Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 14 June 16 >

Contents

[edit] June 15

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. —Xezbeth 10:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The International Music Industry and the Internet

Looks like a personal essay. The same user/author(?) also added Wikipedia:Sociology of Wikipedia via Rorty and Berger, which I wikified a little and moved to Wikipedia namespace as it may be interesting to wikipedians.--Nabla 00:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. OR, WP:NOT crystal ball. Massive unwikified text dump of a speculative essay, much of which is unattributed quotes. Looks like someone's homework. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay. Mr Bound 02:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Android79 -EDM 04:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with other votes, doesn't conform to wikipedia layout standards. Srcrowl 05:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV essay. Blackcats 09:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. 23skidoo 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per android. StopTheFiling 18:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If wikify-able. I have done some edits to remove the layout objections, but this is quite obviously someone's term paper. However, I think there is useful information here which is not original research, but collation of many articles already out there on paper. --Habap 19:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for OR, however, I think there is much to save from this essay that is verifiable and NPOV. It will require a great deal of trimming and cleaning-up but could be the start of a very good article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a lot of those issues may already be covered in other articles, but if somebody wants to take the time to re-write this, then I'll change my vote to "keep." Blackcats 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This article needs major cleanup. It's obviously full of POV and the conclusion lets us know it's somebody's research paper. Keep iff it's had major revision by the end of the voting period, otherwise delete. RickK 05:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I just realized something. As I said, this article reads like somebody's homework... what if it is a rough draft of some student's paper, and we are cleaning it up for him/her? Could be... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 06:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it could be useful if someone were willing to remove the arguments, take out the stuff that makes it a research paper and make it NPOV. I got tired after trimming it down and also trying to do the same with SoGamed. I think it should get tagged for NPOV, Cleanup and wikify rather than deletion. --Habap 18:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite the work that various editors have tried, still not good enough. Delete.DS 14:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starfox movie

Not notable. Vanity. It is a fan made video game movie that hasn't been released yet. It has no relations with Nintendo. The website is quite amateurish with default image manipulation effects. Chill Pill Bill 00:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-canonical. Gotta applaud this level of fan dedication, but an encyclopedia really is not the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for fanon and WP:NOT crystal ball (just a little bit, though). Mr Bound 01:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Bill. Adun 02:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thunderbrand 04:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, fancruft Lectonar 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another delete. StopTheFiling 18:25, 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 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) 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lin kuei

Fiction masquerading as fact, fancruft from the mortal combat domain -- pcrtalk 00:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also Lin Kuei which appears to be a duplicate -- pcrtalk 00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both as severe fancruft. It was difficult to tell until they mentioned Sub-Zero, et al. Mr Bound 02:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of it is just fancruft. However, the term Lin Kuei does exist in the Mortal Kombat series. So unless it's trivial, a rewrite is also good. Nestea 03:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. also a copyvio (although the page is not available, this is the google cache). Brighterorange 03:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This can be turned from fiction masquerading as fact by simply placing at the beginning, "In the mythology of the Mortal Kombat series of video games, ..." Copyvio is a different problem, but fixable, and not one for vfd. -- BD2412 talk 04:18, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    • Eh, I fixed it a bit - made it clear that it's fiction, and BOLDLY REDIRECTED the original page to the properly capitalized one (since they were duplicates, no harm, no foul). I have no desire to fight to keep this, tho - once the copyvio is scratched out, there may be only enough left to merge into some character article. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 04:26, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 06:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important to Mortal Combat fans. Kappa 11:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lin Kuei, though obviously if it's copyvio then will need a re-write. - Lochaber 11:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per WP:FICT. Martg76 21:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keeep this too please Yuckfoo 18:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I edited it a LOT. I kept all the previous information (let's call it "BS") in the bottom two sections, with a note that says it's disputed. If somebody can point to a source (for instance, MK: Defenders of the Realms or some such), then that'd be fine, but as it was, it sucked. The other sections now come straight from the games, except where noted. It's very complete, though maybe somebody could find a better word for "roboticization", as it currently links to a site from Sonic the Hedgehog :-) As for keeping, I say Keep if only because of the time I spent on it (cross-referencing as necessary). While Sub-Zero's page has some similar info, I think focusing on the group has an interesting angle (especially if future games delve into it more).
  • Keep. — J3ff 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that its been made clear that it's about Mortal Kombat. -- Crevaner 04:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's tonnes of this stuff about various computer games, this is no less notable than most of it Stephen 12:14, 25 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 keep due to no consensus. There are nine delete votes, and eight keep votes, but one of those is from an entirely new user who's first edit was to vote on this VFD, and it is discounted. Still 9-7 is not a sufficient consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto.no

Non-notable website — J3ff 00:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. wikipedia is not a website directory. Website has alexa ranking of 576,606. Frankchn 02:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, spam. the wub (talk) 09:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Website vanity. Sarg 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Naruto.no is probably the biggest Norwegian anime-related community to date, and consists of more than the web site in itself. At any rate, the article seems no less relevant than the one concerning the Something Awful forums. Ninuor 21:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good enough for me, Ninuor. SchmuckyTheCat 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Ninuor. — Instantnood 04:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What Ninuor said. Besides if you follow Alexa, naruto.no has gone up 2,054,508. Havok 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't that, like, down instead?  Grue  17:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's ranked 600,261 right now. To put it in perspective, Norway's biggest gaming store is ranked 858,772. I'm just saying that Alexa shouldn't have anything to do with this. Havok 17:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa ranking is ridiculously low for that kind of site.  Grue  17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Ninuor. Sketchu 22:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep NSR 14:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per trivially low Alexa rank. This says something about the other Norwegian anime-related communities. Radiant_>|< 21:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach)." I just find it hilarious that you guys find it a problem with this article being on Wiki. Also that you so blindly follow Alexa. It's not saying much about the anime community in Norway, since I really doubt many norwegians use the Alexa Toolbar. Havok 00:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Radiant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 20:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete under section 1.2.1 of Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addison dent

non-notable/vanity page - this is clear from the content Gblaz 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- vanity page, nothing notable --Rschen7754 01:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/notability not established. Mr Bound 01:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy section 1.2.1 --Xcali 03:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per Xcali. -- BD2412 talk 04:27, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:37, 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. jni 08:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mattias Josefsson

Translator, notability not adquately established. Created by IP address, no links to article. Reccomend deletion. Also delete redirect at Mattias josefsson. Mr Bound 01:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. the wub (talk) 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Translators work in the shadows, alas, and thus they are very rarely encyclopedic. Geogre 11:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre. StopTheFiling 18:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. The second cousin part is especially telling. --Etacar11 21:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Very important guyman. --64.229.92.23 01:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tenchi-Alt

Non-notable website. Gets 129 Google hits and article itself mentions its ranking. KramarDanIkabu 01:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 01:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete same reason with Mr Bound. Frankchn 02:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original was one big ad and was marked for speedy delete for that reason, the author came along, removed the speedy delete, and made the current entry. What's there now isn't as bad as the original, but it still doesn't belong. StopTheFiling 18:37, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 07:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Contest

An anon just created this article, and it describes an episode on a TV show. At the most, it should be merged with the article on the TV show- unless Wikipedia gives articles to every episode of a show? Flcelloguy 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rename to The Contest. Many TV series get the article-per-episode treatment on Wikipedia, and there are already some for Seinfeld. In addition, this might be one of the most famous/popular episodes of the show – it's certainly one of my favorites. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Android79. --Xcali 03:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as per Android. This was one of the most notable Seinfeld episodes. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I moved it to The Contest, as this could be done without disrupting the vfd process. Wasn't this episode voted to be the fan favorite or something of that sort? -- BD2412 talk 04:29, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only do I love this episode, its masturbatory theme makes it an arguable landmark in the history of US television. Xoloz 05:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable episode, even in UK --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion - personally I prefer to see omnibus articles of episode guides by season however if this was a particularly notable episode then I'd prefer to keep. -- Lochaber 11:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per above, but rename the article The Contest (Seinfeld) as the current title is too generic and there are probably other episodes of TV shows that have this same title.23skidoo 15:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no need to pre-emptively disambiguate the title. The article's first line clearly explains that the article is about an episode of Seinfeld. If and when someone comes along and wants to create The Contest (foo), disambiguation can occur then. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and rename as per 23skidoo. –DeweyQ 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this could be the most notable episode of a very notable sitcom. ErikNY 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NSR 20:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a list of episodes. Not enough information to warrent independent article. Martg76 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I made this first and me and my friend are going to try and fill in as many episodes as we can each with their own link from the List of Seinfeld episodes
  • Keep, add it to the growing list of Seinfeld episodes with articles including Male Unbonding, The Stake Out, and The Trip, Part 1. The Simpsons has an article for almost every episode and I envision each of these articles will have a uniform look with sufficient detail (see Who Shot Mr. Burns? for more details). We have to start somewhere. --Will2k 13:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but should the list of seinfeld episdoes page be linked to the seinfeld page concerning the show in general?--K zappa 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a list of episodes. --Micahbrwn 05:40, 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 Religous nelly, redirect Religous zealot. Eugene van der Pijll 19:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religous nelly & Religous zealot

According to Google, "Religious nelly" is a not a common term. Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "Religious nelly". Another article created by the same person is "Religous zealot", please note the missing "i" just like the nelly one. Anyways could zealot be more of a stub or merge into an established article? According to Google, it is a common term. Chill Pill Bill 02:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete both. There may be some room for an article on religious zealotry, but neither of these would be a good starting point. Since they're spelled wrong (and the misspellings are not common), and do not contain useful content, both should simply be deleted. Brighterorange 03:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Brighterorange - he's exactly right. -- BD2412 talk 04:34, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Redirect "Religous" Zealot as a common typo misspelling. Xoloz 05:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Both terms are just the usual petulance. There are too many synonyms for an article on this. You could have fanatic, fundamentalist, religious conversion, and, of course, the real Zealots, who were a political faction. Geogre 11:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Religous nelly, not a term in real use. Redirect Religous zealot to Zealot. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I do not like support of typos, this can get out of hand. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Religous nelly and redirect Religous zealot per Xoloz. I agree that this typo is common enough to be redirected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 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 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. An examination of the history of this article reveals at least two previous deletions, including one directly before this listing. Moreover, a superior (and older) version of this game already exists at Wikipedia:N degrees of separation. Finally, policy discourages redirecting from the article namespace to the wikipedia namespace. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia game

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 keep Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction (linguistics)

Delete- This article is saying that sez is a reduction of (says) Excuse me, but how is sez a reduction of says? That's how says is pronounced even in isolation. sez is only a more phonetic spelling spelling than says. sez is how the word says is pronounced. It's not a reduction 205.188.116.132 03:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Could use some expansion, but it is a legit linguistic concept. -- BD2412 talk 14:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is well-written, informative, and encyclopaedic. To the original anon IP: It all depends on how you pronounce "says". jglc | t | c 15:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: it is a perfectly ligitimate but someone does need to do a little more with the article, maybe even consider it as a stub for expansion. By the way, this is the second legit article from Category:Phonology that I've seen put on VfD by a user from IP number 205.188.166.xxx. The other is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/H-cluster reductions. Bambaiah 05:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's true that sez is not a reduction of says, but that's hardly a ground for deletion of the whole article. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:27, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uber-Correspondent

Neologism and/or very limited localized radio promotion--only one displayed hit for "Uber-Correspondent" iain, which is on the given radio station's website, and only 7 names on the list are identified as "Uber-Correspondent"s. Niteowlneils 03:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete neologisms. Brighterorange 03:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or face the onslaught of the Uber-Foo. -- BD2412 talk 04:53, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ubermenschen would not need to advertise. Geogre 11:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I actually think it's quite interesting and isn't hurting anyone. Besides, it's quite unique and gives a good idea of the character of Iain's show.
    • Unsigned vote by Samblock (user's 4th edit).
  • KEEP oh go on, its a bit of fun and its releveant to the show. dont be so mean and grumpy
    • Unsigned vote by anon 213.146.155.194.
  • Keep, he's coined it.
    • Unsigned vote by anon 80.44.229.206
  • KEEP I am Iain Lee's American UBER Correspondent and if you delete this page you will be sentenced to listen to Clive Bull for the rest of your life and lunch with George Bush!! --LuciaL 10:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Eugene van der Pijll 19:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] These are not the droids you are looking for

Already has a section in Notable lines in the Star Wars series. No need for its own article. KramarDanIkabu 03:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge. The seperate article has a lot more information than the subsection that Kramar is pointing to; while the phrase likely doesn't warrant its own entry, what is there goes well beyond a dicdef or simple explanation and could be used to bolster the subsection.--Mitsukai 03:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merrrrrrge. No articles on lines from movies, please (unless the line is more famous than the film). -- BD2412 talk 04:35, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand -- needs fleshing out with the plethora of spin-off lines which now populate C20 culture. This was All Our Basses before AOB got started. --Simon Cursitor 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Mis-spelling of Bases intentional, to keep people awake (and as a fish-joke -- see ISIRTA)
Comment. Although it's a well-remembered movie line, I see no evidence to support that it has achieved the same level of use as, say, "Here's lookin' at you, kid" or "You talkin' to me?". 23skidoo 13:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, no need for articles on specific lines from films as noted above. Mgm|(talk) 08:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - for all the reasons stated above. Blackcats 09:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Notable lines in the Star Wars series. No way should there be separate articles for individual lines in movies. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Marge Besides, we shouldn't have articles, the titles of which end with a dangling preposition. Gzuckier 13:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with. qitaana 23:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. 23skidoo 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge ditto -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 13:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Nothing against Star Wars, but . . . --Scimitar 14:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You should move along to Notable lines in the Star Wars series. jglc | t | c 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. There are plenty of Jedi mind tricks, not all worth their own article: You don't want to sell me death sticks. You want to go home and re-think your life. –DeweyQ 15:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh... Oh my. My whole life has been wrong. Crack is bad! :)jglc | t | c 20:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Notable lines in the Star Wars series. -- Lochaber 09:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hooray, someone's noticed my new article, Notable lines in the Star Wars series! — Phil Welch 15:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I've merged it to my new article, Notable lines in the Star Wars series. Vote to redirect. — Phil Welch 15:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; defaulting to keep. -- Jonel | Speak 07:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Jen

  • Keep or merge with Blog or Google. Mark Jen is not the only person who has a lost a job as a result of what s/he put on his/her blog, so you might want to have a section of the Blog article relating to "perils of blogging in a work situation where the rules are not clearly stated" or something like that. In the meantime, keep the stub as is.

