Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 26 June 28 >

Contents

[edit] June 27

This is the old name for Template:Cent.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Move to Division Street (Chicago). Hedley 3 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

[edit] Division Street

Should be deleted Bumm13 00:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Article lacks coherent point and is potentially confusing, as it refers generically to a street name used in many places.
  • Keep, article established notability. Kappa 00:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Division Street (Chicago): also article needs to distinguish more clearly the street as a geographical reference, and Division Street in Folklore. Peter Grey 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by author:

This is utter nonsense. The article briefly gives the social history of a well-known location in a major US city, which has become a well known part of American folklore ever since the release of a very well known American film. While the subject matter - a less than completely respectable part of Chicago, the article is, itself, devoid of material of prurient interest, merely referring to improper behavior without giving any specifics which would raise it above a PG rating.

I would point out that the city that I'm speaking of is clearly specified, as is the cultural context of the reference, and that those who wish to speak of Division Streets in other cities would, in no way, be hindered from entering mentions of those other streets in the article. I trust that our would-be censor is aware of the fact that this is a wiki, and that there are means in place by which the casual user may create sections within an article? So what, exactly, is the issue?

  • Comment - if it's a notable subject, which I can't judge from the piece, it needs a rewrite; otherwise delete jamesgibbon 00:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, this article does seem to establish notability, though it could use some cleanup. My vote has nothing whatever to do with the author's somewhat personal comments above. -Splash 01:48, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've made some attempt to clean the piece up, which resulted in it getting quite a bit shorter. --Dcfleck 02:00, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)


_________________________________________________________________


Response to Splash:

I wouldn't be surprised at all, if this article could benefit from some cleanup. At the time Bumm13 decided to try to get it deleted, it was all of three minutes old, and was a first draft. I haven't had a chance to refine the writing, because I've had to deal with this.

Whether there will be any point to bothering to do cleanup, in this case, has yet to be seen. -- "the noneditor"


Response to Dcfleck:

Nicely tightened. There was one small typo I fixed (you left the phrase "many of bars"; I think that you meant to stick a "the" in there). Oh, and David Mamet is a major playwrite, so I think that one should leave the mention of authorship. The movie was based on the play "Sexual Perversity in Chicago", with a major rewrite of the ending, the film being given a much more upbeat closure than was seen in the stage production.

  • Delete, the bar may be notable, the street isn't. --W(t) 04:34, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

Comment Cripes. -EDM 05:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The street is notable. For years it was synonymous with the young singles scene in Chicago. The article needs work, but that's what the concept of a wiki is. DS1953 28 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)
  • Redirect, if it's true that the only notable part mentioned is the bar, the page should be focused to just be the bar. If there are lots of other notable things on division street, then how about making pages for all of them and the creating a category of notable things on division street in Chicago? Sirmob 28 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)
    • Keep. Categories are useless for this sort of thing. For a start, they only list things in alphabetical order. An article could, for example, cover the most important features first, and list the rest equally in geographical order going along the street from one end to the other. Also categories are only useful for things that already have whole articles of their own. They're no good for semi-notable items that are only important enough to be mentioned in a list or general article like this one, but not notable enough for their own articles. You'd have to create a List of semi-notable places on Division Street and add it to the category, which is getting just plain silly. Categories should only ever be used as a very last resort since they're never the best way of doing things. And it seems silly to create one now, when we've already got an article that could do a much better job. — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 11:44 (UTC)
  • Division Street (Chicago) is one good solution. We have 42nd Street--Wetman 28 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable, I don't think it's fair to call for deletion 1 min after an article is created. RustyCale 28 June 2005 11:29 (UTC)
  • Redirect to "Division Street (Chicago)" or some such. -- Dominus 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bar may be notable, but that doesn't mean the street it's on is. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)
  • Keep possible future cleanup candidate. The name of the street is/was, indeed, shorthand for the notable "scene" as described here. I'd have no problem with a rename as Wetman et al. suggest. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
  • Move as above and DAB at this page. Vegaswikian 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this article.
  • Move to Division Street (Chicago) and dab. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with 438 Squadron, 143 Wing, RCAF, then delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Burden, RCAF

