Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 11

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 "delete" votes (anon nomination discounted) and 4 "keep" votes. Daniel C. Boyer appears to have abstained. While there is a majority to delete, there is not the supermajority necessary to indicate concensus. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 01:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Genovese

• Delete Non-Notable Vanity Page created by Anon user 68.18.252.229

The article subject gets 600 plus hits on Google as Richard Genovese Surrealist and the first hit is this Wikipedia Vanity Article written for him by Anon as promotion. The listing of article subject in Who's Who (see both publications on article page) cannot verify facts on notablility since anyone can get listed in both publications (see past VfD discussion by other Wiki users trying to verify this article). The Museum of Modern Art publication that he is listed as being in, brings up no evidence of the article that he is supposed to be featured in upon doing SEARCH on the MOMA website from link on this page! Article is also in violation of advertising and spam, article subject publishes and sells his non-notable publication. Note: Article Subject is supposed to be active in Surrealism and the Arts for many years, and has very little reference history online that should easily be verified in order to warrant an article written for him to appear in this encyclopedia. Recommend a user page for this article subject.Classicjupiter2 23:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Again, what is this "online" bias? What is wrong with the offline cites given? Are you going to even try to justify any of this? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another stealth ad/hoax. Wyss 00:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you even know what the word "hoax" means? Are you saying that the New York Times and Who's Who are in on this hoax? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "stealth ad" when all of Wikipedia is on the World Wide Web? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A stealth ad is an ad that is disguised as something else (such as an encyclopedia article). And even major papers are sometimes vulnerable to hoaxes. That doesn't mean they're "in on it". Radiant! 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course even major papers are sometimes vulnerable to hoaxes. But does that mean that before we see evidence that the paper has been suckered we should assume that what's in it is a hoax. Wyss hasn't asserted any reason why he thinks that the existence of Richard Genovese is a hoax, yet he still asserts it. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/advert Tygar 03:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, advert. Megan1967 05:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mention of the artist in the New York Times in 1987 seems legitimate Mar 15, 1987. I also get 906 google hits for "Richard Genovese" -Wikipedia [1]. Article should be rewritten with a bit less surrealism clique cruft, but subject seems adiquately notable. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I sincerely disagree, Infrogmation. Not really legit, due to the fact that the article in question was in a magazine supplement, Long Island Weekly section of New York Times. This reference listing is really misleading in regards to notability, though the NY Times does list practically everything in their archives. This "article", though it appeared in the NY Times archives online, it did appear in the attached magazine supplement, it did not appear in the significant ARTS section of NY Times (or am I wrong?, I read the NY Times since the late 70's), plus that was a local Long Island Gallery, where any local artist (not at all notable in the NY Art Scene) can get exhibited and mentioned in the supplement attachment. This can be debated, but you need to know the fact that Richard Genovese is a friend of Daniel Boyer and is getting free promotion on Wikipedia, courtesy of Boyer, see surrealist techniques and look at the artworks on display at that Wikipedia page.Classicjupiter2 05:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The NYT article says he was guest curator for an 80 artist exhibition. This is verification from a well regarded print source of visibility in the arts beyond the "garage band" or small personal clique scale. This, added to the over 900 non-Wikipedia hits for his name, are enough notability for me; others may have other standards. I can see no harm in keeping the article. As to your Boyer argument: If he is or isn't a friend of Boyer may or may not have something to do with why the article was started (I don't know if the anon who started the article was Boyer or not), it isn't directly relevent to determining the subject's notability. (To illustrate with a hypothetical example, even if a Wikipedia user who was nothing but a vandal was shown to be friends with an Oscar winning director or a national president, that wouldn't be a good reason to say we shouldn't have articles on the otherwise notable person.) -- Infrogmation 06:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Infrogmation, I see your point. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, this reads like a resume but may be "notable". --GRider\^talk 18:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as before. Many attempts have been made to get this deleted; all have failed. Everyking 08:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying it was VfD'ed before? If so we should drag up that discussion.
• Keep. The VFD topic-of-the-week sems to have drifted from schools to surrealism - and I can see no reason for deleting either. Are we working our way through the alphabet? --Gene_poole 01:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Radiant! 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 14:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 18:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes and 1 "redirect". Several factual claims and counter-claims were made during this discussion but were never resolved. In particular, is this the musical equivalent of a vanity press which is merely sold through Amazon? They were also never evaluated against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines.

Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now. If the factual questions can be addressed, it may be appropriate to consider a renomination without prejudice. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan (band)

Appears to be another non notable band. When you have a name like "Sullivan" you get a hell of alot of google hits to wade through, no matter how you try to limit the search. I cannot find anything indicating they have even released an album, so I'm thinking this is sort of band vanity (though they are not very vain if this is all they can say about themselves). In any case it is a substub that does not establish notability. Delete it unless the article is expanded and can establish this band as some notable entity. -R. fiend 00:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article offers no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 00:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. Wyss 02:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flip... flop... Delete. Wyss 06:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Week Keep They do have an actual CD out, it's even on Amazon. Passes notability by narrow margin, though certainly needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  Note Having trawled through 22 pages of search results, I can confirm it's definitely not on Amazon. Chris 16:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Here it is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000AOV6O/ and it is the same Sullivan http://www.sullivancares.com/merch.htm Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. I don't think what I've done violates policy; I added a section to Emo called "Emo bands" and added this band to that section; I would suggest converting this to a redirect to the Emo article. Why did I do this? If this gets deleted, that sets a precedent for hundreds of similiar stubs to be deleted in the band, book, song, album, ... categories. It is much preferred to merge the content over deleting it. Courtland 01:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep for passing notability by narrow margin, per Starblind. Having it merged somewhere is also acceptable. Kappa 01:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How do we know this isn't some high school band? Gamaliel 05:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If their CD is on Amazon, they must be a reasonably notable high school band. Kappa 12:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this the same band? How do we know that? Gamaliel 17:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spurious claims of a CD on Amazon aside, this article isn't even a useful start. If this goes, the mention on Emo should probably go too. Chris 16:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 17:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  So, anyone care to link to the Amazon item? None of the 214 (!) matches on Amazon under "music" for sullivan are this band. Chris 18:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Here it is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000AOV6O/ and it is the same Sullivan http://www.sullivancares.com/merch.htm Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  Wow, the band is so notable that their name isn't even spelt properly on the listing. The album has sold so many copies that even the Amazon sales rank can't keep track of where it is ... Chris 21:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Yeah, and the title seems to be incomplete. Still, that might be Amazon's fault, I've seen lots of messed-up item listings on there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  Concurring with Andrew Lenahan, you cannot fault the band for a typographical error made on amazon.com. It goes without question that it will be corrected eventually. --GRider\^talk 22:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  So, let me get this straight. Author of a book listed on Amazon outside the top 100,000, out. Artist of an album listed on Amazon outside the top 100,000, in. If anything, I'd say that any author that gets published is more notable than a pub-and-club band that has to publish for themselves, and we've seen what happens to authors of low-sales published works. If this is kept, you risk setting a very dangerous precedent. Chris 02:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 02:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable band. Radiant! 18:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if it makes any difference to anyone, it should be noted that their album is actually an EP, so it probably has only a few songs on it. I consider this slightly less notable than having a full length album, but this is sort of up to people's personal criteria. I'm less opposed to keeping this now that I know they have at least something released other than some sort of mp3 downlaod or a CD-R, but especially given this isn't a full album I am not changing my vote now. -R. fiend 23:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:08 Z
• Keep and expand. Having seen them live, they're most certainly worthy of an article. There's plenty of information about them; it just seems to me someone started the article and has yet to come back and expand it.Ridethefire3211 2005-03-14 T 16:17 EST