Delete Famous for writing a blog and being fired for it... please.... Bloghate 03:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • User:Bloghate's crusade notwithstanding, this guy's really only notable for being a moron. Delete, although I wouldn't oppose a merge somewhere; say, into Blog, where this could be used as an example of the perils of blogging about your employer. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one. Merge would be harmless. -- BD2412 talk 04:52, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep or find somewhere to merge. While Mark Jen may or may not be notable, the event certainly was. Blog doesn't really deal with the legal issues that have been being raised in the blogosphere, such as Apple Computer suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products. Those issues need to be covered here some place. DS1953 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't mind a mention about the legal issues of blogging in Blog, but this guy isn't really notable for his own article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy is notable. I learned about him recently when he was interviewed in a NPR program. I can't remember the exact program (need to check it out), but believe it was a country-wide (i.e. USA) program (could be Talk of the Nation, but not 100% sure). From what I heard, he is a very sensible guy and sound nice. He wrote his blog in his private time to keep in touch with family and friends, and Google was too harsh to fire him for that. Google didn't accuse him of acting in bad-faith or making false statement, the corporation just don't like an employee "talking". This raise a number of issues regarding employee's rights, blogging and whistle blowers (They are not "morons" and I strongly object the use of this word by AиDя01DTALKEMAIL). I'm not a contributor of the article nor related to Mark Jen in any way; just someone concerned about civil rights. I apologize for not providing specific details, but please research and reconsider, thanks. -- Vsion 09:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If he said he "wrote his blog in his private time to keep in touch with family and friends" on that show, then he misrepresented himself to quite a large degree. He revealed information about unreleased products and financial issues at Google. Perhaps calling him a moron was a bit harsh, but publishing this sort of information on the Web within weeks of being hired without thinking about the potential consequences is a bit naïve, to say the least. His case has almost nothing to do with civil rights or whistleblowing. I have researched and considered this – I read all about it when it hit Slashdot – and took a look at his blog again before casting my vote above. The guy is not notable outside of the context of this flap with Google. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above. Legal issues are interesting, this person is not. Radiant_>|< 12:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as forgettable. --Scimitar 14:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Blog. When I first read about Mark Jen, his was just one of five examples of people fired for similar blogging missteps. He is not an archetype for this kind of idiocy and therefore does not merit his own article. –DeweyQ 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. If no appropriate place can be found to merge then delete. People get fired every day for all sorts of things. This is only slightly out of the ordinary. -R. fiend 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or very, very weak merge) unless we're going to start having articles for everyone who's ever been fired for doing something dumb. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Blog or Google. The event was notable. --ElfWord 11:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clearly an attempt to raise the popularity of his blog and hence earn more revenue through Google's Adsense program! Strong Candidate for Delete! Ram 11:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge either into Google or Blog. Should there be a section on bloggers who have been fired in Wikipedia? (I'm thinking of Dooce, Washingtonienne or Queen of the Sky ) --TNLNYC 22:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' this please he seems notable Yuckfoo 22:44, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Stoller

Vanity blogger page Bloghate 03:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Looks like vanity, indeed, with the inane comment about dogs. Alexa for bopnews.com, which is not actually mentioned in the article: 111,307. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Not vanity--the article was contributed by someone other than the subject if you check its history. The inane bit about dogs is lifted from the blurb on the 2004 Democratic Convention descriptions of bloggers they accredited. Matt Stoller was one of these, a distinction also left out of this tiny write-up. User:Betsythedevine
  • Keep. Notable in his field. Not only one of 123 bloggers at DNC 2004, he wrote the Democratic Convention's official weblog with the official blogger, Eric Schnure [1]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I Googled this guy's name and got 92,700 hits.--Kross 15:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't look like a vanity site - it even fails to identify his birth date. Unless, of course, that is just a sly trick.... However, it sounds like he was at least among the bloggers that the parties decided to take seriously. (This despite the fact that I cannot be troubled to read his blog.) --Habap 18:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Influential in bringing a presidential candidate into the race, how can he not be notable? That aside, he is distinctive for his coverage of the DNC and other political events. --ElfWord 11:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Stoller is notable. Kaibabsquirrel 23:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I object to User:Bloghate's POV attempt to purge all blog related articles. -- Infrogmation 02:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:11, 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 KEEP - a couple more keep votes than deletes; delete voters seem to be objecting to a list as unverifiable; therefore, I'm going to remove the examples and leave the explanation of concept. -- Jonel | Speak 07:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Song

Dicdef, no potential for expansion, except for the potential of a useless and unverifiable list of "signature songs"—Wahoofive (talk) 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I disagree. Keep. Notable concept, and not expressed here as merely a list of songs (although a few examples would be nice). -- BD2412 talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable concept. I added a few examples. Kappa 06:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, now it's a dicdef with some examples of somebody's favorite songs. How did you decide that "Purple Haze" is the Jimi Hendrix signature song (as opposed to, say, the Star-Spangled Banner)? Maple Leaf Rag is a much better-known song by Scott Joplin than The Entertainer, although the latter got a bunch of attention by being used in The Sting. All you did was add the song you know best by each performer. Six months from now it will be a random selection of people's favorite songs from their favorite bands. There's no verifiability for this list. You just made the article much worse by adding these. Without those it's still a dicdef.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I got 3 of them, including Purple Haze, by googling "signature song" and knowing that they had articles. Someone else had already added "signature song" to Respect (song) so that's not just my opinion. Is it controversial? You seem to be right about The Entertainer, so I'll that out, using the magic of an editable wiki. Kappa 16:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have a particular opinion on this, but I would like to see it moved to Signature song (note the lower case s in "song"). Mgm|(talk) 08:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, just moved it myself. - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty good article now, notable concept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable concept. Capitalistroadster 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote at present but lists like this generally degenerate into crap as people add whatever song comes into their head. I can easily see this becoming a list of one-hit wonders, for instance.. -R. fiend 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable and subjective. After Kappa's refusal this spring to accept the concept "answer songs" (often discussed on radio shows such as Blues Before Midnight) as being distinct from "referential songs", I have a hard time with his claim that "signature songs" are well-defined and encyclopedic. Barno 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Um I claimed that answer songs are a subset of "songs which refer to other songs", is that concept hard to grasp? Kappa 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - far too subjective to ever be encyclopedic. Which is Styx's "signature song," Babe or Mr. Roboto or Blue Collar Man (Long Nights) or...? See where this is going? --FCYTravis 22:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that you would either leave Styx off the list or remove the Examples section. How does that equate to delete the article itself? DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article itself is an encyclopedic explanation. The four examples only serve to clarify the concept more. This article should not devolve to an unverifiable list of signature songs. Should the examples be controversial, just remove that section. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I also share R. fiend's concern about this becoming a list of one-hit wonders. Hopefully editors will boldly remove songs that are not really signature songs, although as FCYTravis says, it is not very objective. In my mind, a signature song means the one song that a popular and well-established singer (a much higher standard than merely a "notable" singer) is identified with even though he has had success with a variety of songs. I don't really understand what the current article means when it talks about songs the artist is "praised" for. DS1953 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • and by the way, in my opinion, many, if not most, well established artists are known by their body of work and have no "signature song". DS1953 23:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This is the problem, we need someone who's had more than one hit (because, let's face it, "567-5309 Jenny" is not the sort of thing we need in this article) but they have to be widely known for one song above all else, but not too much above all else (or we're back in the one hit wonder grey area). I'm sure someone will add Tom Jones singing "It's Not Unusual" and I have no idea if that's enough above the hits like "Delilah" or "What's New Pussycat" to qualify, and I can see debates going on about such things (if anyone cares). These things are always tricky. And I still don't think anyone's taken care of the needed work on the cult musician article, which has similar issues. -R. fiend 02:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How will you and DoubleBlue make this verifiable?—Wahoofive (talk) 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • DS1953, I like your explanation better: "the one song that a popular and well-established singer is identified with even though he has had success with a variety of songs." Will you edit the article to make this improvement? DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll give it a stab as soon as I get my real work done for the day... DS1953 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Wahoofive, I don't think a list is verifiable (although I think the example of "I Left my Heart in San Francisco" and Tony Bennett would gain almost universal acceptance as a "signature song") but I think an explanation with a few examples is verfifiable (i.e., the concept of a signature song is valid). I am not proposing a list of signature songs and I would hope (maybe unreasonably) that additions that don't garner almost universal agreement should be removed. DS1953 00:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Wahoofive, TonyBennett.net: "his now renowned signature song, 'I Left My Heart In San Francisco'", BBC News: "Franklin ... best known for her signature song Respect.", 45s.com:"'The Wanderer' ... is considered to be Dion's signature song." Hendrix is less clear; though google supports "Purple Haze". I can see how it could become problematic and wouldn't mind if the examples section was removed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I hope you're right. I have visions of revert wars everytime somebody adds the latest top-40 hit. Without the list it's still just a dicdef (and a pretty clumsy one at that: "an artist may have one or many signature songs..."). I don't deny the concept exists but I can't see this becoming encyclopedic.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid concept. A useful list may emerge, but that would be at a linked page (List of...), rather than at this one. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A separate list? That's the worst idea yet. -R. fiend 03:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with a cleanup of the text towards a cleaner definition. I'm not sure about keeping the examples, but then I don't think we need a list either. Vegaswikian 05:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this list is very POV subjective and quite possibly unmaintainable. JamesBurns 07:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This screams subjectivity. Some songs by an artist are more popular in one market than another. --Madchester 17:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a really bad idea for all the reasons given by the delete voters. Look at the article, after keep voters have improved it. "A signature song is a song considered to be the best material produced by an artist when they are at their artistic peak." -- considered best by who? Who says when they are at their artistic peak? "These songs are often praised by a particular performance of them by an artist at a concert or other event of significance." -- how is a song praised by a performance? I don't understand that sentence. "An artist can have one or many signature songs and they can have different signature songs in different parts of the world depending on where they are praised." -- lovely. One or many. How about I just say that all 38 of Elvis Presley's top 10 hits were his signature songs. I see no hope of verifiability of this ultra-subjective categorization, and not verifiable means not encyclopedic. Once the unverifiable material is removed all that's left is a dicdef. Quale 09:47, 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. jni 08:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nozomi Online

Fledgling website with Alexa rank of 5.4 million. User also embarked on a 70 entry spam campaign across every Jpop entry.

delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Shameless self-promotion of an insignificant site. -- Hadal 04:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, website promotion. Alexa rank of 5.4 million is far from important. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 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. jni 08:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Fahey

Delete...written by anon, almost appears as self-promotion. googled subject, no real results. Srcrowl 04:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable (no claim to it anyway). Could be an attack page. -- BD2412 talk 04:51, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, Travis Fahey gets about 36 Google hits none of which seem to point to him being a professional author or award-winning journalist as claimed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Shock, I am Travis Fahey. I must say I am a little shocked by the reaction to this listing, thus far. Upon checking my email yesterday, I discovered that a close friend of mine had created a listing in Wikipedia as a joke. I took it as that, a joke, despite the fact that I am, indeed, a two-time award-winning journalist from Burlington, Vermont. When you google my name, you'll mostly find references to my careers since; I have since worked in public realtions at Middlebury College and currently work as a corporate communications specialist. I think you all need to find something else to do with your time than berate what is clearly a humorous, albeit factually accurate, entry and a playful jab between two friends. - [[User:travisfahey|[[User talk:travisfahey|08:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, This Travis Fahey is obviously an unsavory character who must be stopped immediately. The repercussions to this fine, upstanding Christian web encyclopedia could be endless if we don't remove references to violent, degenerate gun-toting whiskey drinking liberal writers, like the said Mr. Fahey. Good luck and God Bless you strange little men... - [[User:phineasPEgo|[[User talk:phineasPEgo|09:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: last two edits are part of some bizarre joke; non-existant users misappropriated Mgm's good name. --BD2412talk 13:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 14:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and quickly. I need to get back to my hymns, all this talking about scotch makes me feel bad. --Scimitar 14:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not good enough for BJAODN. ral315 18:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/prank. --Etacar11 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes by non-existent users

  • Strong Keep I exis' and i respek dis fine guyman.--64.229.92.23 01:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - 166.19.102.20 made the previous nine votes (below) attributed to non-existant users, and vandalized the signatures in the votes of several users (i.e. [2] [3]) -- Plutor 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following users do not exist --Scimitar 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC):

  • Keep --User: Fasshishel 15:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: Gimminy Crickets 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: Much Tewilliger 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: indelliblewatermark 15:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: CranialApathy 15:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: thewonderboy22 15:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: underworldrenegades1 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: WTFJKITUP 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --User: HTMLISFUN 15:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just delete the page--the response was simply a protest about how seriously people are taking this. And by the way, it's not "hacking" or "vandalizing" if the page is open for HTML editing by the public! Just read the statement below--If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Chill out.

  • No, it is still vandalising; simply not hacking, in the most proper sense. jglc | t | c 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia uses Vandalism in a technical sense, not in the ordinary dictionary meaning. RJFJR 22:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. RickK 05:09, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Lulgjuraj

Entire article reads: Susan Lulgjuraj is a journalist for the SPORTS section of The Press of Atlantic City. An online newspaper. Only 91 Google hits [4], some of which are from a DVD review on 21 Jump Street (not sure if they are the same person). Notability not established, might be vanity. Delete. JamesBurns 05:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonnotable. Looks like an attempt to turn the red links at The Press of Atlantic City blue. I'd say delete the Journalists heading of that article so it doesn't happen any more. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable at this time. We can solve that redlink problem by unlinking all those names in The Press of Atlantic City. I really wish folks didn't automatically link every proper noun. Angr is right: delete the whole section "Journaists." Geogre 17:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Etacar11 22:20, 15 Jun 2005
  • Cleanup I agree a little bit with Agnr but I think its just needs some more information, because I have read the newspaper [[The Press of Atlantic City; and I have read an article that Lulgjuraj wrote.--MLSfan0012 (UTC)
    • no contribution history by user:MLSfan0012. Megan1967 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This should stay because though on Google there are a few number of hits the first few articles make plenty of sense about her...I think it should be a biography stub instead. --DCUnitedRock23
    • This user's only edit. --Etacar11 15:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article fails to establish notability. Megan1967 05:58, 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 NO CONSENSUS; default to keep. -- Jonel | Speak 07:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PC Load Letter

Neologism from a movie. Delete. Alphax τεχ 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge into Office Space. --SPUI (talk) 05:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (Changed mind: Keep) - It is a tough decision. (Keep or Merge) "PC Load Letter" is a notable phrase in a cult movie. (Slashdot's references it a lot especially with the "IT" post icon, the red stapler) It is not a neologism. It is a printer/copier machine phrase, too. [5] However, it is probably best known because of Office Space. --Chill Pill Bill 06:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not voting because I don't know the particular phrase. But in any event, it needs to be cleaned up, whether kept or merged. ral315 07:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Office Space article already covers this more than adequately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Office Space --Xcali 14:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Office Space. Please, no articles on snippets of movie dialogue, unless the snippet is more notable than the movie itself (and I can't think of one offhand). -- BD2412 talk 14:29, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Judy, Judy, Judy" -supposedly Cary Grant, only known from many impressions of the man. Actually he never said the words in any movie [6]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please do not merge it is popular with 25-thousand google hits and informative and well written too Yuckfoo 18:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Unless someone creates a disambiguation page for Michael Bolton... OK, just kidding - Merge regardless. Would a redirect make any sense? --Habap 19:23, 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. jni 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The new days

Non-notable band vanity. Kelly Martin 06:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 07:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Patent vanity/band ad. --Xcali 14:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 22:22, 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. Appears this debate has been hit a few times, but so far nobody has wanted to keep this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuero

Band vanity. "Nuero" + any of the band members gets zero google hits, apart from a wikipedia mirror. —Xezbeth 07:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 07:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity + possible hoax: funny how they aren't mentioned on the Sub Pop website. No verification that they ever released anything thru Sub Pop. --Etacar11 22:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No trace of Nuero or the Withersons on allmusic.com. Gamaliel 22:38, 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 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) 16:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corby davidson

This page is not encyclopedia worthy. It is yet another radio station page. freestylefrappe 00:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC).