Biography of a nonnotable person. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rocky 00:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed jamesgibbon 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable with no relevant Google hits, and WP:NOT a memorial. -Splash 02:20, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Disagree about the Google hits, he is the third hit. Notable, was featured in Star Weekly and local newspapers during the war. Disclaimer, I am the author of the page, and was planning to add the other officers in 143 Wing. AlexH 03:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Please don't, individual servicemen aren't notable unless they've somehow made themselves notable. — Phil Welch 05:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn — Phil Welch 05:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the verifiable and NPOV facts into 438 Squadron, 143 Wing, RCAF. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable person.--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:28 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The article, as such, is fairly trivial, but I'll wait to see if the author can add notability (what exactly DID he do during the War?). --Calton | Talk 28 June 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • Delete very weak article
  • Strong Merge - I totally agree with DoubleBlue Sirmob 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • Merge per DoubleBlue. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:01 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

[edit] Booshka

Nonnotable neologism. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, delete, delete. Neologisms suck. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:26, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rocky 00:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; although in principle I think it would be OK if it were more worthy of note jamesgibbon 00:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteZpb52 00:58, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Natalinasmpf 01:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. -Splash 02:22, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trans Could it be moved over to Wiktionary, or any other wiki that would takes slang? Sometimes non-notable things may still have their place. Someone would say that I am non-notable but I am still here. Jaberwocky6669 03:41, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary takes slang that meets the Wiktionary:criteria for inclusion, and is attested independently of its creators. This is just a group of university students making up a word. The "spreading to other states" is where they all went home. Uncle G June 28, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
  • Booshka! (er, delete). — Phil Welch 05:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Non-encyclopedic garbage. Abolute Booshka!--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:28 (UTC)
  • Delete/Move put it in the deleted nonsens page where it belongs Zarutian 29 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

[edit] Milmink Street

It appears to me to be a vanity page, written by a resident of the street, while most other Toronto entries have merit as major roads or for cultural or historical reasons such as Degrassi Street. Spmarshall42 00:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • WOuld it matter if another webpage used Wikipedia for its content? This site [1] uses the wikipedia article for one of its pages. Jaberwocky6669 03:37, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. — Phil Welch 05:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's just a mirror; everything on Wikipedia will show up on that site, too. It's not proof of notability. Bearcat 1 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  • Delete - nearby attractions not notable, that there is a style of housing in place not notable, the street, unfortuately, is not notable. Perhaps if it's notable as far as Etobicoke goes it could be merged. Sirmob 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)
  • Merge with Etobicoke, Ontario. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Redir to Etobicoke as above. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  • Delete. does not seems notable, redirect as suggested above RustyCale 28 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Toronto and I still say a good chunk of the Toronto street articles should get pitched. Don't merge or redirect; there's nothing special about this particular street that warrants saving. Bearcat 1 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no useful information here nor likely much hope for expansion. I don't see the need for a redirect either. Although, Rheostatics do have a song that mentions the Albion Mall. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Bearcat. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 2 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

[edit] Music at sporting events

Unencyclopedic. This article was only created in response to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_songs_played_at_sporting_events--Zpb52 00:50, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article was created in response to the vfd to show the proper way to discuss such a topic - not with a pointless list of possibly random tunes but with a well-researched exposition (which it will be, with time) on how music is connected to sports. -- BD2412 talk 01:14, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Keep Another instance of wanting to delete just because it isn't perfect! Jaberwocky6669 03:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't perfect? I'm soooo insulted! ;-) -- BD2412 talk 03:36, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. This serves a different role than a list, and is in my opinion more encyclopedic. Factitious 04:21, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think it's very encyclopedic. The individual sports sections can move to the individual sports themselves. To devote an entire article to something that is so temporal is Booshka!--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:20 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "temporal"? Factitious June 28, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:29 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 28 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)
  • Keep I added to this a bit. It's a good topic, with a lot of ground to cover, and still needs quite a bit of expansion. This is definitely something which needs an article, not a list (or category) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 06:39 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think I actually voted on my header, so here's my vote.--Zpb52 June 28, 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree that this is original research, and while I agree with GrandCru that it could use a little more tying down in time, I think it's a little booshka to to say that it's not worth thinking about in an encyclopedic way. I'd like to see where they're going with this. Sirmob 28 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic, referenced. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:44 (UTC)
  • Well done, this is the exact opposite of WP:POINT. Keep, consider expanding with historical notes, e.g. music at the Ancient Greek Olympics. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:13 (UTC)
  • Keep Musical. Klonimus 28 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is NPOV and verifiable. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 18:38 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - tough to defend seperation from specific sporting events, but there is theme and topic here. 42Moxies 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Weak because it was only an experiment really anyway, but keep because I do see some expansion here e.g. those occasions where saluting to/playing a national anthem at an event has caused upset (e.g. the Olympics before WW2). -Splash June 29, 2005 02:19 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