"I've seen them live" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 02:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I realize this; what I meant was that they are a great band, nothing like what was said of them above. My apologies for not conforming to your perfection. Let it go. Ridethefire3211 11:00 EST, 19 Mar 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 no consensus - SimonP 04:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alejandro Puga

• Delete Extremely non-notable Article is Vanity Page. Article subject shows up only 159 Google Hits as Alejandro Puga Surrealist. Note: Shares common name with others. Article subject is supposed to have long history in surrealism and arts and online research shows Wikipedia article surrealist techniques as third to fourth hit. Recommend a User Page for this artist.Classicjupiter2 00:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Google for "Alejandro Puga" -Wikipedia gets 346 hits. [2]. -- Infrogmation 17:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Once again, many of Classicjupiter2's arguments to support this aspect of his anti-surrealist vendetta are not relevant. Restriction to Alejandra Puga Surrealist in Google search is debatable, to say the least. That he shares his name with others may mean that this should be converted into a disambiguation page if other Alejandro Pugas are notable enough for articles, but is not an argument for outright deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. No entry in the Grove Art database or any other database or journal index I searched. Gamaliel 18:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Radiant! 18:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep susanaeIII

• New account - user's first day

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - transwikied to wiktionary - SimonP 04:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agricultura

• Spanish-language dicdef. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary Tygar 03:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, the English-language Wiktionary links to Wikipedia's article on agriculture, and the Spanish-language Wiktionary doesn't have an entry. Here's a weird vote: Transwiki into Spanish Wiktionary; Translate and Transwiki into English Wiktionary. (From what I can tell with my feeble high-school Spanish skills, it's an okay definition.) Android79 03:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the first step. The last two steps are unnecessary, as Wiktionary:Agricultura already has an English definition for the Spanish word. Wikionario. Uncle G 10:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Spanish Wiktionary. Especially if they don't have a definition there yet. Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as per Mgm Thryduulf 17:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Put in Dictionary We don't have articles for such common words. SusanaeIII This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed portable XBOX

More speculation from User:SamuraiClinton. Rhobite 02:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete rumours about new systems are a long-standing tradition among gaming circles. I don't think this is seriously in planning, and if it is, it's not far enough along for an article. I really like the wording of this article though: "may arise in the late portion of the first decade in the 2000 millennium" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too much speculation. DaveTheRed 03:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Android79 03:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. Fuzheado | Talk 03:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I predict a deletion for this article. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 05:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. --Milkmandan 05:53, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete. *Cat puts his fortune teller garb on* I predict that this article will be deleted. --Woohookitty 06:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At least until XBOX confirms it's in the making, and until we can reasonably assume it will actually hit the market. Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speculacruft. Chris 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Insert pun here. ral315 21:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is this article full of speculation, but Microsoft themselves have denied that they have any plans to release a portable video game systemDeathawk 20:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for obvious reasons. Binadot 03:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 03:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dune Desert Power

Delete. Article about not-yet-released ("internal beta") mod of a PC game (Battlefield 1942). Fewer than 500 Google hits. When this thing is done (and assuming it is popular) it might merit an article, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Android79 03:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vaporware. Wyss 04:06, 12 Mar 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 - should be merged - SimonP 04:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PBS Home Video

Delete, or at the very least Merge into PBS and Redirect. Article is actually about the PBS Home Video logos; almost nothing about home video. Some of this might be useful in PBS, but I doubt it. Android79 03:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge but what a wierd, wierd, wierd article this is! Some favourite parts: "No cut to any PBS ident in this one. What a shame." and the part about "'Cowgirls' only"... and next time I get a dog or a band I'm gonna name it "Transparent Blue P-Head". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I get dibs on Cowgirls Only :) Wyss 04:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. I can keep it but what is the point when it's being merged? Ryanasaurus0077 18:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this unhelpful text description of a graphic logo. Wyss 04:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Can I name my next dog "What A Shame?" Merge anything remotely salvageable then redirect since the title is a likely research subject. This is from the same user who voted to delete my user page back in December, added a slew of bogus articles about non-existent television shows before that and now we have...this. IMO Ryan, you are this close to a request for comment. Please make something real out of this while it's here on VfD. - Lucky 6.9 04:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable we already have information on the PBS logo on the PBS page. Deathawk 20:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This falls well into the WTF??? category. No merge, please. This might make a valid topic for a real article. -R. fiend 23:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RR Red River Group

No Google hits. Fuzheado | Talk 03:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for another small company trying to leverage itself by using slave labour in the PRC. Wyss 04:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Been Huang

No Google hits. Fuzheado | Talk 03:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Android79 04:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 04:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air charter team

Seems to be a soft advert, no real backround or history of the company. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Air Charter Team: 122 Google hits for "air charter team" kansas city. --Ryan! | Talk 03:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but 122 hits isn't really a lot for a business. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Starblind, delete. Radiant! 11:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 03:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. RickK 00:20, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Hey, hey, hey, wait a minute! They service both the government and politicans during presidential campaigns. They've got some google hits and seem significant enough to me. SusanaeIII This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP 04:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joosa Riekkinen

At first I thought it was vanity, but I'm not 100% sure. was a game developer for a year - some 600 google hits. Even if not a vanity I doubt he qualifies for notability. Grutness|^hello? 05:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Liero which he developed during that year. Kappa 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete programmers/developers unless legendarily famous (i.e. Bill Gates, Sid Meier, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Liero, since that's the only thing he's notable for. Radiant! 08:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable author of non-notable hobbyist computer game. jni 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Liero. The game seems to have several fan-sites even 5 years since it stopped being developed, thus it's notable. Grue 10:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, codercruft. ComCat 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, programming one obsolete (even when it was created) game that made it onto WP doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Wyss 03:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of a real-time Worms game that is still included with some linux distros today. Seems notable to me. It had a large community at its peak, and derivatives of it are still being developed. What harm does this entry do? Edogy 02:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keyra Agustina