VFD nomination was begun previously. I am finishing the process.RJFJR 21:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge with an article about the radio station (if that doesn't exist, someone should make one) or else Delete it. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likewise. DS 19:03, 24 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. jni 08:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime rangers

Drinking club vanity, God bless 'em, but not encyclopedic by a long shot. Delete. -- BD2412 talk 07:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 07:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete club advertising. JamesBurns 07:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a shot each time you vote Delete --FCYTravis 08:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. We are now all dumber for knowing this. Srcrowl 09:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drinking club vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Drink!. I mean Delete. Non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tai kin fai

School project, it seems. Nonsense, non-notable, non wiki-formatted, etc. Not encyclopedic by any means. ral315 07:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable school teacher. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy as newbie test (does that make sense?). Kappa 08:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy patent vanity --Xcali 14:24, 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. —Xezbeth 10:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project 621

Looks like it's a Babelfish translation of [7], which is a German Wikipedia mirror. No edits in 4 1/2 months, and unless someone wants to fix things like the horrible sentence structure that comes from its straight translation (not to mention the words like 'knitterempfindlich' that didn't translate), it probably should be deleted. ral315 07:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, I found something to rewrite as an intro. You can use {{cleanup-translation}} for this kind of thing instead of bringing it to Vfd. Kappa 08:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'll have a go at it...Lectonar 09:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Sounds like a reasonably notable rocketry project. Capitalistroadster 17:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please Yuckfoo 18:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good save User:Kappa and well done User:Lectonar. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable rocket project. JamesBurns 07:33, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian hedger

(This nom originally made Jun 4, was never closed, multiple apparent sock puppet votes. I've taken the liberty of addending all anon votes. --FCYTravis 08:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Hi, i am the author of one of the below "keep" comments. i would like to adress the sock puppets accusation... im not sure what exactly sock puppets means, but i guess it's something to do with all the votes being from the one person? you may find with a little research, perhaps contact the institution mentioned on the ian hedger page (st. bede's college, mentone, victoria, australia), that many of these comments come from students. they have heard about the page through word of mouth, and are supporting the TRUE story about their friend/acquantance. You may also find that the two entries from the same IP adress are entries from step brothers, using two computers on the same network. I urge that these facts be considered before this page is dismissed as a hoax or a joke. Before dismissing this, someone please do some research. Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon comment by User:203.31.184.154 - only four edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.


No relevant google hits, smells like hoax. Denni☯ 21:33, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

REMEMBER TO START YOUR THREAD WITH THE WORD 'KEEP' OR 'DELETE'... not 'DON'T DELETE'.

  • Delete vanity hoax (it would seem). And not funny if it is. --Etacar11 23:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, hoax, not notable...take your pick. Tobycat 01:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've heard of this story through word of mouth... Hoax or not, it's an urban legend worth keeping. - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142
  • Keep Oh god no! this is no hoax, i warn... this kid is a lethal fucka, anyone who has seen a red flash in their backyards, a white stain on there ironing boards, a homosexual spirit in their dreams... poor bastards, he'll get you soon enough...User:Darren Doukas 07:35, 6 july 2005 (FBI , CIA , CRIMINAL INTENT) - anon vote by User:220.237.182.178 - both edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD.
  • Keep This is no hoax. I am a Social Work student at Monash University doing a paper on teenage risk factors. My teacher, Dr. Max Liddell actually referred me to the 'Ian Hedger' case study in Australia. I couldn’t seem to find any good resources for the Ian Hedger case on Yahoo or Google, nor my own library, but i stumbled upon this excerpt here. If you are interested more about the Ian hedger case you should try emailing the social work department at Monash. Regards, Marcus Binge - anon vote by User:144.132.3.4 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
  • Keep Ian Hedger is an old school urban ledgend. Me and my wife use to scare the kids with halloween stories about the firey headed Ian Hedger. -Nick - anon vote by User:220.237.34.75 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
  • Keep I agree with the above statements. (i go to Mckinnion High near where these events have supposedly taken place)I have heard on many occasions of the Ian Hedger urban legend and have discussed it with many of my friends. wheather the events are true or not, this entry has validity in that it is a well know urban legend around the melbourne area. If it is true i pray for the poor soul and hope i never come across him. May it teach us all that bullying gets us no where. Will Drummond - anon vote by User:61.68.143.158 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
  • Keep The Ian Hedger case is very much a true one, I was once a friend of this tortured soul back in '98. he was a great person when i knew him, full of life, with a smile that could melt an iceberg. it is unfortunate that we have not crossed paths since his departure from our youth group, because he was one of the only people i knew that could make a man with my condition feel normal again. he will be in my heart for eternity. - D.M.Wenckowski - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142, the user's second vote on this page, so struck through.
  • Keep I can't believe this story is being considered for deletion. I think one will find over the next few years a number of websites and articles being made in devotion to this story. The myths surrounding this case are simply untrue and unjustified. A depressed boy goes missing, and immediately people begin pawning off murders onto him. The chances of the boy still being alive are virtually zero, and it is my belief that he has found a happier place. Ian Hedger must not be forgotten, and I hope anyone who tries to remove this tribute to him, or deface it, suffers a similar fate. - Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon vote by User:203.31.184.154 - only three edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.
  • Delete - Sockpuppet limit reached exceeded. --FCYTravis 08:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because what the hell is a "scientician"? -- BD2412 talk 08:12, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Quote from http://www.olympus.net/personal/ptmaccon/pif/issues/other/dict_enviro_lang.html:

Scientist, n. ... 3. Sometimes referred to as Scientician a. Term describing the political corruption of a scientist. b. Person working in the sciences willing to alter and/or ignore observations and research to conform to the political correct thinking or policy of any particular age.


  • Delete. Lowercased surname, votes by sockpuppets. This should count as "case closed". — JIP | Talk 08:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense supported by multiple sockpuppets, potential personal sabotage - Skysmith 09:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, with full military honours. Alphax τεχ 10:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Two unreliable Google hits. If legit as claimed, this would've shown up on missing persons sites. If it's true, those organizations should be the target of this campaign. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE (in capitals as indicated above)Dunc|☺ 11:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I hate sockpuppets. jglc | t | c 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. --Xcali 14:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sock-puppets make a more eloquent case for deletion than I ever could. --Scimitar 14:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per sock puppets. Ashibaka (tock) 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/BJAODN. The many sockpuppets must mean something. ral315 17:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax, vanity. MysteryDog 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Martg76 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, aawesome storiez keep it up - anon vote by User:70.58.91.15 - only edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page and vandalism on other pages see Contributions.
  • Delete, nonsense, and sockpuppets. Sasquatch′ ↔Talk↔Contributions 22:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wha' a ghreatte guyman he be...--64.229.92.23 01:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (does this vote really need to be clarified?)
  • Delete. And sentence the sock puppets to watch a 24 hour The Wiggles marathon. Mr Bound 01:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's funny, I was just dealing with this same sort of garbage from another anon. Mr. Billion 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete – if it's a hoax, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. If it's not, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. --Mothperson 14:50, 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 keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada

I know there was a VfD for this one already, but that was more than a year ago, and I think it needs to be reconsidered. This article is some of the most blatant POV I’ve seen yet on Wikipedia. Even the American mainstream media, which has a definite pro-Israel bias, does not refer to suicide bombings as massacres. “Massacre” is a very emotive word, and does not fit with the mission of being informative. A list like this should simply be called what it is – a “list of major suicide-bombings against Israel since 2000.” The page was designed to give readers the impressions that Israel has been victim of repeated “massacres,” while killings of Palestinians are left out. The Israel human rights group BtSelem, however, reports that more than three times more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis during this period than Israelis killed by Palestinians [8]. The authors of this page claim that it wasn’t designed just for killings where the victims were Israelis, but the wording was cleverly designed to exclude any actions by the Israeli government, since of course it will always deny that any of their actions intentionally targeted civilians. So therefore none of them will ever appear on this list. So anyway, unless this article is dramatically changed, so as to remove the word “massacre” and either include violence against Palestinians or be clearly labeled as “violence against Israelis,” then it deserves to be deleted as POV propaganda. Blackcats 08:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • What do you think should be done with Deir Yassin massacre? It also has that very emotive word "massacre" in the title, which "does not fit with the mission of being informative". Should it be moved to a less emotive title, or simply deleted as per this article? Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Blackats' argument wasn't made based on naming conventions, but rather on the claim that the word "massacre" was "emotive" and therefore the article should be deleted. By the way, how would your Google test work for "Passover massacre", which gets 8,060 hits, vs. Wikipedia's article Netanya suicide attack, which gets 223 hits, most of them Wikipedia mirrors? Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Of the Google hits for "Passover Massacre," only 3,610 even mention "Netanya" [9]. 10,900 mention "suicide bombing" in conjuction with "Netanya" without even mentioning the word "massacre" [10]. 3390 mention "suicide attack" in conjunction with "Netanya," again without the word "massacre" mentioned [11]. So there's no clear case for calling any incident in Netanya "the Passover Massacre." Blackcats 22:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Propaganda. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's quite irrelevant that the list doesn't mention Palestinian casualties - nothing prevents creation of a similar list on numbers of Palestinians killed in specific Israeli actions - and putting a "See also" linking to it on the bottom of this page. I agree that "massacre" is a loaded word, but most of these events involved the deaths of 20+ people, so the title is not misleading... no objection to substituting "suicide bombings" for massacres. -- BD2412 talk 14:00, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we should encourage the creation of POV forks as BD2412 seems to be advocation. See all of the debates going on about articles realing to the conflict in Cyprus. --Xcali 14:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, all lists are POV forks to some extent. Does the List of serial killers by country diminish mass murders (who kill equal numbers but in a shorter time) by not including them, because the authors of that article are concerned with one particular type of multiple killer? Does the List of war crimes diminish the deaths that happen as a result of non-war related genocide, or airplane crashes, or industrial accidents? We could have one giant "List of all events in which more than 10 people died at one time", but that would be mush, so we divide things up into neat categories that are bounded by identifiable markers. That's why lists of which people in country X (or conflict X) were killed by circumstance Y are legitimate. -- BD2412 talk 17:05, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Substitute "Suicide bombings" for "massacres", to help avoid POV forking. --Scimitar 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You don't delete an article because you don't like the title, and the article can certainly included actions deliberately targetting Palestinian civilians, or as Scimitar suggests, the title can be changed to "Suicide bombings etc.". Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per reasons stated above. MathKnight 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless moved or the article is changed. "Deliberately targetting civilians" is not a qualifier any normal person would apply to the word massacre. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep Feel free to have an edit war moving the name around, but don't delete this useful information. Ashibaka (tock) 16:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename... I agree with the suicide bomber issue... massacre seems to be an over-statement in this case and should be against Israel as Israel has fought back... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 23:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You are all assholes. --GoFuckYourselves 03:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this organized and true record of how Israelis (both Jews and innocent Arabs) were killed in cold blood during this time period. IZAK 03:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Highly POVYuber(talk) 03:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Almog 04:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I mean, massacre is emotive, but it's accurate; it's the event that's emotive, not the word. Suicide bombing could mean somebody who blows only his own self up in protest, much as the Buddhist self-immolations during the Vietnam war, and that's not what these events are. Perhaps "mass murders" might be preferable? "Killings of civilians"? "bombings of noncombatants"? Gzuckier 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Gzuckier. Ambi 05:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 05:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unbalanced. JFW | T@lk 06:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - although I would prefer to change the title. Both "massacre" and "Al-Aqsa Intifada" are loaded terms. If precedence is any kind of principle here at WP, deleting this would require us deleting a bunch of other lists. --Leifern 10:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename If this is a list of suicide bomb attacks then that is what it should say. Massacre is a loaded term, even if more than 10 people die and we should be careful of using it anywhere especially as here without any discussion of the facts of the incidents.old joe 11:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they could be investigated to see if they fit the description. I would assume that something which without warning deliberately kills, say, ten unarmed civilians going about their daily business would generally be described as a massacre, any effort to pretty it up would be adding a POV; sometimes things speak for themselves. Compare to the constant campaign to delete quotes from Ann Coulter from her wikipage because they make her look bad and thus are POV. We could put a comment in for each whether it was suicide bomb or more personal methodology if we're dubious about calling a suicide bombing a massacre. I don't know if ten is the accepted threshold for a massacre or not. Gzuckier 16:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep--Neria 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Having myself created List of Algerian massacres of the 1990s, I certainly won't suggest that this page should be deleted simply for referring to events as massacres. The term "massacre" is an appropriate description for killings of large numbers of civilians at once, and I would consider it an accurate description of at least some of the events linked. However, 10 is probably too low a threshold (I used 50 myself), and Blackcats is certainly right to highlight the weasel wording that allows massacres by Israel to be kept out of the list. Keep and cleanup. - Mustafaa 17:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless we decide that "massacare" is an inherently POV term, in which case other articles should be deleted or renamed as well (such as List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) The wording was not "cleverly designed" by the authours of this page (that would be me. Thanks for the compliment, BTW). Rather, it was lifted directly (including the number "10") from Talk:List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, where it was presented by User:BL (which is the author of that article, I believe). -- uriber 17:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at best, the call for VfD is a reason to rename the article, not to eliminate it. (I don't have a problem renaming it) Saswann 13:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up, monitor closely for POV, use Mustafaa's "massacre" threshhold, and if the title is believed to be "POV", the proper way to deal with that is by discussing a MOVE on the article's TALK page, not by nominating the article for VfD. Tomer TALK 00:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article is useful, but just as Mustafaa mentioned, it needs some cleaning up.--Gramaic 08:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and use consistent definition of "massacre" throughout WP. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ridiculous to suggest that it's a massacre when Jews kill Arabs, but not vice versa. If "Massacre" is POV it's POV across the board- including the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, etc.--Briangotts 15:48, 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 speedily deleted. jni 08:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gurjara