[edit] Subsig

This article is a dic-def. It also looks like a neologism. Some quick Googling seems to confirm this. Also, I've never seen it used on any of the forums I frequent. Delete. — Bcat (talk | email) 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete either dicdef or neologism. This does get Google hits, but none of them appear to be discssing the use of an established term. -Splash 02:24, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable term, and it's hard to imagine this expanding beyond a dictionary definition, anyway. CanadianCaesar 05:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:31 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Algebra II - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

[edit] Algebra 2

Algebra II was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-30. The result of the discussion was keep, with no clear consensus. For the discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Algebra II.

Non-notable; not a universal concept Delete Bumm13 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Merely a naming convention - no information on course specifics. -- Natalinasmpf 01:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't provide a link to any material covered in a typical course, not worth keeping. --Freyr 01:29, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Not even consistent within the US, much less internationally. Wikibofh 04:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 2. — Phil Welch 05:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Algebra II, which should then be merged with Algebra I into an article on Math education (yes, I realize this represents a change from my vote in the earlier Algebra vfd's - I was wrong). -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • Redirect per BD2412. NatusRoma 28 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)
  • As an alternative spelling Redirect to Algebra II, or to wherever that in its turn may redirect to. Uncle G June 28, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
  • Redirect → Algebra II. --Allen3 talk June 28, 2005 12:16 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Algebra II. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
  • Redirect and then merge result per BD2412. Observe though, that Algebra II is either POV or OR at the moment. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect to Capuchin catacombs of Palermo. Hedley

[edit] Rosalia Lombardo

Appears to be a hoax. Google images, for instance, for this "appearance of only sleeping" - only has one relevant photo, discounting the drawing. Could have been edited, as there is only one photo, without vindication. Google hits reveal 288, seems rather suspicious. "Died before the secret was passed on" seems rather a hoax too - most scientists would be eager to pass on a great discovery. Natalinasmpf 01:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Apparently real. I remember her from somewhere but she is real. There is a catacomb (I dont think Paris) in which people people requested burial. Hundreds of years of dead people are stuffed in this place left to rot. Many of them have on their burial garments. Other, like Rosalia, are well preserved. Jaberwocky6669 03:27, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, see this morbid yet wonderful page: KING'S CAPUCHINS' CATACOMBS OF PALERMO ITALY Jaberwocky6669 03:29, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge I change my mind to merge to Capuchin catacombs of Palermo Jaberwocky6669 04:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well gosh, now I say delete because as i read it, Rosalia Lombardo has exactly the same information as Capuchin catacombs of Palermo.
  • Keep. Actually quite famous, for a corpse. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am the most undecisive wikipedian ever. Hmm, you have inspired me to say Keep again... Maybe the page could include lots more info Jaberwocky6669 04:44, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - true story, and a notably well-preserved corpse. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • Delete as duplicate content, see Capuchin catacombs of Palermo. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:33 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like fat redirects. Wile E. Heresiarch 28 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)
  • Borderline case; she existed but died in infancy and is famous just because her body has been preserved in a famous place. There is not much information about her for a simple reason that she did not live long enough to do anything notable. One way would be be to turn this page into a redirect to Capuchin catacombs of Palermo in case somebody has heard her name and tries to find out who she was. (Note than when I wrote the page about the catacombs, I could not find more about her than is already included in the page). - Skysmith 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Capuchin catacombs of Palermo as duplicate info. As separate article, she is nn.Unsinkable 28 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge or Redirect - I've read more about this case - it's somewhere in my personal library but I can't go look for it right now because it is too hot. I shouldn't even be voting. Maybe I cancelled myself out. But don't delete - she really is a very famous corpse. --Mothperson 29 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Redirect. At least this definitely isn't vanity. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

[edit] Insultious

It's a dictionary definition for a word that doesn't exist. Delete. -- Justin Hirsh

  • Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, made-up word from what is not a dictionary anyway. -Splash 02:26, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 05:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A deletious article is an article that ought to be deleted! — Phil Welch 05:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We'll be deleting, because this is a neologistic way of saying insulting. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to cartoonist - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Strip Artist

By itself, the page is redundant and inferior to the cartoonist entry on wikipedia, but besides that, it's a personal essay filled with personal opinions and therefore should be deleted.--Justin Hirsh

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive Belief Model

Essay piece; was in Wikipedia namespace but I moved it out of there; Delete Bumm13 01:57, 27 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tresch

Looks like a vanity page; not very notable in any case. 148.64.3.96 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, since he probably passes the professor test. It would be nice to see some publications listed though, since they don't turn up easily on Google, where "Richard Tresch" "Boston College" gets 126 hits. -Splash 02:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 04:30, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Delete: notability not established. Wile E. Heresiarch 28 June 2005 06:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. (10D/2M/4K) - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

[edit] List of Presbyterian Church USA Churches

This list, overly filled with red links needs to be deleted, per this: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. It is unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. --Zpb52 02:13, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Zpb52. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Zpb52. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge There is some relevant information here and it shouldn't be just blanked out. My suggestion is to merge it with the Presbyterian Church article.--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a job for a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 28 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Keep, a category can't do this job. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:42 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable. No, a category can't do this job either. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmaintainable tedious list. Can you imagine if all Christian denominations used wiki as a listing directory? --Ichabod 28 June 2005 11:01 (UTC)
  • I've transwikied this to Yellowikis. They love this kind of thing. I've also added an external link to Presbyterian Church (USA) to the list on Yellowikis so you can delete without fear of punishment by God (well the presbyterian one anyway) --Payo 28 June 2005 12:06 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cut it down to only those churches that might someday be deserving of articles. - SimonP June 28, 2005 12:18 (UTC)
  • Delete this is what phone books are for. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:05 (UTC)
  • Delete If you want a list a state or county list may be better. Otherwise its going to be unmanagable. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)
  • Delete / Tranwiki per Payo and CDC. Toast, IMHO we should not encourage state-level repition. 50 unwikifiable lists is NOT better than one. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  • Merge into the article about Presbyterian Church USA, and only include the notable ones. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge (after a fashion) by putting it into a PCUSA category (or perhaps a broader Presbyterian category or series box).--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:15 (UTC)
  • Keep but agree with SimonP's commentary.
  • Delete Imagine all countrys and religions doing the same. Agree withCDCUnsinkable.yc21 3 July 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

[edit] Fantacular

Delete Non-notable self promotion Jaberwocky6669 02:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete What we got here is a single external link (deletable) and a dictionary definition (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) CanadianCaesar 03:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletacular. Article practically announces that the term is a neologism. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:30 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, website advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:38 (UTC)
  • delorted! I'd have tagged this for a no-content speedy myself... but a Vfd will do. Master Thief GarrettTalk 28 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)
I'm still learning all of the ins-and-outs of WP Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 16:32 (UTC)
That's OK, there's never been a better place to learn than a Vfd! :) All the rules come into play here, and, as always, examples speak louder than words. Master Thief GarrettTalk 28 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologoism. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD Articles:3. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Unsinkable, you beat me to it. :-) --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Merge → Timeline of fictional future events and Delete --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

[edit] 2164

Truly uninspiring article. Wait 150 years and we will need this space SqueakBox 02:31, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on basis that there are other years articles this far ahead. This just needs to be expanded and formatted to be in line with similar articles. 23skidoo 03:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing special in the real world about this year as of yet, and this statement violates WP:NOT a crystal ball. humblefool® 03:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lack of content --Porturology 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - articles that we (have/should have) on distant future years have astronomical certainties to them. Having an approximate time of a fictional event is not enough for a distant future year. The information is fine in the main article for the work of fiction in question, but there is no need for it to constitute a year article. -- Jonel | Speak 04:46, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That was my reason for voting keep. If someone can dig up astronomical predictions and the like then the article is saveable. 23skidoo 05:28, 27 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