• DeleteAmazing what you can dredge up sifting through the stubs... 374 google hits for what seems to be a soft-porn blogger. You'll need to convince me this is worth keeping. Grutness|^hello? 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google hits quite low for someone whose major claim-to-fame is internet blogging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Keyra is famous and her is sensation like JenniCam. Mateusc 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not even a kilogoogle for two topics that tend to be overrepresented on the web (i.e. porn and blogs). Vanity. Radiant! 13:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she is very famous now and was named in Howard Stern Show as the Internet Girl of the year. Henry 3:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The above User is actually anon user User:24.91.150.202. RickK 07:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no demonstration of notability. So stubby that if she is, indeed, notable, we might as well start from zero. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Let's see Kerya on the wider perspective. She is not just some webcam girl . We are not talking here of just a person, but a phenomenon. She has become a celebrity and thus she deserves mention in the Wikipedia. Let's keep that single paragraph, and let's even improve on it to make it more "encyclopedic."greedlax 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first (and only) edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I count 332 unique Google counts. Not notable. RickK 07:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Keyra is becoming more and more of a legend, it's a bit like "All Your Base Are Belong To Us. Hoo Hoo Nick 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first (and only) edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. FliiP 13:00, 26 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 04:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klerck

Whow, a troll trolling wikipedia even after his real life suicide. That's something new. Personally, I think he is not notable, and should be deleted. There are about 20 google hits for Klerck "Kevin Ealy", most on shacknews, the site he trolled. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacrimosus 07:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually think this is potentiall interesting - he may have been a troll - but is there any documented case of someone posting a suicide note online before? --212.95.227.168 13:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Entry Klerck should not be deleted because klerck was probably the most prolfic and famous troll ever, and not always as "klerck", and not just one site. Entry should be expanded. I suspect more info about him will come out over the next few weeks as the whole story is pieced together. --66.56.219.6
• Delete as troll-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on my interpretation of WP:DP, Troll-related is not valid grounds for deletion. Edogy 21:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, ok, also not notable. And one of the things Wikipedia specifically is not is a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what does it take to be a notable troll? He caused Slashdot, a notable website, to change the way it handled comments. The GNAA wishes they could do the same. He even went beyond the internet, driving Tolkien fans to gibbering insanity with his obviously tounge-in-cheek Two Towers petition. Reguarding the memorial claims... I hope we VfD the entry of every person who just died and has his entry expanded. Quite often people are not properly recognized for their significance until after they're gone. I don't think klerck's entry as it currently is written seems like a memorial. To NOT mention the fact that he died would be unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding his death, particularly the initially wide-spread perception that klerck's last entry was false, are a by-product of his notariety as a troll. This could cause a treatment of his past trolling activity to appear to be some sort of memorial, I suppose. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• expand - He's no more or less important than anyone else with articles
  • Vote by User:67.167.137.150 -- Chris 73 Talk 01:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would just like to add that I feel if wikipedia has an article on the Gay Nigger Association of America, a massive trolling organization that klerck often spoofed, and GG Allin, the infamous, inflamatory punk rock icon, then klerck definately would be a reasonable candidate for an article. Klerck has been linked to in the Page widening article since 2002, but only recently has anyone created an article about him. 66.56.219.6 00:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Edit: Changed my vote to how it should be properly expressed, I think? 66.56.219.6 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi. I signed up. Edogy 16:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Only contributions so far are to this page -- Chris 73 Talk 23:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Entirely true, sir, as I said below. I've read many a wikipedia article, but only started learning the ways of editing and such when I saw klerck was on VfD. I was 66.56.219.6 before I registered. Edogy 03:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this one's more encyclopedic than Sollog. Wyss 03:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not at all encyclopedic. -Sean Curtin 06:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I did not know Kevin, and do not belong to the troll community. I submit that his final LiveJournal entry by itself (and a tangential response by one of the people he addresses) is quite interesting. It provides insight to a specific online culture that exists (whether you agree with it or not) and also provokes thought about suicide itself. Also, there was teenager that overdosed on drugs and died while in an internet chatroom. I do not have the time to dig up the quite stale links right now as this happened a couple of years (at least) ago. I suspect that there may be other instances of internet witnessed death/suicide. As more people use the internet, this may happen increasingly. This can be attended to in a scholarly fashion without becoming "troll-centric" that can provide enlightenment about suicide/internet culture. Such treatment done right would be valuable. Is that not what wikipedia is trying to accomplish? eclectro
  • Note: Vote added by User: 24.10.225.43. eclectro as signed above is an existing user, but with 0 edits so far -- Chris 73 Talk 12:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps this should be a redirect to The Onion, because it sounds like something they'd come up with. Carrp | Talk 16:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 18:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• comment A google search for klerck site:shacknews.com yields over 5,000 hits. A google search for klerck troll yields 900 hits. A search for klerck "two towers" yields 270 hits. Also, some minor edits to klerck's article and this VfD page are the only edits I have ever made, and most of those before signing up. Edogy 21:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Known to me as the person who introduced me to the tasteless comedy of tribute.wmv. However, the fact that no article existed before his death suggests a limit to his notability. Gazpacho 06:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 06:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mediocre troll. Not close to the level of the infamous USENET trolls.
  • Vote by User:66.92.234.78 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I wasn't aware of the user, or that he was a troll but I do remember that "Two Towers" pettition he put up, that's actually quite notable. Deathawk 20:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• comment I found a story in The Times, the UK paper, about klerck's petition [here], and added the link to the article, along with some more tidbits. Edogy 03:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. This seems awfully close to just a "memorial" page, although maybe borderline notable. I could imagine an article worth having, so I can't bring myself to vote "delete"; on the other hand, I just can't make myself say "keep", either. I'm also a little queasy about publicizing someone mostly known for a geek-ish suicide. This really seems a bit like lobbying for another spectacular, self-inflicted death. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a friend of klerck, we had discussed making an entry for him before his death, this is not a memorial. Atleast in the scope of the internet, he was a very important and influential person, whether or not anybody was ever aware of it.--Jaypeeh 18:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jaypeeh has only edited this page. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a friend of klerck, I think it would be a good honor to keep his entry here. He was/is very well known person all over the internet and has done many trolls that should be remebered..--142.162.180.39 18:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User 142.162.180.39 has only edited this page. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and expand. If it's true about The Two Towers thing, I remember that going around and being covered in the media at the time. Also it's a fair point about the LJ thing, I don't know if it has been done before but even if it's only a recent phenomenon then it could be interesting link in the suicide note article. Comment - though Jmabel's point about publicity is fair, though *shrug* maybe if someone posts their note on their LJ then someone might see it and help? I'm pretty sure that has happened when people have posted suicide notes on chats... -- Lochaber 14:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Find a verifiable source about his "death", though. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and encyclopedic. Nightwatch 20:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this man has and always will be a legend. Deleting this entry is equivalent to deleting part of the history of the internet. Granted, one could merely search google for "klerck," but what are we trying to do.. make wikipedia an all-knowing source of information.... or just a dictionary of stuff everyone already knows? Klerck is a hero. Floortap 07:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • the user edited only this page so far -- Chris 73 Talk 09:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: If only we spent as much time editing real articles as we did trying to have worthy articles removed. Consider The Turnip Wars. This page is worthier than Klerck is? Simply put, The fact that so many people have voted and genuinely care about this article surviving, I'll say keep on those grounds alone. The man has devoted fans all over the net.Ich