Delete Not notable...Googled with Star Wars, no results match with character...appears to be made-up. Srcrowl 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense/hoax. -- BD2412 talk 08:08, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted under criterion #1: no content. Geogre 12:54, 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. —Xezbeth 10:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words of Aramean origin

Nonsense created by a vandal. ral315 08:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note that the article has some semblance of a real page now; however things like Abra ka dabra still make me think this deserves deletion. Not to mention that user has deleted VFD notice. ral315 08:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I know for a fact that the abracadabra part isn't true, which makes me suspect the rest is a hoax too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, I'm pretty sure abracadabra is from an originally Aramaic magic formula. - Mustafaa 20:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silliness. -- BD2412 talk 14:15, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe that Mammon is actually of Aramaic origin. --Scimitar 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Mammon and (I think) Abracadabra are correct; sapphire and papa are folk etymologies. - Mustafaa 20:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. JamesBurns 23:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I see little value in this article. If anything, should be renamed ...Aramaic origin. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. List of English words of Aramaic origin could be created, but it would take very careful work to distinguish from List of English words of Hebrew origin. (A care I am pessimistic about seeing in the current climate at Wikipedia). --Tabor 00:28, 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. jni 08:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eirik Lundestad

  • Keep This debate is old and not relevant

Delete Not notable...no Google relevant links for Eirik or Nordsia Massacre, looks like something that should go in Eirik's resume and not the Wikipedia. Srcrowl 09:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: A 23 year old doctor. Vanity/CV. Geogre 12:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to pass WP:BIO guidelines. Also, the Nordsia Massacre looks like a hoax. Sarg 14:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mugu keep offff. Stupid homos dont kno tru playas.--64.229.92.23 01:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am from Norway, and I know of the Nordsia Massacre, where two people died. Eirik Lundestad is somewhat of a local hero up here.
  • Delete - nonentity linked to non-existent event - Skysmith 10:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Well I'm Eirik Lundestad and I can tell you that this is a practical joke arranged my some of my friends. So this should be deleted :)

The event for which he received the cross took place some years ago. It is well described in the local newspaper www.an.no if you search for "nordsia" in the papers search engine.

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. jni 08:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] System_88

This is some sort of 4chan joke spawned from IRC a few days ago 24.213.79.123 09:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Ha ha delete. Geogre 12:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not funny enough for Bad Jokes. Sarg 14:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh, 4chan. Ashibaka (tock) 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because System 88 is the future okay
  • Delete Patent nonsense --TouchGnome 14:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete silliness. tehlec 11:05, 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. —Xezbeth 10:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hustis

Etymology of a surname, already transwikied to Wiktionary. There are no Hustisses (Hustises?) to disambiguate or redirect to. --Cryptic (talk) 11:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Etymology. It's also weird. "Hustis" is more Americanized than "Eustis?" Uhhh, ok, but that follows none of the usual rules. Geogre 12:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. If the alleged connection between Hustis and Eustis is confirmed, however, I would say to redirect to Eustis, an drop a line in that disambig stating something like that "Eustis is a surname, and Hustis is a variation thereof." -- BD2412 talk 14:20, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Comment: Since in Greek an /h/ is merely an aspiration mark and, in general, /h/ is not a consonant, it's quite likely for an "Herb/herb" divergence to take place, but it's just as likely that they're separate words from separate languages. It's just not logically necessary for one to be from the other, and "Americanizing" names doesn't usually involve aspirating their initial vowels. Geogre 17:45, 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. —Xezbeth 10:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaya, Turkish

Foreign-language dictdef, and a given name; already transwikied to Wiktionary. The mention on the kaya disambig is already more than sufficient; there's no growth potential here, and a redirect would be useless. --Cryptic (talk) 11:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Since it is already transwikied, delete. Sarg 14:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef already tanswikid. JamesBurns 23:52, 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. —Xezbeth 10:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Beamer

He died in the 9/11 attacks, but WP:NOT a memorial service, and he isn't otherwise notable. Most of his article is not about him, but about what happened before and during the attack. Radiant_>|< 11:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: His name appears in contexts other than the 9/11 victims, and he is the sort of pop-culture reference that people will soon need explained via an encyclopedia. Thus, the article exists to explain this name. Geogre 12:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Let's roll" is a memorable phrase. jglc | t | c 13:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, but this particular guy is notable, both for his words and for being a significant part of the attempt to take back the plane from the hijackers. --Scimitar 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Out of all the 3000 people who died, this guy got arguably the most media attention afterwards, and his widow wrote an autobiography, if I'm correct. Mike H 15:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable above and beyond his death in the 9/11 attacks. Why he is notable is all about what happened before and during the attack. –DeweyQ 16:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely notable (see all those 'Let's roll' bumper stickers after 9/11?) ral315 17:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely. DS1953 18:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very notable victim. NSR 20:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He played a notable roll on 9/11/2001 and was much more than just a victim. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can, offhand, name one person who died on 9/11. His name is Todd Beamer. -- Jonel | Speak 03:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's beautiful. jglc | t | c 16:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for context. This figure is a highly notable victim of the 9/11 tragedy. A high school is named in his honor. Hall Monitor 18:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Peter Farago 17:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, keep it. DS 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. His name has become widely known – people may need to look it up. Kissl 15:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I saw his name in a cartoon and didn't get it. so had to look it up.
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 10:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Burnett

He died in the 9/11 attacks, but WP:NOT a memorial service, and he otherwise only marginally notable, as vp of a small company that has no WP entry. Most of his article is not about him, but about what happened before and during the attack. Radiant_>|< 11:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: This name is not nearly as frequently mentioned as Beamer's is outside of a context that makes his identity clear, but the three or so airborne folks who left words, etc., are possibly going to need to be explained to future readers. Geogre 13:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Geogre: Sure, WP:NOT a memorial, but this man stands out as memorable among all of the victims. jglc | t | c 13:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, but this particular guy is notable, both for his words and for being a significant part of the attempt to take back the plane from the hijackers. --Scimitar 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The people who fought the hijackers on UA 93 are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mike H 15:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He is not nearly as notable as Todd Beamer, but his words and actions are significant. Perhaps merge with a related article? –DeweyQ 16:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Agree, he isn't very well known, but he's still an important figure as far as 9/11 goes. ral315 17:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DS1953 17:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NSR 20:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with a related article. Nothing memorable about him except the context. Kissl 15:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 10:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Paul Bucca

He died in the 9/11 attacks, but WP:NOT a memorial service, and he isn't otherwise notable, as one of many Fire Marshals in New York. Radiant_>|< 11:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: "the only Fire Marshal in the history of the New York City Fire Department to ever be killed in action." Also, please note that there was already an informal poll on the Discussion page of the entry as to whether it should be merged with the 9/11 Wiki, and the consensus (for the reason stated above) was a keep. jglc | t | c 13:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per jglc. --Scimitar 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mike H 15:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ral315 17:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per jglc. - DS1953 17:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with a related page. Kissl 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the 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 transwiki to wikimemorial. – ABCD 02:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Adams

He died in the 9/11 attacks, but WP:NOT a memorial service, and he isn't otherwise notable; he's a marketing person that sells wine. Radiant_>|< 11:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikimemorial and delete. This material is perfect for the memorial and not a proper fit in the regular Wikipedia. Geogre 13:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Geogre. --Scimitar 14:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki -- Joolz 15:52, 15 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 18:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Roy (writer)

He has a website that looks to me like just another blog. Not on alexa top-100.000. And him being a writer for a newspaper hardly makes him notable. Delete. Shanes 11:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: One man and his blog. Geogre 13:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 23:51, 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 merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whie Malreaux

Edit: Appears this character can be SW canon after all - some carelessness on my part. However, I vote we merge this with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, as I don't think it warrants its own article. Nufy8 12:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • We need no vote for that. Merge boldly. -- BD2412 talk 13:16, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 18:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge wars

This phrase had a brief currency in referring to the Middle East debate, but died out as expected. Google shows almost all current references as meaning something different. Today it is barely used and there is nothing to say here that wouldn't be better said on some other MidEast-related page.

old vfd page

  • Delete for reasons stated above. --Zero 12:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Faded rose, ancient craze, former phrase. Geogre 13:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can we merge this content with another page? Scanning the old VfD makes me wonder: if there was "plenty of potential" for expansion as some users claimed, then why haven't they done so in the last five months? --Viriditas | Talk 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Middle East-cruft. - Mustafaa 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable phrase. JamesBurns 23:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Correct the mistake that was made in the previous VfD. The article that survived that VfD was erroneous, and claimed that the term referred to some kind of intercollegiate rivalry between Columbia and the University of London. In fact it was simply a neologism used by a single professor to describe campus debate over Middle East issues. A poorly-chosen neologism that was recorded in only a single article in an online political magazine, it suffered a well-deserved death. Note: links to Knowledge wars were inserted in many WP articles, unjustifiably in my opionion. They should all be removed. Quale 10:03, 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. jni 08:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marianne Faulkner

Vanity. Kelly Martin 12:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Towering vanity, blog promotion, page rank boosting. I nowiki'd the links. Geogre 13:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is incredibly badly written. In amongst phrases such as "awesomeness" and "of the Mexican persuasion", the only facts in this article are the date of birth (She's 18 years old today.), the professions of this person's parents, the existence of a sister, the existence of a web log, and this person's attendance of fashion school. All of the rest is exactly the sort of "unrealized aspirations, thoughts, and hobbies" content that Wikipedia:vanity discusses. And then there's the fact that this page reeks of autobiography, despite being written in the 3rd person. WP:BIO criteria not met with a vengance. Delete. Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity page. Note that there was another Marianne Faulkner who donated some funds for the construction of Dartmouth Medical School, but I don't think she did anything more notable than that. Sarg 14:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any article that refers to its subject being a "camwhore", going to something called "fashion school" and being famous for her "awesomeness" needs fixing, but this person doesn't seem to amount to anything anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Textbook vanity. In her LiveJournal [13] she says that she told a friend that she wanted to be in Wikipedia, and so he created this article. I hope she enjoys her five days of "fame". . . . . Soundguy99 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. UGH. This is exactly what we do not need in Wikipedia. Does this girl understand exactly how easy it is to get into the encyclopaedia, and exactly how easy it is to be deleted? *Just another Gwen Stefani - a Western girl who fetishises and wants to be Japanese. Utter trash. jglc | t | c 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete asap. DS1953 19:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in the most fashionable way possible. Oh, and happy birthday. --FCYTravis 19:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Our little girl is turning eighteen!! jglc | t | c 20:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 22:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You ppl suck jus' cuz u donna hav guts offf makin' a page doesnt mean others shoulda be erased.--64.229.92.23 01:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Within 14 minutes, this anon managed to contribute eight times to various VfD votes, each time voting to keep an obvious joke entry. jglc | t | c 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Leave the vanity for the User pages. Firien 11:12, 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. jni 08:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skalocaust

Neologism, I think. Kelly Martin 12:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. In my own day, we had lots of private slang in the music underground, but none of it was ever going to pass over to the mainstream. Dictdef and neologism. Geogre 13:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very non-notable neologism. Gets only one google hit, which is less than many made-up words. Sarg 14:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for a word "originating in Boston", it has 2 hits on google. Doesn't seem like anything more than perhaps a local slang term between a group of friends
  • delete - neologism. --FCYTravis 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely unnotable. Blackcats 01:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful, articulate, and fitting; I have heard it used in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont at reggae and ska shows. 42moxies 05:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism and dictdef. Alphax τεχ 07:04, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Football legends

apparent joke page Robinh 12:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Choda

Dicdef of obscene slang term has already been transwiki'd, but has not outgrown its original content. As it's already been moved to wiktionary, I suggest deletion jglc | t | c 13:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. ral315 13:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's reasoning. Sarg 14:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For a similar discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chode. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete: Transwiki'd dictdef. (Fatter than it is long? Is this possible? If possible, is it common? Wouldn't this be nearly a deformity?) Geogre 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You HAD to make us think about it, right? :) Sarg 17:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a slang word used in many north Indian languages like Hindi and Bangla. This word does not deserve a page.--Bhadani 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign slang dicdef. JamesBurns 23:49, 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. jni 09:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn J. Freeman

<20 Google hits for this person. Shoplifting from a trade show hardly seems like a notable event. --Xcali 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete infinitely forgettable. --Scimitar 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Theft is so incredibly lame anyway... --Phroziac (talk) 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if he'd been successful, a mention in the Star Fox article might've been an option, but in that case we probably wouldn't even now his name... - Mgm|(talk) 17:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: His fate is unknown because he's not notable enough to be recorded. This is a fact, not an article, on an incident, not a person. Geogre 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, not that there's anything here to be vain about. --Etacar11 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 10:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZirMed

Vanity page for a small 5-year-old company. Not notable enough and sounds like an ad. Delete. - Marcika 14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 16:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. Save on prescriptions elsewhere. Geogre 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 10:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty Johnson

Unverified. ~50 Google hits, and they don't seem to be related. --Xcali 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. --Scimitar 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: In 1973? They had better mean 1673, and even then this looks like hogwash. Secret history so secret as to be entirely unverifiable. Looks like private mythology. Geogre 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 23:48, 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. —Xezbeth 10:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TVP2P

<50 Google hits. Looks like a nelogism to me. --Xcali 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for no content. It isn't even a sentence. If it were a sentence, it'd be a dictdef of a neologism. Geogre 18:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royston Siow

Makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This scores highly on my "Who cares?" scale. --Xcali 14:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good luck with the PhD studies, but Mr. Siow isn't at encyclopedic notability yet (we don't give out articles to people whose only claim to fame is a PhD). --Scimitar 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Studying for a PhD won't get you an encyclopedia article even though Wikipedia isn't paper. - Mgm|(talk) 17:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete grad student vanity. --Etacar11 23:12, 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. jni 09:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Mckenna

Vanity. 22-year-old computer repairman. Delete -- Marcika 14:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the lack of notability. Nestea 15:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: but note, he's not a computer repairman. He is in the computer field of repair. ;) jglc | t | c 16:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity. --FCYTravis 19:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. I hate it when they include pictures. --Etacar11 23:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as substub (under section 1.2.1 of the speedy deletion criteria). - Mgm|(talk) 18:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MrFluffyV02

entry is the username of an Age of Empires 2 player who apparently 'plays with his friends'. Vanity, non-notable; I really wish we had a speedy category for this kind of crap. jglc | t | c 15:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the extreme lack of notability. Nestea 15:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted it. - Mgm|(talk) 18:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Complete text was 'An Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors player. He is commonly found playing a game called Mini Castle Blood with his friends.'