[edit] Pi-Qaeda

The inclusion of this obscure phrase, which has not in fact attained any degree of popular recognition (two non-wiki Google hits), seems to be here solely to state a political POV. The inflammatory analogy (analogizing pie-throwers to terrorists who killed thousands), as well as its explicit statement that conservative commentators are intellectually superior, are both highly inappropriate. Dcarrano 03:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect somewhere, I seem to recall this phrase. Didn't someone throw a pie at Ann Coulter or something? humblefool® 03:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism... but see Al-gebra. -- BD2412 talk 03:35, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pie throwing as political protest if it's meaningful. Otherwise delete. — RJH 03:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing to merge, as Pie throwing as political protest already notes the recent attacks on Coulter, Horowitz, and Kristol. NatusRoma 03:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --W(t) 04:29, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Delete Pathetic Google hits show it's a non notable term. Do not merge with anything because it's just a non notable term and POV. Do not redirect because it's a non notable term. Just delete it. CanadianCaesar 05:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non encyclopedic.--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 28 June 2005 06:14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

[edit] List of genera by name: A to Z

22 pages only containing a template, 4 with some content. Hypothetically these lists would attempt to chronicle the hundreds of thousands of genera, they are unmaintainable for numerous reasons including taxonomic changes and a lack of skilled taxonomists on Wikipeida (working out the correct name for an organism can be very difficult especially without access to the relevant literature, the information on the internet is patchy at best). The lists also don't specify a particular type of organism which means that they potentially would only be useful to someone that knew what they were looking for, which then raises the question as to why they didn't just search for the genra in the first place. These lists should be deleted--nixie 03:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree Jaberwocky6669 03:46, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't even get most of the taxonomies consistent in the articles, much lest a list of genus. This would just be a source of confusion while adding no value. Wikibofh 04:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please please take them away. I see that I've been trying to swallow a train. I surrender. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:34, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Merovingian's wise realization of the impossibility of the task.
    • D'oh!!! Forgot to sign the above. 'Tis I. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 15:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, would be just confusing and pointless. -- Natalinasmpf 28 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isn't this redundant with Wikispecies? — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)
  • Holy cow!... er, Wikispecies can handle it, and their interface is a whole lot more user-friendly. I think a simple Wikispecies link will do the job. Delete. But thanks anyway to Merovingian for all of his great work. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
    • (sorry, signature had extra tilde. Fixed now.) --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikispecies (if that's possible - seems to be the same umbrella group though). I must say, given the "eventual value" of the article, I am a bit surprised at the number of self-proclaimed "inclusionists" voting for straight deletion here.--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:24 (UTC)
    • Wikispecies seems to be working taxonomically from the top down, the contents of the lists would probably be of little use.--nixie 29 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)
  • Delete or put on wikispecies. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:44 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

[edit] Nelms

Page is genealogical information, contrary to WP:NOT. It also appears to be a direct copy of this page. Page should be deleted. Aholcombe 03:43, 27 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad bin Ali Al Abbar

  • Inital vfd nomination: Is a banking executive in the UAE notable enough for an encyclopedic entry? This article has some NPOV issues that can be fixed and needs to be wikified, but is it even worth it for such a dubiously noteworthy person? Fernando Rizo 01:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless there is something seriously wrong with this article that I can't figure out at the moment. NPOV issues aside, the subject appears to hold a number of positions of power or influence in Dubai and the UAE. Why would it make any difference if he is in the UAE or somewhere else? Uppland 04:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • BTW, the nomination wasn't included in the main daily vfd page, but I added it there now. Uppland 04:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Just an aside, my criticism is that he's a banking executive, not that he's from the UAE. God knows if every American banking executive got an article on Wikipedia, they'd have to buy a new server. ;) Fernando Rizo 04:42, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article establishes notability. -- Jonel | Speak 04:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - because we'd keep an article on a Bush or Blair advisor who was VP of a bank, chair of a development group, and a member of a gov't advisory counsel. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:29 (UTC)
  • Delete bank executives arent inherently notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:43 (UTC)
  • Keep, a la BD2412. Not just a banking executive. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, John J. McCloy and all the rest. I'm okay either way... Maybe merge all into a Notable capitalist pigs article? (just kidding... sort of). Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup a bit. Barneygumble 29 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)
    • Looks like the general concensus is going for keep, so I went ahead and did the wikification and cleanup myself. The crow is eaten, sir ;). Fernando Rizo 30 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)