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 04:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number Nine Visual Technology

A defunct weblink and a link back to the page List of defunct graphics chips and card companies, which manages to have more info on this defunct company than its own page. Even if the page was stunning is a Graphics Card Vendor that went under worth a page? I say delete Sabine's Sunbird 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of defunct graphics chips and card companies. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it instead. Wyss 03:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Number Nine was fairly notable in its day, which spanned two decades. It was founded circa 1982, before the personal computer revolution, and lasted until about... 2003? I think it's worth a redirect, though I don't feel strongly about it. But I'm not sure why you think it should be deleted. Number Nine is to computers as Studebaker is to automobiles: not a giant of the industry, but a very familiar and respected name for quite some time. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Real company; redirect - David Gerard 18:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. They had some good technology: I wrote drivers for this about 20 years ago, it was one of the better ones. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, Mar 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diatribe

Looks like possible vanity, question relevance.--Boothy443 04:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Based on some Google searching, I'd delete. Only 3 hits for diatribe+"wellington speaking union". Searching for diatribe+wellington or diatribe+"debating society" turned up lots of hits but seemingly almost nothing on the group. If the group can be established as noteworthy in a meaningful way, then I vote instead to move to Diatribe (debating society) and delete the redirect (or at least replace the redir with a disambig). Jwrosenzweig 04:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the entry to remove hints of hubris and promotion. I'd be happy for it to be moved to Diatribe (debating society) as suggested. This is a notable club in the recent context of Wellington (NZ) club debating - which is diminishing in popularity and not well represented on the web, but which has a long and, I think, note-worthy heritage. I'd be interested in embelishing this heritage with entries on WSU and other clubs, but I'll wait and see the verdict on this one.

How about if it's edited again? Or better yet, put up a disambiguation page? The definition of "diatribe" is: "a malicious written or verbal attack". Thomas Paine's Common Sense could be an example of a diatribe against British rule. I wouldn't mind doing the necessary editing.--Querl Dox 9

• Merge into an expanded page on the Wellington Speaking Union, under the Category:Debating societies. — RJH 19:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no article here. Wyss 03:13, 12 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 04:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baphomets Throne

Delete Seems to be an advert for some polish death meatal band. --Boothy443 02:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup gets a lot of Google hits and internationally known among black metal scene. Grue 10:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep not a lot of Google action by band standards, and their offical site is down at the moment (not that that necessarily means anything). I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep for now, needs rewriting though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, promo, excessive external links, band vanity. Megan1967 23:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I mean, the article's a mess and their website's crummy. Wyss 03:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Awful, but keep - David Gerard 18:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:24 Z
• Spam, not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The band is notable; however, this article is a mere collection of external links. —Korath (Talk) 17:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burying pennies

Nice write-up, but is it relevant? Delete--Boothy443 05:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nope. Delete KingTT 05:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Ho ho ho! He is mocking Capitalism! This is surely a sign of Vary Funny Humor! Too bad Wikipedia isn't a humor magazine; there is no factual information here to be saved. Delete and bury. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to do with anything encyclopedic. --Stormie 06:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "joke". - Vague | Rant 11:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense entry. Sandover 06:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This was speedied before the present version was added.

00:29, 5 Jan 2005 Stormie deleted Burying pennies (content was: '{{delete}}Incomplete penny burial')

--iMb~Mw 12:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Silliness, probably inspired by the illustration we already had. Copy to BJAODN if someone finds it amusing enough, otherwise just delete as dubious personal essay. -- Infrogmation 16:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mildly amusing rather than funny. Borderline BJAODN. Thryduulf 17:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though I'd say that's just about the funniest thing I've seen here on WP up to this point. (Note: you really have to read it all for it to be funny) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, joke. Wyss 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha. Delete. I'm sure this has been through VFD before too - David Gerard 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- Someone familiar with the involved folklore could convert this into a vaguely useful stub. At the very least the title is salvageable. Haikupoet 21:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 80.172.160.221 23:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That was me. Cctoide 00:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This did make me smile, especially with the image. Send it to BJAODN. Jonathunder 05:48, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• BJAODN, hilarious. Edogy 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Bummer

Previously listed for deletion (see old vote) with the result to transwiki. It has since been transwikied. It's just a dicdef without further potential, so delete. --Dmcdevit 01:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bummer (Delete) since already transwikied. Master Thief Garrett 02:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already in wiktionary, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Turn it back into a {{wi}} tag. Kappa 04:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef already transwikied, no potential for encyclopedic expansion. Bummer, dude. Barno 20:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a bummer but it has no encyclopedic potential. Physchim62 21:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Turn into a Disambiguation article - a bummer can be a Bad trip, a beggar, a lazy person, a homosexual, a 1973 film called Bummer!. Kingturtle 19:02, 15 May 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 - kept - SimonP 04:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Mailloux