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 speedily deleted. jni 09:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Swartz

no content probable vanity page 198.93.113.49 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I already got it nom'd for a Speedy delete. jglc | t | c 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attempt to communicate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kolej Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Entry is a request by a grad student to a university for admission; includes personal email address. Might fall under vanity, Wikipedia Is Not a Web Provider, promotional, non-notability, &c. Delete jglc | t | c 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as an "attempt to communicate". Kappa 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy agree with Kappa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • PS Imagine being a graduate student (in Computers of all things) and not knowing the difference between Wikipedia and e-mail. Jeez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Heh. Almost good enuf for BJAODN. Niteowlneils 22:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied per critera #A4--from article: "i just want to know whether if there is any posspilty to doing my post study in your university and i prefer structure C wich is corses without thies and here is my e-mial alekar555@yahoo.com". Niteowlneils 22:03, 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. —Xezbeth 10:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Blanchard (filmmaker)

While reverting some sneaky vandalism done to my user page, I checked the vandal's edits. There I found this page, and as the person mentioned seemed unnotable, I nominated him here. Note: The name gets a lot of google hits, but they seem to be for other Jay Blanchards, such as the state senator or the professor. Scimitar 15:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep-- This is a legitimate entry. The above statement is incomprehensible & seems like more of a revenge vote than an actual dismissal of the page. Jay Blanchard's work can be found online, as well as much of his writing about experimental film, which has published domestically and internationally. I don't think a simple Google search for a common name should be a measure of importance. User:CMarker12 15:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(the previous comment was actually made by 166.19.102.20. CMarker12 isn't a registered user at the moment.) - Mgm|(talk) 18:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • A lot of people's work can be found online, but anyone can put films or websites up nowadays. He appears to be just another guy with his camera. And there's thausands of similar people, and nothing to distinguish him from the others. (see solah films and 54 hours film). Unless you can provide evidence he's famous, or otherwise important delete. Mgm|(talk) 18:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Umm...genius? The solahfilms website you linked to is Jay Blanchard's site. And he is a member of the 54-hrs. collective. If anyone can "pick up a camera and make a film", try it. What a joke. comment made by anon166.19.102.20 Sign your votes please.--Scimitar 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - No IMDB entry and Google gets no hits for the films he's apparently made, so he's not encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 19:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Personal attack on FCYTravis removed. It was posted by (who else?) anon 166.19.102.20 --Scimitar 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Try getting an IMDB entry first, and the bad behaviour isn't helping. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with previous posters. --Silas Snider (talk) 21:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and block the vandal. Martg76 22:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 23:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable, poor behaviour, anonIP vandalism. jglc | t | c 15:55, 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 18:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sensuality therapy

Neologism. 3 Googles, none related. --Xcali 15:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Sounds like tree-hugging hippy nonsense, unless it can be considerably expanded upon. --StoatBringer 23:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del--MarSch 11:34, 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 due to no consensus (9 delete, 4 keep from established users, 1 merge, 1 keep from an anon), this is a little short of two thirds with the main discussion being whether or not all churches are encyclopedically notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Matthew's Church, Kensington, Adelaide

I have listed this article for deletion because (a) it is incorrectly named, (b) it is more of an advertisement than an article and (c) it is not notable. Cyberjunkie 15:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Disagree on notability, but points a and b are granted. Furthermore "St. Bart's" is probably "St. Bartholomew's". --Scimitar 15:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Churches in Adelaide or somewhere. How is (a) a reason for deletion? Kappa 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean article titles are not reasons for deletions? I think it is a reason. It shouldn't be "..., Kensington, Adelaide" just as an article shouldn't be "..., London, England, United Kingdom, Earth, etc". If it is to be kept, it should be either "..., Kensington" or "..., Adelaide".-- Cyberjunkie 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So if London was entitled London, England, United Kingdom, Earth you would nominate it for deletion? Kappa 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not unless it also qualified under points (b) and (c). Otherwise a move would suffice.-- Cyberjunkie 00:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Adelaide —Wahoofive (talk) 22:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for a church --nixie 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a directory. JamesBurns 23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, some info could be merged into Kensington, South Australia if we got round to creating that. --ScottDavis 00:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge useful info to appropriate suburb article, if existing.--Takver 01:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Advertising removed. Now a perfectly valid stub. It should be moved to a better name (preferably Churches of St. Matthews and St. Bartholemew's, Adelaide), but moving while a vfd notice is in place is a no-no. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if we can keep every school that ever existed, we should keep every church that ever existed. RickK 05:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with RickK, and definite room for expansion. Alphax τεχ 13:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 09:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as Kappa. SchmuckyTheCat 04:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  17:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is wikipedia not a directory? If it's an encyclopedia, it should have information about places. It shouldn't matter how obscure or small the place is. There is no harm in having an article on it. There is an article on the Adelaide suburb Golden Grove for example. How is that different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.206.130 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 Jun 2005 Kappa 09:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 07:50, 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. —Xezbeth 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Rangler

3 Google hits for a signed musician who has played for 20 years. I smell a hoax. Scimitar 15:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The prose shows every sign of being a hoax/joke page. jglc | t | c 16:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/possible hoax. And one of those hits is for bear porn...his other source of income besides those supposed millions of records sold? ;) --Etacar11 23:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity nonsense. JamesBurns 23:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You ppl are nonsense dis homo is ghreeaaat!!--64.229.92.23 01:30, 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 18:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balefire (book series)

These titles don't exist...and even if they did they would still need to be noteworthy.


The votes for deletion/Balefire (book series) page was created June 3rd by hooperbloob but doesn't seem to have been listed on the day's votes for deletion page. I am completing the process. RJFJR 15:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for now; real books but not yet released. This is just promo until the books actually come out.—Wahoofive (talk) 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah, wait til they come out. Right now it's just an ad. --Etacar11 23:25, 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 There was no consensus for delete. Therefore it is being kept. Numerically it was about 21-11 after removing questionable anons, with them it is much closer. Without a consensus, seems harmless to keep - Taxman Talk 18:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totse

  • Yet another little-known Internet forum. Ashibaka (tock) 16:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A minor Internet forum is not of any relevance to an Encyclopedia RussellG 03:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and watch out because Totse users will probably be driven to vandalism by this. Eliot 16:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 134,000 google hits. Long article, so no point merging. Kappa 16:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. To avoid provoking vandalism, you could try explaining why you think it needs to be deleted. Kappa 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • P.P.S. alexa rank 15,270 [14] Kappa 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Totse pwnsWikipedia - 0nslaught-teh-l33t —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank Rearden (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 Jun 2005
    • User's first edits were on this page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This comment was later modified by user:Toolow. That edit was reverted by user:Hank Rearden
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalized by anon user:67.70.155.149
  • Keep, or they will most likely vandalise the whole of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.128.12 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 Jun 2005
    • Wouldn't their mere presence on VfD promote vandalism? We should judge entirely on whether they are encyclopedic or not, not whether we're scared of them. Average Earthman 17:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, It explains what TOTSE is to those who don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.61.228 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 Jun 2005
    • User's first and only edit is this vote. - Taxman Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Guettarda reverted the page-blanking, unfortunately also erasing some comments.
  • Tards inbound from [15]. silsor 17:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Uh-oh.... Here comes the shitstorm. jglc | t | c 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point, the discussion was again blanked by anon user:67.70.155.149 and immediately reverted by user:Guettarda
  • Strong Keep. Popular website, many text files & a lot of members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank Rearden (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 Jun 2005
    • Vote deleted, as he's already voted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: In fairness, the user's previous vote was still lost when he added this comment.
  • Keep Never heard of it, but it looks like a large community compared to others which have large articles. ral315 17:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete ral315 17:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point, user:Mel Etitis restored the lost votes.
  • keep please it is well known and npov too Yuckfoo 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Looks big, but the entire support base seems to be from Inclusionists (with a capital I) and vandals . . . -- Scimitar 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. I read the page on TOTSE about Wikipedia. They are more than capable of spreading word of themselves without our help. delete. --Scimitar 19:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The more senseless comments (see "0nslaught-teh-l33t" above) that their dogs of war leave, the less and less this article seems to merit inclusion. jglc | t | c 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Word out to the Temple of the Screaming Electron! Wooooooo! --Jscott 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable Web forum. Out of the jillions of forums on t3h intarweb, this is one of the *very* few that merits inclusion. However, I shall note that if the vandalism threats from supporters are carried out, I will change my vote. --FCYTravis 19:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Vandalism of the article has been constant. It seems that TOTSE members see it as a good place to make their mark, however temporary. The only reason I started maintaining the article was to keep the vandals in check.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe it should be protected. Kappa 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I would agree. It's on VFD anyway, it's not like it would be a tragedy to have it protected, especially with it's near constant history of vandalism. - Taxman Talk 12:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it would appear to pass the Pokemon test of notability. Guettarda 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd be surprised just how many people in how many countries in the world have heard of Pokémon. Uncle G 21:00, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
      • The test is something along the lines of whether the subject is more notable than the average Pokemon character (since they all have Wikipedia articles about them) Guettarda 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You'd be surprised just how many people in how many countries in the world have heard of individual Pokémon characters, too. People apply the "Pokémon test" but don't really comprehend how widely known Pokémon actually is. The Pokémon test actually sets quite a high bar, not the low one that people make it out to set. And many things that people claim "pass the Pokémon test" actually don't. Uncle G 22:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 328 inbound links according to Google, and there seems to be a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What's a good number of inbound links? Kappa 20:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, my benchmark for forum notability, www.ocforums.com, gets 18,000+ inbound links. --Carnildo 22:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sockpuppet limit reached. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Chronological order of several comments restored. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article failes to establish notability. Martg76 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Of the 534 edits to the article since it was created on 17 July 2004, almost all of them have been reverted as "vandalism" or as the addition of inappropriate content (all the "Totse-isms"). The vandalism and reversions has been fairly constant throughout the life of the article. The alexa ranking is currently at about 15,000 but has been highly variable over time and appears to have centered around 25,000 or so. If the claims of the current article are to be believed, there are only 30k users - not all that many for an internet forum. I would normally give some deferrence to an article that has been around for a year but the vandalism history concerns me deeply. Undecided for now but leaning toward delete. More verifiable evidence would be helpful. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No verifiable evidence added to the discussion. Vandalism and reverts to the article have continued at a steady pace. Delete. (Protect only if necessary.) Rossami (talk) 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising for a non notable forum. JamesBurns 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article doesn't establish notability except the almost certainly false claim of "is reputed to host the world's largest collection of text files". (Or rather, the reputation exists but is inaccurate.) So few inbound links for a Web forum suggests lack of widespread significance: valuable only to its participants, and apparently not for any good reason. Only topical theme mentioned is a part-time inconsistent commitment to "free speech". Continued vandalism target, sockpuppet limit exceeded. Barno 03:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any article which can't stand on its own merits but needs offensive sock puppets to keep it in the encyclopedia. RickK 05:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then protect the name. While I have heard of the site and would like to see it around expanding on what it is besides being a forum, the revert wars argue for some stronger action. Vegaswikian 06:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete then protect the article against re-creation. Just a little-known Internet forum supported by sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_>|< 09:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and prevent recreation - vanity, self-glorification, threats and practice of vandalism, pressure to maintain (definitely POV), sockpuppetry - Skysmith 10:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, check all the votes here for sockpuppets. I don't see anything about the article or forum that warrants an article. - Taxman Talk 15:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its a very well known board, this isnt self-promotion... I dont see why it cant stay on here. Alkivar (who was too lazy to actually log in) 19:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) --71.241.192.241 (talk · contribs)
    • I don't see any evidence this is really Alkivar. Alkivar has never edited this page. - Taxman Talk 12:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • You know what bite me... I never edit a lot of pages... doesnt mean I cant vote on their VfD.  ALKIVAR™ 04:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Now now, be nice. He was merely saying that your name didn't appear in the edit history, which means it's impossible to verify whether the vote was really yours and not some impersonator's. "Bite me" is not the best choice of words for verifying it was your vote, but it'll do though. --W(t) 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep It's reputed to have the world's largest online text archive and one of the ancients among the migrated bbs's. It's been mentioned on CNN, Global Security Report, and even the Osbornes. It's honestly popular and quite controversial. Matisyahu ben Avraham 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's third edit. --Carnildo 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Totse has been around for a very long time, and is apart of internet history. The "offending" forum is just one part of totse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.161.169 (talk • contribs) 04:41, Jun 17, 2005
    • User's only two edits to this page. - Taxman Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a well known site which has a lot of interesting information. The information is perhaps shown in a way unlike Wikipedia (would like), but it has lots of rare information and is a useful resource. The article should remain or all articles for online communities should be removed. Stop being petty, just because you don't like the sites users or content has nothing to do with whether it warrants an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.83.62 (talk • contribs) 05:20, Jun 17, 2005
    • User's second edit to this page. - Taxman Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A forum that has been around for longer than many of the users that post on it should have an article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.80.138 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm a Member. Also, it's an interesting and historic site.. It truly is. My exgirlfriend visited it.. I didn't even know she was interested in that kind of web content.. a lot of people go there..--Cyberman 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It has almost no useful information but it has its routes in BBS culture of long ago and therefor deserves an artical of its own perhaps with a link to the Wikipedia page about BBS culture in general. ~ Quantum from Totse—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.237.144 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 Jun 2005
  • Keep Totse stores one of the nets largest collection of text files and has one of the most highly populated communities online. Keep this article ~ Valmont from Totse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.93.139 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 Jun 2005
  • Keep Check it out. Very wide range of useful articles and infomation on lots of topics. It gonna be your loss if its deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 Jun 2005
  • Keep --ShaunMacPherson 18:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 20:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 17:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though short (and one hopes it will grow) it is interesting and informative and tells me about something and some people I do not know about, what more could I want in an article? Francis Davey 21:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete My reasoning is that people are always so quick to vote articles for deletion (most delete votes are over point of view issues) and deleting this one appears to anger everyone at Totse. So, if this article gets deleted, the backlash may cause wikipedia to change its policies on deletions. DyslexicEditor 05:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I never knew what totse stood for and totse forms the backbone of internet free speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.171.194.12 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 — second vote from this IP
  • Keep I don't see how keeping this article about this (by internet standards) ancient and rather interesting forum harms Wikipedia in any way.