[edit] Hillhouse Avenue

Not notable. --W(t) 04:27, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

  • Delete: The streed that a museum is on, and may have had a single Mark Twain quote, is not notable. I'd rather see an article on the actual museum Wikibofh 04:46, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yale University. NatusRoma 04:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, mostly because I wish it hadn't been vfded 1 minute after creation, the creator could have had a purpose for it that never got expressed unless they were vandalizing elsewhere or something. But even so, probably, by no means certainly, not notable. Sirmob 28 June 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Keep, the most beautiful street in America is notable. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:41 (UTC)
  • It's a very nice place, and one on which I spend a great deal of time, but Twain's opinion needn't be taken as gospel. NatusRoma 1 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
    • Twain's opinion, I would remind you, is from a time before Dutch Elm disease visited Hillhouse<g>. - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and notable RustyCale 28 June 2005 11:19 (UTC)
  • Keep simply because I'm sick of seeing Vfd tags show up seconds after page creation. Seems (slightly) notable; certainly verifiable. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)
  • Keep --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 18:56 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy of a Band

Delete. Looks like trivial original reseach. Conscious 05:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete Agreed, and it has been around for long enough for the first author to make its reason for existance clear if there was one. Sirmob 05:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Rock band. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:43 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, no reason to redirect. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic irrelevance, surely inserted as some sort of joke/test. Does this terminology even exist?-Splash June 29, 2005 02:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

[edit] Devin Jones

non-notable, likely vanity article but not 100% sure Delete Bumm13 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn — Phil Welch 05:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "He is the son of a nurse and a soldier" and the father of 3 Google hits. Delete non notable. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)
  • Delete nn grad student vanity. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 05:07 (UTC)
  • Delete calling a radio show widely acclaimed does not make it so Sirmob 28 June 2005 07:13 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Asheron's Call - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)

[edit] Pyreal

Fancruft from Asheron's Call. - Lucky13pjn 05:08, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it gets nearly 5000 Google hits. Notable fictional concept. CanadianCaesar 05:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. — Phil Welch 05:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamecruft. --Calton | Talk 28 June 2005 03:46 (UTC)
  • Merge with Asheron's Call. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)
  • Merge with Asheron's Call - seems unlikely that there is enough about this substance to merit something bigger than a stub, but it would work as a secton of the main page. Sirmob 28 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fictional concept, but doesn't look like it belongs on the main Asheron's Call page. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:38 (UTC)
  • Merge (WP:FICT). Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we use same criteria for fictional elements that we use for fictional characters, article is insupportable. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)
  • Merge. I'm unconvinced that WP:FICT applies to computer games — those criteria apply to "a work of fiction" which would be novel way to describe a computer game. As a result, I think this can be merged because the article to which it would merge appears to still be around and not on VfD. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete/ - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

[edit] Shana Bartels

Not notable. --W(t) 05:20, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

  • "One of the most influential bartenders of the tri-state area". Delete. — Phil Welch 05:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. "Shana on the Rocks" gets 1 Google hit - which is about a girl named Shana being on some rocks. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable or as a probable hoax, to judge from Google hits. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Sirmob 28 June 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)
  • Keep but perhaps update. shana's now bartending in williamsburg. the book is really more of a zine. --Totally26 28 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)
    • Above comment actually by 160.39.246.100 (talk · contribs) --W(t)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

[edit] Moanalua High School

"Non-notable school, how many of these pages are there? Playing at Carnegie is not enough to merit an article."