Delete notable?, not much on google [1]. --Boothy443 23:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) withdrawn per changes by Curps --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment As pointed out by Bearcat below, the original spelling "Mailoux" was wrong. Note there was already a different Wikipedia article at the correct spelling Pierre Mailloux. Since Pierre Mailoux was just a one-line substub, I redirected it to Pierre Mailloux, renamed this VfD, and reapplied the VfD notice at Pierre Mailloux -- Curps 00:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Looks much better now. Keep - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with psychiatrist anecdotes
• Note that name in the article title is misspelled; it should be Mailloux (double l). There are more Google hits for "Pierre Mailloux CKAC", although admittedly still not a lot; searching on the name alone brings up far too many hits for unrelated people. Over a thousand hits, however, if one uses the title of his show, Doc Mailloux (in much the same way as one would expect more Google hits for Dr. Phil than for Phil McGraw). I need to do a bit of research to determine if his show is syndicated to other radio stations in Quebec or not. If it is, in fact, syndicated, I'll definitely have to vote to keep; even if it's just on CKAC, though, 1000+ hits for the show's title suggests to me that he may be sufficiently notable. Bearcat 00:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Quebec is one of my areas of interest, and from past personal research I can vouch for the fact that this guy is a household name ("Doc Mailloux") in the Montreal area at least, and probably Quebec in general. Anybody that's a household name to a few million people is probably encyclopedic enough to qualify. He's the bearded guy in the photo at http://www.ckac.com/ . He does a daily talk show on the radio, dispensing pop psychology advice, somewhat controversial for his tendency to make snap judgements and hector people. He probably qualifies for the same reason as Dr. Sue Johanson or Dr. Laura Schlessinger, only French-speaking, male, and not focusing on quite the same areas. -- Curps 00:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice catch, Curps. Keep as redirected. Bearcat 02:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 01:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - NormanEinstein 02:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Radio-TV personalities come and go and are quite well-known while they last but most fade into oblivion the day they find something that pays better. Abstain. Wyss 02:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I tend to be of the opinion that if somebody was notable enough in their time, then they're still notable enough now even if they're not still a household name today. I mean, people who've faded into death still get articles. Bearcat 03:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if they invented or wrote or did something that caused a tidal shift in some culture somewhere. Broadcast personalities are different, they get way famous, chatter for for a few months or years, and usually vanish without having made the slightest (encyclopedic) impression. Wyss 04:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Seems notable enough, though I'd like to see some press in English before I upgrade to a full keep. Gamaliel 03:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough in his time. Kappa 08:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "His time" hasn't ended yet... Bearcat 09:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you even read the things you vote to keep? Gamaliel 15:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 18:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. Notable to the culture of Quebec. Samaritan 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Cherevko

Listed for speedy by Hedley, because "Only Google hits are on pages containing this Wikipedia content or entries into 'Ivan' or 'births' lists labelling him a child prodigy. How is this person notable? Saying their IQ is 'much higher than 200' probably means they added themselves, his book gives no results bar those contexts just displaying the article shown on Wikipedia. I nominated for speedy delete because I see 'self-vanity' articles nominated all of the time." , then anon changed it to vfd and forgot to actually add it. From talk page: "How notable is this person? There is exactly 1 Google hit which is another wikipedia article. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:16, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC) - Definite hoax, no relevant hits in Cyrillic. Grue 20:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)". Delete. Grue 09:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems like in Ukrainian Wikipedia no one heard of him either. Grue 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These accounts were created after the vote began:

• User:Mykola Petrenko
• User:Passwd
• K-n04

• Delete. I am pretty sure I saw this as VfD yesterday or the day before, but I can't seem to find it. At any rate, after this is deleted, the links the editor added on the pages Child prodigy, List of people by name: Chb-Che, Generation Y, and 1991 should be deleted as well. RidG (talk) 10:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Needless to say, as the nominator for speedy, I vote delete. Hedley 18:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am plain citizen of Ukraine. My name will not tell you anything, but name of Ivan is known in all corners of out country. I hope you'll excuse me for my poor English. I with my friends was very glad and proud of our country when we saw this article. I was confused and ashamed when I encountere this VfD - this article shows facts, not "hoax" or some other fraud. Hedley, Grue and RidG are trying to make their guesses to be facts. But is there really any reason to delete Ivan Cherevko article? What the honorable criticists are negating? Fact, that Ivan finished the school at eleven years ( [10] - article in a "Russian advertising - Russian newspaper New York", [11] - Kiev's education)? That he is studying in one of the elite Ukrainian universities in such a young age ( [12] - article in big Ukrainian newspaper "the Day")? That Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has published his book when he was ten years old ([13] - "Pleyady" publishing house article)? Fact, that he is an author of his own published ecological theory (Seventh International University Conference in field of Applied Mathematics and Informatics, Lviv, Ukraine, 2004)? You accuse this article of hoax and vanity. Hoax is anything deliberately intended to deceive ([14]). There are links from independent sources listed above, that prove almost everything that Ivan Cherevko is about. I hope there is a lot of Wikipedians that speak Russian and Ukrainian. Vanity is an excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or archievements ([15]). If there is only one such kid in Ukraine, country with 50-million population, where does "excessive" pride can came from? I stated before that everything in this brief article is correct and corresponds with my image of Ivan Cherevko, child prodigy from Ukraine. Keep - --Mykola Petrenko 18:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Look, there are NO Google hits for both Russian and Ukrainian spelling of his name, a few lines about him in newspaper isn't enough, a book written under a pseudonym could've easily been written by anyone else and a statement about IQ is completely unverifiable. Obviously he's not as notable as you want him to be, even in Ukraine. Grue 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone so 'notable' nationwide would have a more vivid set of Google results. The first article mentions Ivan/Vanya Cherevko - Even if that is the same person, how does that justify inclusion? Another article I translated is about young scientists - Nothing to do with Cherevko. I assume you must be affliated or the article writer - I'll be voting delete until you can prove his notability. Furthermore, the article was originally written by 'Yanus' who only edited a few articles, the majority adding Cherevko's name. Possibly self-addition/vanity.Hedley 19:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all - there is yandex.ru for russian spelling. Timofei, you have to know that Google does not support case endings so is very limited in russian/ukrainian search, and both russian and ukrainian version + Vanya Cherevko + Ivanko Cherevko and variation yield quite a linksome, and you also could help Mr. Hedley by adding that Ivan and Vanya are the same, and that second article clearly states in fourth paragrsph: "Close idea [to the one of Alexei Bondar] was submitted by the youngest participant of competition, Ivan Cherevko, 13-years-old sophomore student of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy..." (full text in Russian for you, Timofei: Близкой по идее оказалась и работа самого юного участника конкурса Ивана Черевко, 13-летнего студента второго курса Киево-Могилянской академии. Иван проблему утилизации бытовых отходов, в частности пищевых упаковок, предложил решать на уровне создания технологий их производства, где бы заранее закладывался экологически чистый способ их уничтожения. А так как в будущем Иван готовится стать экологом и очень переживает за «чистоту» пространства своего государства, он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях.). If you were more attentive, you could read at link number [2], that Cherevko and Kowchuk is the same person: "Під псевдонімом Ковчук написав книгу "Мої десять". Це його перша книга , в якій відтворено бачення минулого, оцінка і характеристика теперішнього, а також погляд у майбутнє.", or 'Under pen name Kowchuk has weitten book "My ten". This is his first book, in which vision of past, analysis of present and view into future are united". And yes, from some point of view I am Ivan's affiliate, as I am one of Albert Einstein and Lewis Caroll. I am fascinated by his affairs, just like Einstein's and Caroll's, but I haven't met neither of them in reallife. Assuming such a serious accusement to the Ukrainian Academy of Science that have supported him in fraud you should have some serious proof to support it - not just "possibly". As was stated on one of the "Wikipedia:" pages, deletion is not an easy affair. You can't just say "delete-because-I-want-to". You proof is too light, I need to say? Need more links? Oh, I have handsome of them just near me, starting from homesite ([16], I guess.... Yes, exactly), and right to the text of interview at BBC russian. I want to add, that I've done not so much work gathering those links, and plain unattentiveness should not be your guideline at voting.--Mykola Petrenko 20:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I happen to read Russian, and some Ukranian. This "он разработал серию игр для детей, которые бы с малых лет приучали молодое поколение не только быть экологически грамотными, но и придерживаться правил экологической культуры в своих разнообразных действиях" basically says that he created a series of games for children designed to promote knowledge of proper ecology, etc. - that hardly qualifies him as a child prodigy. I see absolutely nothing in the links you've posted that supports your contention that he has published his own ecological theory. I think that in this case, the burden of proof lies upon you to lend factual credibility to your assertions. I would be more than happy to review other links you post, whether in English, Russian, or Ukranian. RidG (talk) 21:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, what we've got: Child prodigy states that child prodigy is the kid that at age of 10 doing just like adult. He wrote a book at year of 10 (nobody objects this by now, I hope). Dudes, I am 19 and could never write anything like this even at the price of my life. Notability - in the meaning of google hits - is not matter of article. It is interesting (for someone), it is true and it hasn't violated any Wikipedia rules. Why delete?--Mykola Petrenko 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems non-notable. ral315 21:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's true that the references found are from the local newspapers, but they do exist in Russian/Ukrainian and I can't see any other source that could be the proof on notability. He's only a kid, right? --DmitryKo 09:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you mean to vote keep? Your comments seem to suggest your for deletion. Hedley 19:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hedley, why are you so interested in deleting this article? I see in your contributions list that pages deletion is your main Wikipedia occupancy. --Mykola Petrenko 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have a real problem with ego trips. My editing habits don't come into play here. Indeed, your only contributions are on this VfD, and so I don't see how you can talk about my intent to keep/delete an article. Hedley 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Why you hadn't VfDed pages such as William Shakespeare, George Washington or Elizabeth II then? They are ego trips just like Ivan Cherevko.
• Delete as non-notable. Radiant! 18:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kolya Petrenko asked us to vote for Ivan if we support him. I saw him personally, when he was in our university and can definitely vote Keep.--Passwd 09:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the user's third edit, account created after beginning of the voting. Grue 10:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I've registered just because Kolya sent message to our university's forum to support Ivan. But you could notice, that now I am actively editing some stubs in my field of expertise. I hope to become respected memeber of Wikipedia some day.--Passwd 12:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am Nikolay Smertnykh, student of National Technical University KPI. I red interview with Ivan and I want to support him.--K-n04 19:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created after VfD nomination. Grue 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was Jimbo Wales a Ukraine-related stub? This users first edit was making it one. Bizarre but i'd sense they've been here before if that was their first port of call. Hedley 22:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very big, old, smart are all notable. This doesn't seem to be a "vanity" article. Google hit counts don't prove anything by themselves. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 02:30 Z
  • No Google hits prove it's unverifiable. Grue 06:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think that the above testimony of several wikipedians verifies that this was published? Or are you saying that information on the Internet is True, but information in Ukrainian newspapers is False? —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 14:57 Z
      • The links User:Mykola Petrenko posted don't tell anything extraordinary about that person. A _single_ _brief_ mention in regional newspaper is the _only_ press coverage he got. Neither Google nor regional Ukrainian and Russian search engines know nothing about him (<=2 hits). How the HELL can this kid be notable??? If this article gets kept, it will probably have the least notable subject ever. Grue 20:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • One more fanatic of Holy Google Church. I can see, country with underdeveloped internet does not deserve to be covered in Google-based encyclopedia. Of course, Gay Nigger Association of America (43300 hits) is much more important, than, say Peter Seisenbacher (917 hits) or The Raging Wrath of the Easter Bunny (5780 hits)--Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ukraine is NOT a country with underdeveloped Internet. Ukrainian version of Wikipedia is one of the most successful. Ukraine-related news appear in the Internet within seconds. Be honest and admit, that Ivan is just not notable enough for the encyclopedia. Grue 10:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, let's be _very_ honest - there are only Ukrainian news from one point of view, one of the Yuschenkoist, and the whole uk.wikipedia.org should be marked with NPOV template. Go look for yourself. Grue, how do you describe 'notability'? There is no definition on 'Wikipedia:' pages. Go on, define it and we'll see. --Mykola Petrenko 11:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Ukraine has Internet access and high usage rates, but I've been told there are entire cities with zero access, especially in the East. I don't know if there's any high-speed available to private individuals; even in Kiev I think access is limited to modems. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:46 Z
  • Contrary to your beliefs, i'd probably say anyone who is 'sending messages to a University forum to support' (see above) is probably not notable. Google hit counts prove whether a person is or isn't important, and in this case, I haven't seen anything to show that he is. Hedley 13:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Your truth. I am really not so notable - there are millions of students, chess-players and cat-lovers outta there. But I haven't put the goal to show off myself, and I still haven't got any google hits. But I will defend the right of any one that I admire - be it Ruslana or Andy Warhol, Ivan Marchuk or Ivan Cherevko. And if anyone will try to VfD those articles, I will be there to defend them. As I've red somewhere recently: if you'll burn books, you'll start to burn people some day. Don't burn books. As always, two dashes, four tildas, --Mykola Petrenko 12:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: at the risk of being a spoilsport, just being a child prodigy is probably not, in and of itself, encyclopedia-worthy. I've known child prodigies. It can be a tough life or a great one, but it's not inherently notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. It is a best practice to err on the side of inclusion and in this case there is substantial notability to justify retention of this article. --GRider\^talk 17:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence of notability. All the facts in the article are unreferenced. Grue 20:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Now they are referenced. Go, check by yourself. If you are too eager, Kiev is not so far, go to local library and check it. --Mykola Petrenko 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thats like me adding the Fig Roll Monster of Doom and saying it exists because theres references in a cave located on one of Jupiter's moons. If there are references you should supply them to the VfD consensus. Hedley 15:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • So Google is The Authority, and a library in Ukraine doesn't count as being on Earth? Are sure you want to say this, because it sounds completely bigoted to me? —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:46 Z
          • That was not what I implied. What I was stating is that it is very easy to say a library in Ukraine contains information on him, but nobody can check that, thus it is like me saying information proving the existance of Fig Roll Monster of Doom (in example) exists, but that I can't show you it. In the case of a VfD, information in a Ukrainian library isn't available, and so Google has to be the authority as there is no other alternative. Hedley 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Nobody? heh, uk.wikipeia can. In the [:uk:Іван Черевко|ukrainian page]] discussion Maksim Ye (long-time contributor with thousands of edits) supports article, and I guess, he knows a bit about existence and deeds of [[[:uk:Іван Черевко]]]] --Mykola Petrenko 11:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe that instead of a full article, a mention should be made in the Child prodigy article, like it was made for Jessica Constant or Alia Sabur. What I feel I must say is that there, in fact, are 2570 Google hits for the Russian spelling of his name ([17] - Grue, if you didn't find any, thats probably because there's some weird sort of thing going on with codepages when cyrillic characters are used in the actual URL), and that Russian search engines do return a few results, yes. But all of those pages have already been mentioned here; its something like a dozen, or less, pages. Jashiin 13:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • He shouldn't be in the child prodigy article. His article is a blatant ego trip, which should have been speedied in the first place. If Cherevko stays the entire membership of MidYis and organisations of 'geniuses', assuming Cherevko is one (after all, he needs to get people from a University to 'support' him on this VfD, note all the new users voting here), should also be added to Wikipedia. Hedley 15:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • First, you didn't put quotes around the name, so some of these are "Cherevko Petr, Aisuk Ivan, ...". Second, there is a saxophonist, a former worker of a factory, a diver and a lot of other people who share his name. All not notable. Grue 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreeed on both points; but then I was merely reacting to your "there are NO Google hits for both Russian and Ukrainian spelling of his name" phrase. I was just trying to be helpful, okay? Jashiin 16:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See User:Mykola Petrenko. If Cherevko is so notable why is Mykola campaigning about this VfD? Hedley 15:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I learned to read when I was three too. This is just vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this guy is less notable than I AM.  ALKIVAR™ 09:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Results 1 - 33 of about 52 for "Ivan Cherevko" -wikipedia. (0.43 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 100 of about 695 for "Alkivar" -wikipedia. (0.68 seconds)
• Move to User:Yanus. anthony 警告
• Voters may want to consider that User:Mykola Petrenko is now campaigning for votes on user pages. His recent contributions contain a lot of them and to me it signifies the unimportance of this article. An example of his campaigning for help is here.
• Keep the topic, rewrite the content. --Easyas12c 19:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Changed my mind to Delete. --Easyas12c 22:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Jashiin's mother tongue is Russian so I strongly value his vote. While his google search does appear to indicate there are some hits relevant to this person's name, I don't feel qualified enough in русский язык to vote either way. —RaD Man (talk) 20:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I dislike self-advertising campaign. He is not that remarkable. In Ukrainian Wikipedia on the same article votes are
  • Problematic question
  • Delete, as author don't have argument for importance of this article
  • Delete, until this child does something more remarkable.