(EDIT: whoops, forgot to sign the first time) --Vladtheinhaler 17:14, 23 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 no concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sogamed

1) Nothing links to it. 2) It's not known outside of its fanbase. 3) There's no information here that you wouldn't be able to find on their website, and I can't imagine how it could be expanded to become encyclopedic. edit: you may count this as a "delete/merge" vote Ashibaka (tock) 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge somewhere. Kappa 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At least it doesn't read like an ad, but there is no evidence of notability presented here. --Scimitar 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm working on enhancing a number of the gaming community articles, with Online Gaming Organizations being a hub for most of them. Of course, the hard part is finding sources of information other than each community's own website. If I can't find anything outside, it may be prudent to create another article that talks about the broad of "community" sites and explains the phenomenon. I have to admit to never having heard of SoGamed until I saw it on Wikipedia. I'm not a gaming industry guy or a teen-aged game player, so I am on the outside of most of this, looking in. --Habap 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems notable.Howabout1 Talk to me! 17:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into larger article about gaming news sites. --FCYTravis 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - providing it will be extended. This is a somewhat influential site in the semi-professional gaming community/fanbase. -mrbartjens 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I got a huge article from one of their staff and am trimming it and working to make it NPOV. --Habap 20:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice work, though it reads like "oh look how many cool features this site has" here and there - it's hard to avoid that when writing about sites' functions though. -mrbartjens 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, obscurity is not grounds for removal; it satisfies the "500+ people concurrently interested in the subject" rule at Wikipedia:Importance. Comment: is this vfd over yet? Slike2 22:14, 24 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 merge with Norwood, South Australia. Reasoning is this: If we count the nomination and the bolded votes we find 5 deletes and 1 keep. That is a consensus to delete. Reading the comments however we find two of the delete votes saying that the useful info should be merged with the Norwood article. I will interpret those as merge votes. The GFDL license does not allow merge and delete, so it will have to be merge and redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Bartholomew's Church, Norwood, Adelaide

Should be deleted. (a) Incorrectly titled. (b) Advert not article. (c) Not notable. Cyberjunkie 16:02, 15 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. —Xezbeth 10:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of R rated movies

It is unmaintainable and unencyclopediac. There are a lot of rated R movies and what about the majority of people outside of the United States? Would they know what "Rated R" means? This article doesn't describe it. Chill Pill Bill 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not in the encyclopedia. --Allareequal 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, --MarSch 16:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who is this going to help? Ameri-centricism is just one of a dozen good reasons to delete this list. --Scimitar 16:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What is Ameri-centricism? --Allareequal 16:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case, it means forgetting that not everyone who uses the page is American, so they might not know what "R rated" means. Kappa 17:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, better dealt with by categories. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then what is a better term for R rated? --Allareequal 17:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's a different question- who will use this list? Does it help anyone, or does it exist only as a testament to its own existence? In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that people will come to Wikipedia to search a list of r-rated movies--Scimitar 17:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic.ral315 17:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1) Even if R rated was to exist in for example the United Kingdom, you'd get a total mess with movies that were rated differently in different countries. 2) List is unmaintainable. 3) I won't oppose a category if it's explicitly stated they were rated R in the United States specifically (do all US States use the same ratings?) - Mgm|(talk) 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintanable and not possibly ever complete. --FCYTravis 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This seems transparently untrue, certainly the MPAA knows all the movies that have been rated R. I'm sure this information is around somewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
      • Comment - and it will have to be updated every time someone puts out an R-rated movie. Which is very often. It may be technically maintainable but not practically. --FCYTravis 22:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is a List of NC-17 rated films —Wahoofive (talk) 23:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: - There are so few films ever rated NC-17 that a film so rated is notable for that fact alone. R-rated films, by contrast, are released by the squillions annually. --FCYTravis 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, systemic bias. Radiant_>|< 10:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowing the number of R-rated movies this list would be huge and unmanageable; it gets even more complicated when movie rating systems in other than the U.S. are brought into the picture, some of which have their own R ratings; and this is arguably promoting a POV in favor of the MPAA's rating system by even having such a list. Kaibabsquirrel 23:28, 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. —Xezbeth 10:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of movies that begin with C (and other List pages created by Allareequal

Another useless list from the author of List of R rated movies. This message brought to you by the letter C and the number 86. --Xcali 16:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not in the encyclopedia. --Allareequal 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think he's missing a few. A few thousand, that is. -- BD2412 talk 16:34, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • People can add on to the list. --Allareequal 16:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The point is that the list will be unmanageable - Eberts' movie guide counted about 90,000 movies that have been made as of 2004; about 1/26 will start with "C", so that's almost 3,500 - too many to fit on a page. -- BD2412 talk 16:54, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • This user has also started other useless, misspelled, overly broad, and/or nonsensical lists such as List of Star Wars villians, List of children's movies, List of foods that contain rice, List of Tony Hawk Pro Skater video games (there are only four or five, gee whiz), &c. I vote a strong delete on all of them, and would somebody please explain to the user what Wikipedia Is Not? jglc | t | c 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User has also created List of suspense movies, List of X-Men villains, List of movies with Ghost in the title, List of well known people with the last name Moon, List of fictional captains, List of Star Wars villains.jglc | t | c 17:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User has created List of movies with the word Hero in it (amusingly enough, the only entry on the list is Hero), along with List of comedy movies and List of online auctions (because it was so important to have an entry listing eBay and Yahoo! Auctions). jglc | t | c 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User just created List of movies with New York in the title and List of people named Ghost in video games. jglc | t | c 18:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3,500 C movies won't fit on one page? That is a shame. --Allareequal 16:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to List of films: A-D Kappa 17:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles created by Allareequal (as of now). -R. fiend 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm also wondering if List of karate competitors can be deleted along the same arguments - too broad, a full listing of all persons who have competed in martial arts tournaments would be ridiculous. jglc | t | c 17:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you care so much about my lists? --Allareequal 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Because they do not belong here, and yet you persist in creating redundant, overly specific (or overly broad), and nonsensical lists. jglc | t | c 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you the only person that thinks so? Then why are people voting? --Allareequal 17:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • People are voting to delete your lists. jglc | t | c 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We care because this is an encyclopedia. These lists are pretty much useless and so do not add to Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is not paper, articles can not be too long, and 3500+ movies, (most of which will be unnotable,) will take up too much space. Sonic Mew 17:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • D is for Delete; that's good enough for me. ral315 17:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect is the best bet. --Allareequal 17:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • For what? jglc | t | c 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of movies that begin with C. --Allareequal 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • How about all of your nonencyclopaedic lists get deleted? jglc | t | c 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People got to vote. --Allareequal 18:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't lay off do you? --Allareequal 18:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really, no. And yes, people got to to vote. And we have voted delete! Sonic Mew 18:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't, I don't. jglc | t | c 18:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencylopedic You (Talk) 18:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Helping Wikipedia is not hurting and Helping is what I do. --Allareequal 18:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't helping! Try to understand that. Sonic Mew 18:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Someone give Allareequal a temperary block already before he ties up VfD for the next month. -R. fiend 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'am not trying to tie up VFD. Jasong talked to me about what I'am interested in. --Allareequal 18:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, I had a little chat with Allareequal on his User Talk, and he just recently made a positive contribution to Enter the Matrix. He also created On The Contrary, which seems to be a valid entry, if very stubby. It seems that he is not ill-intentioned, simply a misguided new Wikipedian, and we may have helped fix this... let's wait and see. jglc | t | c 18:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As long as he stops making utterly stupid list pages it's fine with me. -R. fiend 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problems. Raul654 dropped him a line and helped clean up the nonsensical lists, and I'll try to keep helping him out whenever I can. jglc | t | c 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jasong. I hope you will see that I can contribute good information to Wikipedia. I'am very sorry for tieing up vfd. If i can do anything whatsoever to help out please let me know. Thanks again. --Allareequal 18:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stupid list pages? Stupid is not a real word unless you mean it as a slur but anyway I'am not here to make enimies. I'am trying my best. --Allareequal 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Good work jglc and Raul654. I think a few other editors could afford to reread Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. DS1953 19:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, good job. Still delete. --Scimitar 23:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as there's already a list of movies page... and also, I concur with DS1953, we were all newcomers once... I think you guys were a tad harsh. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • While some of us may have been slightly harsh I would like to point out that while, yes, we all were new users once, I sincerely doubt any of the above voters ever behaved like this, particularly after being told numerous times that such behavior was disruptive and not appreciated. He continued to make lists only slightly more viable than List of movies with the words "good", "bad", and "ugly" in the title on one extreme, and List of movies about stuff on the other, as well as making substubs that didn't even contain the most basic information an article requires. Most had to be salvaged by some of us who cleaned them up to make them even minimally viable. I can't speak for the user's intent, not knowing what it is, but keep in mind intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It doesn't get you off the hook entirely. -R. fiend 02:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the movies starting with C and other lists that have no encyclopedic value. List of online auctions looks useful, the others not. Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jonathunder 15:56, 2005 Jun 19 (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 18:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarion village

I can't see any redeeming encyclopedic value. --Hooperbloob 02:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am completing Hooperbloob's nomination. I will leave a note on his talk about this. RJFJR 16:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Schools may be notable, but student residences don't need the same protection. --Scimitar 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Scimitar. Mr Bound 23:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

[edit] Qur'an desecration by US detainees

Yet another limp fork of Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 (see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay). This is part of a binge of creating new articles, renaming the original article again and again and generally messing around with the content, in an apparent attempt to further a POV. --Lee Hunter 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and Redirect to Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 --Irishpunktom\talk 16:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. With or without Jack the Ripper or Adolf Hitler, people commit suicide. Generally, if you kill yourself, that's your own business. But homicide is a different matter. If I were a detainee. I can use my copy of Qu'ran to do whatever I want to do as long as it does not cause any trouble. It is a completely different matter if U.S. military personnels take that copy of Qu'ran from a defenseless and unprotected detainees and do something to it. -- Toytoy 17:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NoPuzzleStranger 17:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Neutralitytalk 18:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or make sure that the main article reflects the truth that most of the abuse of the Qur'an has been by the detainees (terrorists). Otherwise, the article would be nothing more than POV America-bashing and would warrant deletion. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. RickK 05:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no "documentation" of allegedly "documented" accussations. Ejrrjs | What? 06:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as a redirect to Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. NatusRoma 07:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsubstantiated gibberish and POV. Kaibabsquirrel 23:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless there is clear and reliable agreement that reported acts of Qur'an desecration which US detainees are accused of, will go in the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 article. It was only because csloat and toytoy refused to allow this info to be included, that I created the Qur'an desecration by US detainees sidebare article. If there's a merge, then a REDIRECT is better than having 2 articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ed you're misrepresenting what happened on the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 article. Nobody - certainly not I - "refused" to allow this information into the article; my only objection was to making it the focus of the article by emphasizing it in the introduction. The information is in the article as you can verify yourself.--csloat 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article; it appears to have been created simply to prove a point. As noted above, the point itself is based on a misinterpretation of the discussion.
  • Delete -- Viajero | Talk 13:20, 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 18:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Wong

Frequent vandalism brought this page to my attention. "Ben Wong" rugby gets 25 google hits while "Benjamin Wong" rugby gets 15. func(talk) 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, (unless someone can establish notability/verifiability in some other way). func(talk) 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, I couldn't find any evidence for the claims made. Kappa 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 23:38, 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 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 --cesarb 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Painted Whore (formerly (The Painted Whore)

Article is improperly formatted; also, title begins with an open parenthesis "("). Moreover, Google searches for "The Painted Whore" + Sarah, or + "Black Bishop", or any of the other cited characters in the entry come up with 0 hits. This is anonymous IP's first and only contribution. jglc | t | c 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you have to use fixable newbie problems like titles and formatting as reasons for deletion? Anyway, delete for lack of evidence that people would want to look it up. Kappa 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, but I'm just listing facts for people to use as a basis; they can choose to ignore or accept them as foundation for a vote. My reasoning is that having the parenthesis in the title makes it, at the least, highly subject to needing to move to The Painted Whore. jglc | t | c 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Entry has been moved by user to Painted Whore. I still contend that it is nonencyclopaedic and unverified. jglc | t | c 17:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, Painted Whore is a copypaste, not a move. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: My mistake. You are perfectly correct. jglc | t | c 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Fudge. And they've edited it too. Well, forget about merging page histories or fixing it up. Ambush Commander 17:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've merged the page history using temporary deletion and restoration. It's all at Painted Whore now. - Mgm|(talk) 18:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • MgM, are you going to create a new VfD page, or ought I to redirect the current link to this VfD talk page? jglc | t | c 18:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There being no Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Painted_Whore yet, I redirected the link on Painted Whore to point to this discussion. jglc | t | c 18:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I forgot to do that. Sorry. Mgm|(talk) 20:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem; it's taken care of, either way. jglc | t | c 20:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no apparent Google hits, not listed on Amazon.com, probably not encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kappa, including noting that formatting, title, and anonymity of contributor are all irrelevant to VfD and should not be used as foundations for a vote. -- Jonel | Speak 03:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: My mistake. I'll keep that in mind; shouldn't jump on newbies. My apologies, all. jglc | t | c 05:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep 'JoJo 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
    • JoJo only has 47 edits. Half of them are on other articles (the other half are... VfD. Whaddya suspect?) Two welcome notices, which are points for JoJo, but also a warning against vandalism. Ambush Commander 14:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • And the pages this user has editted are all up for deletion, btw. --Etacar11 14:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CzechPartisan Have you guys ever heard of Underground Publishing???
    • Note: CzechPartisan has 5 edits, all of them in the VfD section. Suspect Sock puppetry. Ambush Commander 14:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • And note: Even if the work in question was published by an underground company, it would still have to be notable in order to warrant inclusion. jglc | t | c 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 203.54.191.128 We should always encourage fringe art. Isn't that the essence of an open source medium, to be inclusive.
    • Anonymous IPs aren't allowed to vote Ambush Commander 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Where does it say that? Kappa 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Anonymous IP's are not allowed to vote; they are, however, allowed to contribute their comments for consideration. jglc | t | c 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. The actions of longhair et al violate the principle of equality that pervades the essence of open source philosophy. Discrimination is wrong. Jamesss
    • Note: Jamesss has 25 edits, 24 of them all in VfD and one on his user talk page. Suspect Sock puppetry. Ambush Commander 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fictitious fiction. --Habap 15:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not everything is on google you know. Keep- 'Freezer 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • KeepI'll side with that logic, need more proof than lack of google searchability and so on. Perhaps someone could mail the book distributors? Or ask for more info? Of course, you'll need to unblock the creators for that to work... 'TagTeam 10:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
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. —Xezbeth 10:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Andersson

