not a TV program. Marge and redirect as above for Friday Night Nicktoons and Miguzi below. UtherSRG 21:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, has its own unique personality. Kappa 06:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, be bold! Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Put the information a nice table somewhere. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 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 Merge to Cartoon Network. -- Jonel | Speak 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miguzi

Non-encyclopedic - block of air time, not a TV program. Redirect and merge as above for Friday Night Nicktoons and Snick. UtherSRG 21:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose Miguzi could just redirect to Cartoon Network, where it could be explained. - Godheval 23:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't need a full article, just a redirect to the appropriate TV network article which should contain the relevant (small) section. - UtherSRG 23:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a program block with its own characters is basically a program with other programs inside. Kappa 05:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Simon Cursitor 07:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, be bold! Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cartoon Network. JamesBurns 10:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, some people may like these shows and wonder when they are on. It is far easier to go straight to this article on wikipedia.com then spend hours searching on cartoonnetwork.com.
  • Merge. Give it a nice subsection and maybe a table with all the others. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We already have articles on Adult Swim and Toonami. If this is deleted, the rest should share its fate. (I'd like to know what Miguzi means, if anything, myself.) Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Adult Swim is different, since it is now regarded as a "separate network", and thus justifying it having its own section. Toonami no longer even exists, so should also be merged. As for the meaning of Miguzi it could easily be included in a sub-section. Regarding TenofAllTrades' concern about ease of navigation, a simple click of a link in the contents menu would take browsers straight to the section. I have added the relevant sections to the Cartoon Network - which was surprisingly short - with links to subsections about Toonami, Adult Swim, and Miguzi, as a demonstration of the merge idea. For now there are also links to the full pages, until the keep or merge decision is finalized. Godheval 13:20, 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 speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content.

  • 00:12, 14 Jun 2005 Denni deleted "Kyratopian" (recreation of previously deleted article)

Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyratopian

no google hits probably non existent language Melaen 22:06, 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. Golbez 22:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steeping

Transwikied dicdef, no encyclopedic potential. Eliot 22:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable food preparation method. Kappa 05:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up and expanded otherwise delete. JamesBurns 10:16, 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. Look at my name here. I know Final Fantacruft when I see it. This doesn't need an article, and I doubt it needs a redirect. If it does, make one. Golbez 22:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SOLDIER

non notable, fancruft Melaen 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • agreed, delete -- Cuahl 22:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Makes no sense, apparantely fancruft. Delete Deus Ex 22:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Soldier. Some people can't figure out CAPS LOCK, you know? :-) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure of that one.. SOLDIER is a FF reference, while "Soldier" is.. well, the obvious. If anything it should be disambiguous right? -- Cuahl 00:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Whatever it's a reference to, it's not clear. Whatever the master fiction is, it ought to go there. Cloud would want it that way. Geogre 02:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Final Fantasy VII. At least, I don't think the organization is relevant to any other FF games. -- Jonel 03:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No one agree it should be a disambiguous page instead? Directing Soldier and SOLDIER? -- Cuahl 04:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really don't like catering to people who don't know how to turn off Caps Lock. Especially when the capitalized version is an actual topic (though, of course, in this case one that isn't notable enough to stand on its own). If there weren't a canonical fictional entity with the capitalized name, we would not have a redirect from SOLDIER to soldier. -- Jonel 04:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Soldier and disambiguate there. Nothing here that isn't in the FFVII article. -- Grev -- Talk 04:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Soldier. JamesBurns 10:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft, but maybe it should really be mentioned on a disambiguation page. --U.U. 16:44, 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.  Grue  14:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Basque_sentiment

The article is inherently POV and un-encyclopaedic. The entry seems to be politically motivated and has also attracted a disagreeing rant on it's article page. Googling for "Anti-Basque sentiment" gives twenty results; at least thirteen of those are from Wikipedia clones and two of them are from an RPG's fictional future timeline. Daniel Medina 22:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete heavily opinionated essay... not an encyclopedia article... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The latter 2/3rds of the page is (currently) a rant, and requires deleting. The remainder then needs expanding and making objective. "Sentiment" is inherently POV, but that does not make documenting the existence and flavour of the sentiment POV. --Simon Cursitor 07:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the 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 03:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soliciting Corporate Money

The prose barely makes sense, and the subject (US campaign finance) is already covered properly at Federal Election Campaign Act. It seems to have been created solely to mention Tom DeLay negatively. Deus Ex 22:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agreed. --Xcali 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saying it barely makes sense is very charitable. DS1953 01:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No redirect. Duplicate effort but unequal content. Geogre 02:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate. JamesBurns 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--creator is vandalizing other pages incl. Federal Elections Campaign Act and Tom DeLay. Meelar (talk) 20:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's newly created similar page by the same user: New bankruptcy law. I vote delete this too. Deus Ex 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete simply presenting the truth about Tom DeLay in his own article is incriminating enough, no need for articles like this. The article also makes little sense. - Jersyko talk 14:52, Jun 16, 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. —Xezbeth 15:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta Separatism

While I'm not an expert on Canadian politics, it seems to me that this is a concept that hasn't caught on yet. Google estimates ~280 hits on "Alberta Separatism". Two sites (a blog and a forum) account for over a third of them. Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Xcali 23:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have re-written the article to address the concerns raised here. Please take another look, and reconsider your votes. I think that the article is substantial enough now to stand on its own. Adding it to Secessionist movements of Canada would unbalance that article and make it less useful. Further edits to improve Alberta Separatism are welcome. Sure, it's a fringe movement, but there are lots of articles on fringe movements on Wikipedia, and that's one of Wikipedia's strengths over other encyclopedias -- its ability to cover more obscure topics. Ground Zero 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten version by Ground Zero. --Deathphoenix 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, new version is much improved. - SimonP 20:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Yannick 05:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Rupertslander 00:50, 19 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 03:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth burnett

Vanity. CDC (talk) 23:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, Delete Deus Ex 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Brother of some dude. Geogre 01:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Mr Bound 02:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duno. JamesBurns 10:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, im a loser. — JIP | Talk 10:38, 14 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 03:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David burnett

More vanity. CDC (talk) 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Deus Ex 23:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, again. --Etacar11 00:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Some dude. Fails Geogre's Law. Geogre 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:19, 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 DELETE. Golbez 03:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Herman

Vanity/not notable. CDC (talk) 23:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Mr Bound 02:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CV. Besides, presidents of Students Unions don't tend to be the one who actually are in charge of multi million dollar developments, they just happen to have been elected president when it was planned. Average Earthman 07:47, 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. With 4 deletes and 3 keeps, there is no consensus to delete. Golbez 22:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Dawn Schneider

Not notable. CDC (talk) 23:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 02:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline Keep. She is just a special columnist, but for widely-known CNN. Marginally notable; doesn't appear to be vanity. — RJH 16:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Borderline notable. JamesBurns 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is extremely borderline at best, and there are no sources so the article is unverified. (The CNN link simply goes to CNN's main page.) If the only thing that can be said about her is that she is a special columnist for CNN, that's not notable enough. Quale 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, special columnist at CNN is plenty notable enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 22:39, 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.