Ilya K 09:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. User:Mykola Petrenko asked me to "help out" on this page. Well, if there was anything to include, I would say keep, it might be useful one day. But there's nothing there. I wonder if Mykola just went down the meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians roster and started leaving messages. Judging by the fact that Easyas12c, another recent member of AIW is also voting here, that's my guess. Matthewcieplak 10:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I think his desperation of doing that, among other things, didn't help his argument. Hedley 17:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Many here read at 3 or younger.. vanity page. Will not be remarkable until the kid makes a fusion reactor out of an old watch battery, a packet of iodized salt, and a toothpick. Then again, this might make him a toddler MacGyver rather than remarkable ;) --Aika 21:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlyn schmidt

apparently ego stroking; very POV, information cannot be verified

• Delete. Not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity foolishness. Fawcett5 18:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Believe it or not, the patent is real: patent and most of the facts match up. She would have been 11 when it was filed (can minors hold patents?), and it's described as a toy rather than a tool. I can't find any info that there was any legal wrangling against Black & Decker though, unless keeping it quiet was part of the settlement. In any case, I applaud her inventive spirit, but I don't feel that all the zillions of US patent-holders need articles, unless they're famous inventors or otherwise notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for use of the word genius and the fact that patents are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 02:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Andrew Lenahan. Jonathunder 20:59, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Keep, True story. This was mentioned in an editorial of Popular Science the year the Snakelight came out (Popsci doesn't have an archive search and I don't remember the issue).128.148.38.233 21:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) 128.148.38.233 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to the article and this VfD.
• Keep, The patent and person are real. If we can have articles on minor characters of obscure Japanese cartoons, and strange computer related colloquialisms, why should an article about a real person be deleted?McClamm 06:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, - I remember this kid - I think she was the second youngest kid in the USA to hold a patent. That in itself is noteworthy. More important - she was in PopSci for Kids and a PopSci editorial that confirmed Black and Decker was not the creative genius behind the snakelight. It is a modern twist on the David and Goliath story. Kudos to you, Caitlyn. You deserve your moment in history.

(User: mustangshar)--24.95.134.20 17:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is 24.95.134.20 (talk • contribs)'s only edit.

• Keep, Most of the offending vanity material must have been elided from the entry. I don't see any of the references to the "genius" comment or the other topics. As for the topic of invention, this device did play a large role in American popular culture, especially in the late 90's as a mainstream consumer product. I feel that this warrants an entry. 138.16.24.131 08:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) 138.16.24.131 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to the article and this VfD.
• Delete, it seems the patent exists, but no proof whatsoever that Black and Decker purchased it. Googling combinations of "Caitlyn schmidt" and light, black, decker, flashlight... gives back no hits. Just that a Caitlyn Schmidt is indeed studying CS at Brown. So it's of questionable significance and questionable truth value. Delete. For now. Fuzheado | Talk 08:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. And not verifiable, per Fuzheado. Radiant! 13:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think many of you are quick to delete simply because something is not googleable. However, that's far from being a justifiable reason for deleting something. The patent exists, and particularly if you look at the law firm that represented Black and Decker during their patent infringement suits on the snake light in the late 90's, you'll see that they did not indeed own the patents on the device until almost a year after its release. [18]. Additionally, because this event occurred before the rise of web-zines and newspapers online, it would be difficult to read such online. However, given the actual patent information and the discussion of the product's history in that link, it is impossible not to infer that is one of the four purchased and acquired by Black and Decker.Etamura 16:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a patent holder, even a young one, does not make her notable. DaveTheRed 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The data is legit, and the story is marginally interesting, but this should be a blurb in snake light or maybe in patent as a bit of history. This is not worth an article on it's own. BigFatDave 09:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP As a avid reader if Popular Science of over the years, and a amateur tinker/inventor myself, I remember The kudo's that were given to this girl by the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Science Fred Abatemarco. In their "Best of what's New Edition"(December 1994) Fred commented that Caitly's invention was as notable as any of the 100 greatest achievements in science and technology for 1994. I would venture to say coming from a man that lives new ideas and products that it iten is a keeper -TinkTank This unsigned vote by 129.33.1.37 (talk • contribs), who removed another's comments when placing this vote at the top of the page.
• KEEP Because this is the truth and is significant. The Snake Light's success has been an undeserved yet model case study in many business schools. This article testifies to the little known reality that many companies simply steal or obtain inventions by legal pressure and then reap the profits. Even if it involves young children. 24.131.148.205 (talk • contribs)'s two edits are to this VfD.
• Comment. I am dubious. Although the patent is real, I'm not sure about the rest of the story. I searched the major newspaper databases on both Westlaw and LexisNexis, and found no articles about this person. I think that, were the whole thing true, there would have been something said about it some newspaper. --BD2412 03:21, 19 Mar 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 Speedy delete Uncle G 21:10, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 17:21, 2005 Mar 11 Jayjg deleted David McKenzie (Personal attack)