Non-notable and encyclopedic. Now, I grant that this man is holding a very big fish. His appearance also suggests that he resides in the area of the North Sea. But we've no way of knowing if this is the Johan Andersson, and the article gives us little guidance in this manner. Therefore, delete. Mackensen (talk) 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This Johan sounds great, a cult PC game programmer and a Cult fisherman. He may be holding a Big Fish, but I don't really think he is one. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure he's a very nice man who catches very nice fish, but no. Madame Sosostris 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I will reconsider my vote if he tells me where he caught that. --Scimitar 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete GIS reveals that the photo's probably copyvio too: [16] ral315 17:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Cult status", eh? But apparently it hasn't spread very far. Sonic Mew 18:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity + picture. --Etacar11 23:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page was created just to prevent a content move in case the verdict on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Johan was to move to here. I was tempted to VfD it immediately, but I didn't want to VfD in anger. -- Grev -- Talk 04:27, 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 delete. One of the merge voters even said delete if nothing is worth merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardwell Hall

Entry for one obscure building on Kansas State University's campus. If we're going to start listing universities by building... things are going to get ugly. jglc | t | c 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Relatively unknown building, and a 1-sentence entry. Delete. ral315 17:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I could live with a merge to the university, if there aren't other Cardwell Halls of note. -R. fiend 17:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt very much whether anyone would search for Kansas State's maths and physics departments by the building they are in. Average Earthman 17:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the university page if there's anything worth merging. Otherwise, delete. --FCYTravis 19:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kansas State University. JamesBurns 07:24, 16 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. —Xezbeth 10:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Schmitz

Utterly non-notable secondary school teacher. Entire article is "He was a Hayfield Secondary School U.S. History teacher. He had a 92.1 % passing rate for Virginia SOL and Ph.D in History from American University." For potential personal attack, vanity, and certain non-notability, Delete. jglc | t | c 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Looking at who created it, it seems apparant vanity. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly not warranted as an article. Average Earthman 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite being "unequivocally regarded as one of, if not the greatest, historian of all time", he has only one fan. Not sure if it is him, his wife or a student who badly needs to pass history this spring. --Habap 19:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 23:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Sounds like someone is kissing up. --Etacar11 23:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Fuk you , uu'll pay for deleting Raymond Millones!!!--64.229.92.23 01:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Within 14 minutes, this anon managed to contribute eight times to various VfD votes, each time voting to keep an obvious joke entry. jglc | t | c 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "He is unequivocally regarded as one of, if not the greatest, historian of all time." would have made John Schmitz notable, but it's unverifiable. (To make a long story short: Vanity, not notable) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no references for being the greatest historian of all time. Alphax τεχ 09:25, 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. —Xezbeth 10:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Declan James McMahon

The only reason why he even has an entry is because he is the one-year old grandson of Vince McMahon. Has he done anything else? ErikNY 18:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a geneaology page, even for famous people.--Scimitar 19:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Scimitar. --FCYTravis 19:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete genealogy. JamesBurns 23:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until he's notable on his own. --Etacar11 23:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Walt Disney's grandma a week ago or so. jglc | t | c 15:24, 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 NO CONSENSUS, defaulting to keep - only one vote cast. -- Jonel | Speak 07:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adversity

current entry is not much more than a dictionary entry, and it already exists in Wikictionary...I would support this entry if more were added to it, something talking about different kinds of adversity, but I simply don't have time, and I'm not sure if it would work anyway. As the somewhat reluctant nominator, I abstain from this vote. StopTheFiling 18:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment VFD is crowded enough already without uncertain nominations.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, assuming that this is already in Wikitionary. This is merely a definition and I fail to see how this could be crafted into an article- it's far too general a topic.--M412k 23:47, 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 18:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aayona Allison

Vanity, thy name is Aayona Allison. Kelly Martin 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this would probably qualify for speedy delete too. Deus Ex 18:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. DS1953 19:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So yeah, delete. Bye. -- llywrch 19:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Arbiteroftruth 12:28, 15 Jun 2005 (MST)
  • Delete kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 00:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Don'ta you dare!! She' be a fine ho too.--64.229.92.23 01:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the most excruciating example of the failure of our speedy delete/vfd split. If this isn't a speedy (according to ignore all rules, that is using common sense), I don't know what is. --MarSch 11:02, 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 18:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ara Baliozian

Appears to be a blog entry. Kelly Martin 18:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Deus Ex 18:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Your guess is as good as mine, Kelly. -- llywrch 19:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for same reason as stated above, in addition to Copyvio [17] ∫eb²+1[talk] 22:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • I missed the copyvio; I suspected it might be one but could not find it. Good catch, Sebbe. Kelly Martin 18:52, 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 NO CONSENSUS; therefore, merging. -- Jonel | Speak 07:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Kupchella

I don't believe she is really that notable.. --Hooperbloob 08:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This nomination was not completed (step 3 missing), I have completed this nowRJFJR 18:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, maybe she'll run for office someday or something, but right now she's just a cancer-surviving college president's wife, which is great but not very notable. StopTheFiling 18:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for same reasons as above. Deus Ex 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. There's a fact or two worth saving in Charles Kupchella, the article about her husband -- which is the only article that links to this one. -- llywrch 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete redirect. Mr Bound 23:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Charles Kupchella. JamesBurns 23:35, 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 keep. Kelly Martin 19:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Snowdon

Professorial vanity. Kelly Martin 18:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to correctly capitalized page. Dr. Snowdon is a leading scholar on aging. He is the founder of the Nun Study, a seminal long term study on the effects of aging. He is the keynote speaker at the upcoming "Issues in Aging Medical Congress" [18]. DS1953 19:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DS1953. leading scholars are notable. Maybe do a rewrite? - Mgm|(talk) 19:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to David Snowdon, keep and expand. Notable authority on aging. JamesBurns 23:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Moved. --FCYTravis 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General purpose computer

Nothing really notable in the article that we don't already know. --Hooperbloob 03:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Incompletely nominated (step 3 missing) May 28th. Finished now.RJFJR 18:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Would this serve as a good redirect to computer or some other article? Meelar (talk) 19:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a notable term - nor even one that is in use, surely. Those who do telecomms will be offended that such garbage is attributed to their field! Also, it doesn't appear on the Federal Standard 1037C page, which gets the blame for many substandard technical articles. Further, that page says "insubstantial articles ... should not be copied into Wikipedia", which doesn't qualify as a policy, but still. I don't think there's much point in a redirect, either - else we'll end up redirecting small computer, big computer and my sister's computer too - none of which will be searched for any more than this one will.-Splash 20:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical reasons, and expand. Once upon a time general purpose computers were not taken for granted. This definition (which is attributed in the article to Federal Standard 1037C) dates from the 1950s when, for instance, floating point units were the exception and computers intended for use in business often used hard-coded binary coded decimal logic. The definition here represents a computer that would be fit for both scientific and business applications. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Agree with Tony Sidaway. JamesBurns 23:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this still is a term in use! Its usage is now more towards CPUs specifically, but it still has wide use. Search not only google, but google news. [19] when the term was used to compare against the xbox. SchmuckyTheCat 04:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, for historical reference if nothing else. Was once a significant term in computing. Kaibabsquirrel 23:34, 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. —Xezbeth 10:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gruesome Bruce

Band vanity. Kelly Martin 18:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 11 google hits. Non-verifiable. func(talk) 18:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Srcrowl 19:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would this be dubbed bandcruft? Mr Bound 23:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 23:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:02, 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 keep. —Xezbeth 10:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingsway Hall

Listed for speedy, but not a speedy candidate--about some sort of music hall in London. No vote from me. Meelar (talk) 18:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep A quick search for "Kingsway Hall" + Music shows that it was a widely used concert venue, and the location of many classical recordings. Looks like a valid stub to me. Leithp 19:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Leithp. -- Jonel | Speak 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This was an important venue. CalJW 05:44, 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 18:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karli Sacharowitz

Speedy Delete Not notable, nonsense, verified this person was not runner up in 1912 Tour De France, only 1 entry in Google. Srcrowl 19:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as hoax. I'm trusting your research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than the article claims, "she" is not remembered in Austria. Furthermore, "Karli" is not a female name, but a male name (diminutive for Karl). Martg76 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        --- RESPONSE: Are you kidding???? So is Carly also "diminutive for Karl"? Nonsense, Karli is a girl's name. There was an Austrian Karli cyclist too, guys!
  • Delete unverified, possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:04, 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 Already merged. Golbez 18:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micro ATX

Merge/Delete Duplicate, already defined at MicroATX. Srcrowl 19:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This should not be on VfD. Just merge the content (if needed; I see nothing on this page that is not already at MicroATX), and then make this page a redirect page to MicroATX so that this won't happen again. - DS1953 19:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and was bold in redirecting. --FCYTravis 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, I guess I'm still learning on being bold, I apologize for the misconception. Srcrowl 20:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, takes a little time to get the hang of things. Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. --FCYTravis 23:10, 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. —Xezbeth 10:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yertle the Turtle

This article is not notable and does not deserve its own page. please Delete. freestylefrappe 19:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep--famous children's book. Meelar (talk) 19:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- famous children's book. - Longhair | Talk 19:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--famous children's book. Jagvar 19:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a somewhat notable book by a notable author, published by a notable publisher. At worst it is obscure; definitely deserving of its own article. Wikiacc 19:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepGzuckier 20:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Book by Dr Suess a famous author.NSR 20:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but in desperate need of expansion. If people can't write more than this about a book they shouldn't bother at all. -R. fiend 20:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, but expand. Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, keep and expand. Mgm|(talk) 21:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 69.208.78.119 21:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all published books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable children's book by notable author.
  • Keep but expand as noted 23skidoo 00:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dr Seuss books are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable book by notable author. Alphax τεχ 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not like green eggs and ham // but cast a keep vote, they're not spam. Radiant_>|< 10:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Dr. Seuss' works are pretty much all notable. jglc | t | c 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per jasonglchu, but expand. --Adun 05:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notible as a book, and Suess is important to pop culture in general Saswann 13:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, his books are very much notable. DHN 09:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It's one of Dr. Suess' notable works. --FuriousFreddy 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 18:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garalow

Neologism; zero google hits. —Xezbeth 20:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No worthy article, no matter how obscure the topic, gets zero google hits. Vanity neologism. func(talk) 20:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. It also gets no points for misspelling portmanteau. Mr Bound 23:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 23:30, 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. —Xezbeth 10:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast belgique

This submission does not seem to be notable, nor to have encyclopedic potential. Physchim62 20:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Apart from being non-encyclopedic and non-notable, it is also largely an ad/vanity page.-Splash 20:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had this on my todo list a while back, but I guess I never got around to doing it. This definitely doesn't belong in any wikipedia (if the content is as I assume it is), much less in the English wikipedia. jglc | t | c 20:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. JamesBurns 23:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - not even a single Google hit. Blackcats 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Supprimez-- err, delete. Non-notable, advertising. — Ливай | ☺ 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ne,nn,ad Lectonar 09:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 16:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 10:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bike ballet

Hmm... I don't know if this is notable enough -- and as it is now, it is a pure ad. No vote. -- Marcika 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Google returned 229 results. ["San Francisco Bicycle Ballet") - Mailer Diablo 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy ad. Probably copyvio, too. --Xcali 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. Bizarre. Mr Bound 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 23:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 18:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Lee

Likely vanity. Only claims to notability are "bit" roles in three films, but Internet Movie Database doesn't list her in any of them. (IMDB lists five Melissa Lees, but not this one.) Actors with only insignificant credits are not notable. MysteryDog 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Just being an actor in the very broadest sense of the word does not make one notable. Uncredited roles don't clear the bar. -R. fiend 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per R. fiend. DS1953 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I may well be one of the most inclusionist voters when it comes to actors, as I generally believe that an IMDB entry should equal a WP entry. However, this one is way too non-notable even for me. Might even be a hoax, as it's hard to imagine anyone behaving like a "diva" whilst cast as an extra(!) Even if we swallow the whole thing, though, it's still non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be very hesitant to make the claim that an IMDb entry should equal a WP entry. IMDb has no rules against self-promotion as we do, and they really will list just about anyone. I don't know if your criteria extends beyond actors to Key Grips, Gaffers, 3rd Assistant editors and the like, but if it does I'd encourage you to think about this policy of yours, especially when we consider the B and C grade films that are made and sold straight to DVD on the interent these days. -R. fiend 02:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • While I doubt that anyone is exactly hurrying to write an article on some guy who was second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western, I don't see why WP couldn't or shouldn't include such an article if someone was willing to write it. The obvious question would be: why bother to waste time duplicating info that's already on the IMDB? The answer to that is simple: the IMDB is not open information. It's riddled with ads, including incredibly-intrusive Flash ads, and some of it already requires a paid account to access. The information needs to be freed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • I can think of one person who might be anxious to write an article on the second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western, and that's the second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western. We've had problems with people using IMDb to justify wikipedia vanity articles before, and I'm not anxious to encourage it. IMDb basically promotes vanity, and if we mirror them then we are promoting vanity as well, which I am loath to do. While actors, based on their prominent physical appearance in films and our culture's obesession with celebrity, are generally much more notable than people of equivalent ability in other professions, I hardly think anyone in any way associated with a movie is. Have you been to a film recently? Have you seen how long it takes all the credits to scroll across the screen at the end? Is every one of those names in every single movie worthy of an encyclopedia article? Even actors, I would say, should have a substantial role or two in a film/TV show (and by substantial I don't mean "leading" or even "major", but something better than an extra/nonspeaking/uncredited role or "Man in cab line #4"). Wikipedia and IMDb serve different (but overlapping) purposes, and wikipedia should not try to be IMDb. They will always be a better film database than we are, but we will always be a better encyclopedia. -R. fiend 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • In addition can you honestly say these people, for example, should have wikipedia articles? [20] [21] [22] -R. fiend 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because if we kept it, I would deserve an article as a politician. --Scimitar 21:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Xcali 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, unverified claims. --Etacar11 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- clever vanity. MPS 17:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 10:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Banks

Too working class 62.253.96.42 20:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Author's Comment, not valid reason for deletion. I believe that it is a valid bio article under Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies points 4 and 5. Maybe excessively crufty on detail but its marked as stub for other details to be added. --TimPope 20:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since when is "working class" a deletion criteria? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The irony is anonymous user 62.253.96.42 created an album article by The Animals - a band made up of working class Geordies. JamesBurns 23:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough. DS1953 21:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimPope. --Scimitar 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimPope. --Xcali 21:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - no valid reason given for deletion. -- BD2412 talk 22:00, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Invalid and POV reason for deletion. Notable actor. 23skidoo 00:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nominator is a vandal who has just been blocked for multiple vandalisms and personal attacks. RickK 05:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion of this article of a notable actor has been given. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nominated by known vandal. Alphax τεχ 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: nominator is both anonIP and in bad faith. jglc | t | c 15:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: no reason for deletion, subject is notable as part of Doctor Who. Hammersfan 18:36, 20 Jun 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marilu mercalina

Seven hits for this name on Google, none of which are relevant. This strikes me as unencyclopedic, since this person is clearly non-notable. -- claviola (talk to me)

  • Agree, delete--no Allmusic either. Meelar (talk) 20:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 22:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:36, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IVDiffusion

Band vanity. Google [23] never heard of them. Delete. -- Marcika 21:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Good advice: take that unique sound to a record label, get a little more exposure, then come back. Until that happens- delete--Scimitar 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria at all. Tobycat 06:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)\
  • Delete Gutsy but misguided. Lomedae 12:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Friday 20:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the Troops

Local "grassroots" organization against supporting the US military, but Google [24] hasn't heard of it. Delete - Marcika 21:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agree --Xcali 21:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE THIS LIBERAL CRAP RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!