  • Keep. Well-written high school article. (Nominated by 66.67.223.184; are anonymous editors allowed to nominate articles for VFD?) Refer to WP:SCH.--BaronLarf 05:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • As much as I hesitate to help out a school article, inasmuch as the nomination isn't signed, I think you can do a speedy keep. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 03:56 (UTC)
    • Yes, they are. Uncle G June 28, 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of the unremarkable material could be trimmed (what school doesn't have 'long commencement ceremonies'?) Peter Grey 05:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I apologize for that, apparently a friend of mine made that addition on my account. I've removed the reference. 青い(Aoi) 28 June 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Details of the article indicate that this is a notable high school, very well written within the genre. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Keep as example of a good school article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-written article about a non-trivial subject. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who the crap keeps nominating these? They never get deleted. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • BIG KEEP. Wow first big keep ever :). I looked at the article and I must say that it is quite good for an article, any article, on Wikipedia. I esp. like the template to the right. When people nominate schools they waste peoples' time since it appears that a growing consensus has been built up that schools are worthy individual institutions to have their own verified article on Wikipedia. As well - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 28 June 2005 04:12 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all the above reasons... DS1953 28 June 2005 05:13 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination by drive-by anonymous user. SchmuckyTheCat 28 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look how big this article is! And anyway, anything and everything is notable. Non-notability is biased. ‡ Jarlaxle June 28, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
    • anything and everything is notable — False. Wikipedia is not a collection of data, and everyone has things that they deem to be non-notable, whether they be numbers (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/11111), rocks (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Danmark (island)), pubs (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The White Lion, Thornbury), or the fences in my back garden. Uncle G June 28, 2005 11:11 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute. This Vfd was created by an anon? I thought anons couldn't nominate or vote on things. ‡ Jarlaxle June 28, 2005 06:22 (UTC)
      • Comment - 'Anyone' may edit and contribute to Wikipedia. That was the idea of it in the first place. No account is necessary, not even for VfD, although bad faith may discount this nomination. While I'm here, delete anyway, as I'm a man of anti-school-article principles. Proto t c 28 June 2005 09:33 (UTC)
        • By that, do you mean that you're opposed to all articles on schools, no matter how notable they are? Factitious June 28, 2005 10:17 (UTC)
        • No, but I don't believe a school in itself is notable. If a school is, why not every street/McDonald's/church/pub/factory/etc etc etc. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Unfortunately, I am outnumbered. Proto t c 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)
          • We're voting on this particular school article, though. What do you feel is wrong with it, specifically? Factitious June 28, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
      • Anons may nominate; anon votes have a tendency to be discounted. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:16 (UTC)
        • Yes, usually by people who voted the other way. But IP votes should only be discounted if bad faith can be proved. Proto t c 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and delist from VfD. Invalid nomination. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable School. Klonimus 28 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but keep listing. Assume nomination was in good WP:FAITH. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:16 (UTC)
    • Comment: This article was listed for deletion by an anonymous person. If anons can't vote, then why should they be able to list things to be voted on? —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)
      • They are allowed to vote, and they are allowed to nominate. Factitious July 1, 2005 00:00 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable. This is an informative and well-written article. Factitious June 28, 2005 10:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. From Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion, "Anyone can make a nomination, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. ... What is important is not your name, but whether your nomination is in good faith." — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article establishes notability: "the first student orchestra officially invited to play at Carnegie Hall" and "the distinction of graduating the most number of valedictorians each year, in comparison to the other schools of the Hawaii State Department of Education." (Although I'm not quite sure what a Valedictorian actually is. I'm guessing it's the American equivalent of a successful A-Level student? But no matter what they are, the fact that this school has got the most in Hawaii makes it notable.) — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)
  • Mega strong Keep — what all high school articles should aspire to be. :) — RJH 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Keep School article should not be nominated. CalJW 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Keep Well written, informative, and noteworthy. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Appears to be bad faith nomination. Wiki's not paper and the article is fine.
  • Keep Inherently notable, good article so far. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on alumni list. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Doramus

this is a clear-cut vanity page, and the information is inaccurate - to the best of my knowledge using web searches, he has never been quoted in the Daily Princetonian, so the indications of his quotes are innaccurate. Furthermore, pretty much all of the IP edits have come from IP addresses on the Princeton campus' wireless network, excepct for one which comes from the computer of a recent graduate of the football team. Sirmob 05:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Non-notable, even if everything in the article is verifiable and true. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not especially notable or well verified. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 04:00 (UTC)
  • Delete as major vanity. Google hits show near-complete lack of notability. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really vanity, as I can't imagine someone writing that about themselves. Booshka!--GrandCru 28 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  • delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:46 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/joke written by one of his buddies. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 05:12 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. I can easily imagine someone writing that about himself! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 28 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity. Possibly userfy to Frank Jones (talk · contribs) who showed up to put the picture on. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:37 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

[edit] The Firefox

"Little known myth" - either made up, or not notable. NoPuzzleStranger 00:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete little known? Unconfirmed? Definitely not above the bar of notability. One wonders if this has something to do with the Clint Eastwood movie of the same name. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)
  • As the article says, "there has never been any confirmation", therefore unverifiable, therefore, delete with all possible haste. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's even possible that the nonverifiability was intentional (as googling for "The Firefox" won't give any useful information Sirmob 28 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense! 28 June 2005 16:34 (UTC) (vote by Toasthaven)

  • Delete unverifiable. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to Firefox. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.