  • Delete - non-notable. --FCYTravis 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not exactly "liberal crap" since most liberals (along with Libertarians and Constitutionalists) are focused on bringing troops home. More likely anarchists looking to stir chaos. -- BD2412 talk 21:57, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because this is "liberal crap"- I agree with it to a certain extent- but because its not anything approaching an encyclopedia article. It's one mans soapbox.
  • Delete Inherently POV, non-notable, and a whole lot of other good reasons. --Scimitar 22:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article offends me on so many levels.--EatAlbertaBeef 22:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a bad parody of an antiwar organization, at best --Myself 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Though I'd love to vote keep because in a thoroughly militaristic, jingoistic society like America he just has to have the biggest balls to come up with a slogan like that. My preferred slogan for this kind of situation comes from that old anti-war heroine Lizzie Strata: Don't fuck the troops! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - From the iMDB article about the film - "All actors perform naked. This was due not simply to the budget being too small to accommodate the appropriate costumes and regalia...". Excellent reference, by the way. -- Jonel | Speak 04:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Lysistrata is one hell of a funny play. Get to see it if you can. 2500 years old and it's still got em rolling in the aisles. Hey, maybe we should change our votes to "redirect to Lysistrata". :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Awww the article wasn't about what I thought it was going to be about. *Pouts* Well, delete it anyway, not because it's liberal because, well, I am, but because it's non-notable. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not etsbalished. JamesBurns 23:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified, then keep. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. -- Jonel | Speak 04:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-verifiable, (although I am tempted to vote keep just to piss off the childish anon whose caps lock key is down). func(talk) 04:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto. Nestea 11:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Hoax. Not-notable. Offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 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. jni 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William "BA" Andrews

Appears to be a local surfer, but Googling brought up fewer than 600 hits and nothing that appears to be credibly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm local, and I haven't heard of him. --Xcali 21:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 22:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, unverified. --Etacar11 00:40, 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 keep. —Xezbeth 10:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with numbers in the title

How is this encyclopedic? How is this managable? It seems to me that this is the list equivalent of a dicdef. --Xcali 21:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - unencyclopedic and hopelessly impossible to maintain, given the number of songs ever recorded. --FCYTravis 22:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good list. Kappa 03:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (OMG, Kappa, you and I agree on something}. We have lots of "List of songs ..." articles. RickK 05:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Yes, we have lots of such articles, but some of them have a point and this one does not. Radiant_>|< 10:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant list of otherwise unconnected items - Skysmith 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I would never have thought to write such an article, but it's pretty interesting if you read it, plus well-written in an encyclopaedic manner. WINP. jglc | t | c 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: what I really meant was "Is something this obvious really encyclopedic?" Just by looking at a song title, someone would know if it has numbers in it. How does this list help? Also, just because we have lots of something, doesn't necessarily mean we should keep them around. A kitchen may have a lot of mice, but you still try to get rid of each one when it pops its head up. --Xcali 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep, good list. --ShaunMacPherson 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not doing any harm. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:08, 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 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 --cesarb 15:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William A. Donohue

Delete. The entire contents of this page are already contained in Catholic League (US), the only page which links to this page. If this is all that's notable about the fellow, he can be covered on the Catholic League page and not need a page of his own qitaana 22:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 22:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, content duplication. JamesBurns 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - well-known in the "hateful bigots" sub-culture. Was one of the main speakers in the "Justice Sunday" anti-filibuster event. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable American conservative commentator. The different forms of his name combine for tens of thousands of Google hits. NatusRoma 04:34, 16 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 no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinatowns in the Middle East

I added the vfd tag to this page because the two case examples, Tel Aviv and Dubai, seem to be unverifiable. There is no clear evidence that there is a single Chinatown in the Middle East. While there might actually be one, this page contribute no encyclopedia-worthy information. freestylefrappe 19:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


I am completing the nomination begun by Freestylefrappe.RJFJR 22:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • The supplied link gives some evidence of a Chinatown in Dubai (which is hardly surprising as Dubai is a truly cosmopolitan city), not sure about the Tel Aviv one. Anyway, any verified information can be merged into the Chinatown article and included in the List of Chinatowns, as this article gives no real information beyond the fact that they (supposedly) exist. -R. fiend 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Interesting article that's part of a Chinatowns in _____ series. I will try to contribute towards improving the article. -ÅfÇ++ 03:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I doubt that an article as in depth and informative as the other Chinatowns in ___ articles. I don't believe that there are any other Chinatowns in the Middle East and an initial search for information on the Tel Aviv Chinatown is proving difficult. I suggest treating Dubai Chinatown as its own article much like other Dubai developments (Palm Islands, The World (archipelago), Burj Dubai, Dubai Land) -ÅfÇ++ 05:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep if there are none. This article is here as part of the series from the {{chinatown}} template. If this article is deleted, the template should also be changed. Or maybe update the template and then Delete this article. Vegaswikian 06:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:17, 16 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 18:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arash Sarai

Apparent vanity and/or hoax. This purported expert in string theory draws only one Google hit, and was apparently working on his A-levels in physics back in 2000. Delete unless notability is independently confirmed. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with Ten, delete unless notability is confirmed. Mr Bound 22:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent nn vanity, nothing comes up on physics journal search [25] --Etacar11 00:44, 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 KEEP. Golbez 18:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saltshaker

Nonsense dic def, delete --nixie 22:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Since this is a widely used and understood term, I vote the definition be maintained. Furthermore, while it may be seen as slang, it cannot be seen as pejoritive or derogitory, hence its standing is sound. Maintain -- Barrettmagic 22:52, 2005 Jun 15 (according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
  • Delete. Neologism? Mr Bound 22:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Challenge Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for nonsense (IE - total, completely and irremediably confused, patented, poorly written, patisan, religious, flame bait, obscene, vandalism, non-native, hoaxes or fictional) User: Barrettmagic (actually 137.69.85.36 23:03, 2005 Jun 15 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
    • Sure, it may not be "patent nonsense" in the official Wikipedia definition of it, but I think "nonsense" here is being used in its everyday meaning instead, especially considering the fact that patent nonsense is usually nominated for speedy deletion. But just because something isn't patent nonsense doesn't mean the article should be kept. — Ливай | ☺ 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speculative etymology. No merge candidates. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, most of the "saltshaker" links I get on Google are to Christian sites, so it appears to be a term of some religious significance. The usage in question, while potentially existing, does not appear to be in widespread use. --FCYTravis 23:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) - keep as rewritten.
  • Delete. The slang definitions of the word that I could find include a variety of sexual topics, but like a lot of slang neologisms it seems to have widely divergent meanings depending on who is using it. And like all poorly-defined slang neologisms, it probably doesn't belong here in the Wikipedia. I doubt it is "widely used and understood" based on this and the fact that I have never heard it in my life. — Ливай | ☺ 23:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Change of vote: Keep rewritten article. Very nice job! — Ливай | ☺ 02:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain 'have never heard it in my life' - isnt that what wikipedia is all about? to learn and grow? Besides it has no christian connection - I'm a heathen. For more information on the term, please visit www.myassismygift.com Barrettmagic 23:15, 2005 Jun 15 (according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
    • Well, if you want to claim that it is widely used and understood I would like to see some evidence of that. The fact that I have never heard it used (and that nobody else has said that they have heard it) is evidence that it is not widely used or understood, as is the fact that it is not listed in the Urban Dictionary and the fact that I cannot find any instance of the word being used as such on Google. Wikipedia is about learning about the world at large, not about learning slang terms used among a group of friends somewhere. — Ливай | ☺ 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • please visit www.myassismygift.com — since that redirects to http://www.barrettmagic.com/, and since you are User:Barrettmagic, you are apparently citing yourself as a source, providing no verifiability at all. isnt that what wikipedia is all about? — Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It isn't about promoting made-up slang definitions for words. This is for several reasons:
      • Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. Definitions of words are not what we do here in the first place. They are Wiktionary's job. Wiktionary doesn't accept made-up definitions for words, either, though. It documents how words have been and are actually used in practice, not new meanings of words or newly coined words that people don't (yet) use. If you want to promote slang definitions that you have made up, you are in completely the wrong place. Go to Urban Dictionary. That's what they do there. If your slang word catches on and enters widespread, independent, use, then it becomes eligible for Wiktionary.
    • Uncle G 01:01, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete in the current state, its a more of a Dicdef and therefore cannot be expanded too much. Also, wikipedia is not a slang/idiom guide (or neologism in this case) see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Either re-direct to salt (if impossible to make greater than a stub) or keep if possible. Georgia guy 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would support keeping a "real" article on saltshakers though, they're a notable genre of collectable item. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Georgia guy has provided a rewritten article about saltshakers, the containers for salt that one finds on dining tables — what I expected the article to be about when I saw the title, to be honest. Uncle G 00:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • This isn't the boat hire company (which is just another company, it seems), the Australian conservation project, or the musician (who might not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, in any case). Redirect to salt shaker, unless someone writes about the Australian conservation project, which seems to be significant. Uncle G 01:01, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • ... as someone just has. ☺ Rewritten article again. Uncle G 01:28, 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. —Xezbeth 10:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems

Reads far too much like a conversation for my liking. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also could be considered original research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and needs a very serious cleanup. Good stuff but is presented as a debate between anonymous fans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The author is not using WP as a soapbox in this case mostly. Were it not for the extensive information in this article, I would have suggested a merge to Star Trek: Enterprise, but the article contains much substantial information and issues. However, the article definitely must be made into an actual article, not a debate.--M412k 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep By fully covering rebuttals for each point, this is a pretty good way to present such an article fairly and in a relatively NPOV format. While I do think this should be kept, I hope we're not showing a "nerd" bias here. I would imagine, for example, that a similar article collecting inconsistencies between the Pokemon anime and games would probably be deleted as "cruft". My point, friends, is that if we keep this article, we're setting a precedent or a "bar"... let's not forget that fact in future VfDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although as a regular editor of the page in question I'll understand if my vote is discounted. As Andrew says above, attempts are made to keep this as balanced as possible, and the reason this page exists is because when it was originally part of the original article on Enterprise it was weighing things down. Now that the show is cancelled and the debates for and against the series are going to eventually fade away, this article can no doubt be shortened. It certainly does need to be trimmed regularly for NPOV. But I think it's a worthy article because it discusses what was (and still is) a hot topic in the science fiction community. Tone Sidaway's comment about it being a debate format is well taken as this is indeed the intent of the article initially because it was felt this was the easiest way of organizing opposing viewpoints (while reducing the possibility of vandalism or POV rants being added). But, the time is right to reformat and reorganize the article. PS. I see someone just added a cleanup tag to the article. Isn't this overkill? One would assume a VFD tag is by definition a cleanup request. 23skidoo 00:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • From early votes, it seems fairly likely that it will be a keep consensus. It is possible that the vfd notice will be removed before the clean-up is complete. Sorry if I have offended you, remove it if you like. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What most concerns me is the lack of references. As it stands it could be interpreted as original research, with fans using Wikipedia to enter their own personal findings of apparent continuity problems. This is not permitted on Wikipedia. If some of these points and rebuttals are covered elsewhere, in one or more sources doesn't matter, then during cleanup those points should be retained and the references explicitly included. Points that just seem self-evident to the editor--no matter how obviously correct they are--should not be included if he can find no reasonable, citable source for them. Editors wanting to do that kind of work should take it to an appropriate fan forum and then maybe some other party will think the report notable enough to cite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but in need of a serious cleanup. Fairly well written article. JamesBurns 07:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Star Trek: Enterprise continuity. Radiant_>|< 10:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a good article, just needs a cleanup RussellG 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. First of all, any of the major continuity problems that aren't notable enough to be mentioned in the main entperise article are fancruft. Second of all, this genre of article strongly implies original research, and if its kept I will delete any addition to the article if it is not accompianed by a refrence. The debate format makes it even worse because in the popular discussion (ie. the external to wikipedia discussions) its possible that many points will not have a counter point making any wikipedians attempt at a counterpoint necessarily a forbidden original research.
  • Keep I agree that the format needs to be changed for conformity's sake, but some echo of the point-counterpoint current format should be retained. And, in response to the last voter, I don't see anything that is truly original research, and there is nothing wrong with simply noting that some alleged continuity questions remain unanswered. I think you're jumping the gun here in assuming the worst of people who might add new points. Isn't faith in fellow users supposed to pervade this place? June 19, 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the 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, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirjava

A question of notability. Kirjava + His Dark Materials gives 350 Google hits [26]. Orphan article - nothing links to it. JamesBurns 23:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Will Parry, background material on a major character from a notable series of childrens books. (which I loath) -- pcrtalk 01:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Will Parry article essentially has this information. Megan1967 06:01, 21 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. jni 09:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warren "Foon" Overman

Apparent Vanity and/or gibberish Irishpunktom\talk 23:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep a legend--alt.surfing

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. —Xezbeth 10:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pink Swastika

Non-notable e-book publication with 906 Google hits. FCYTravis 23:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as JamesBurns. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Axon 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 18:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyball

This seems to be a hoax; no such game, and the description is both vague and absurd. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep; seems like a real sport and is well-written. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, it doesn't make much sense, but it could be a sport in a videogame or computer game. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense, a gamer's vanity page. Skyball actually gets about 10,600 google hits, but none look releated, and nothing significant comes up for Mario Arru, Mauro's Algorithm, etc. Why don't these kids get their own yahoo or livejournal page? func(talk) 00:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax/original essay. --Xcali 05:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 07:13, 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 MERGE. -- Jonel | Speak 08:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benny Thurman

Not noatable enough. Almost all Google hits of him just are things of his name in a list of people in a band. ---User:Hottentot

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.