[edit] David McKenzie

• Looks like an ad-hominen rather than a proper article to me. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is like saying the Pacific Ocean looks wet. Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 14:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a personal attack and nothing but. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per above Kappa 15:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ahem. http://forum.b-pov.com/index.php?showtopic=2163&view=findpost&p=72822 This unsigned comment by 202.164.193.221 (talk • contribs), who created the article and who also vandalized my user page.
  • My userpage's vandalised as well. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a personal attack. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 11 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 04:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sakai, software project

Note: I converted this from a speedy delete to a VfD because I didn't think it was appropriate to speedy it. These are the original reasons for the speedy:

{{deletebecause|Link spam, possible copyvio, poor titling conventions.}}

My own vote is below. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and weak keep. Poor titling conventions aren't a reason to delete since they can be solved quite easily with the "move" function. Likewise, a possible copyvio isn't justification for speedy deletion. The remaining accusation is "link spam"; I would argue that it's stretching to call an article of this length "link spam" just because it ends with the link to the project's homepage, as we would want it to do if it was on a notable software project. Is this a notable software project? It's certainly not your average software project; your average software project isn't founded by the University of Michigan, Indiana University, MIT, and Stanford among others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and rewrite. Regarding copyvio, at least a big chunk of it is taken directly from the page it links to. Kappa 15:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per google test. Radiant! 16:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like an advert. Megan1967 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but watch out for copyvio, cleanup. Wyss 02:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like an advert. Tygar 04:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad without evidence of third-party verifiability - David Gerard 18:10, 13 Mar 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 - redirected - SimonP 05:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic words of Unknown Origin

This article is entirely made up of erroneous information. There are no sources given. This was first pointed out 18 months ago on the discussion page, but it has not been remedied. I think this is because the article has no real purpose, so no-one is interested in making something of it. See the discussion page for documentation of all this: Talk:Germanic words of Unknown Origin; deletion was proposed there several times.

• Delete There is some research going on in the early history of Germanic languages, and some of it does theorize about contact with pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Europe. But the article as it stands neither summarizes nor cites any of the research going on in that field. I think as a matter of policy when an article is discussing ideas which, while they might well merit a place in Wikipedia, are far removed from mainstream thinking, that it should be held to higher standard of citation and of clarification about who holds what ideas and what reasons they give for them. Unless those improvements can be brought to this article - unless it turns into a referenced discussion of a minority body of theory - I don't think it should be there. Diderot 15:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to the arguments given above, original research is inevitable in this sort of thing. There is no fixed set of Germanic words which all scholars agree are of unknown origin. And even for the words where everyone agrees they're of unknown origin, what more is there to say about them? Speculation about where they might come from amounts to original research. --Angr 21:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That depends if it's speculation on the part of the contributor, or documented speculation by someone else. Kappa 22:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research teetering on codswallop. Wyss 02:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Eh, sorry, forgot to identify myself at the top. It was me who proposed deletion, yesterday afternoon.--Doric Loon 12:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is information here that is wholly unsound. For instance, the word house, which is said, in this article, to have no known connections to other indo-euro. languages ouside of germanic ones, has a cognate in Spanish "Casa." The C to H change between Germanic and Latinate languages is well-known, and appears also in words like Horn in Germanic languages, which are related to Cornus in Latin. Jon
• I have attempted a complete rewrite of this page at Germanic substrate hypothesis. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to accept it in the rewritten form. It has all the virtues missing in the earlier version: Who makes what claims, why, and the current status of those claims. Diderot 14:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, that's the direction we want to be going. NOW let's delete the old version. (Or turn it into a redirect if you want to keep the history and discussion?) --Doric Loon 15:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say make it a redirect. Google suggests that the page as it stands now is heavily linked from outside Wikipedia. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have gone ahead and made it a redirect, which I hope resolves this issue. If someone wishes to revert it, go ahead. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Incorrect) Original research. RickK 00:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research - David Gerard 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage railways in Belgium

This page sets out to be a list of heritage railways in Belgium, but the list contains only one railway - Steam railway Dendermonde-Puurs. I feel that the list is at best premature and at worst completly unnecessary. It is linked only from List of heritage railways, where any Belgian railways can be linked from. A breakout list isn't really necessary unless there are more than about 5 (or more) entries, imho. Thryduulf 16:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

update: I've copied the sole link onto the List of heritage railways and unlinked this page. It is now therefore an orphan. Thryduulf 04:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (making my vote clear as per instructions). Thryduulf 16:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A list with one item seems a bit lazy and looks dumb. If there are indeed more than one "heritage railways", someone can start the list over from scratch. --BM 20:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of heritage railways. --SPUI (talk) 00:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful for now. Wyss 02:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• someone edit this page that's all it needs!TAS 16:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not useful, so far should be a cat - David Gerard 18:05, 13 Mar 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 copyvio. – ABCD 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunspotmusic

Vanity advertisment for non-notable band. Tone completely POV and inappropriate. Looks like a press release. Fawcett5 17:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I tagged it as a Copyvio from [20]. DaveTheRed 19:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity, copyright violation. Megan1967 23:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inbal Nitzan

Delete - This article isn't encyclopedia worthy. The subject isn't notable, something evinced by the article where it casts doubt over whether she will ever achieve even national fame. 163.1.159.21 16:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I found the article interesting, and I imagine other readers would too. She's in a field in which fame is unlikely; should street artists be excluded altogether for that reason? She's considerably more notable (known to many more people) as well as more interesting than the average person (including the average Wikipedia editor). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. There are many interesting things that aren't encyclopedic. If she achieved fame in a field in which it was difficult to attain then she would be notable, but by the article's own admittance, she hasn't. Street artists (as a class) shouldn't be excluded because their field is one in which fame is rarely achieved, but they (as individuals) shouldn't be included unless they are famous. There are many people who are more notable "than the average person", but this alone isn't sufficient to have a biographical article in an encyclopedia. Treborbassett 17:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Being a street performer is not notable all by itself. DaveTheRed 19:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep street artists who get 5 minutes slots on TV. Kappa 19:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Compare to Wolf Krakowski, for example. While a nice article, the world is full of pretty decent street artists who never rise to fame. — RJH 19:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't know IP addresses could nominate VFD's. ral315 20:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I scarcely think they couldn't do so. There appears to be no rule against it. Furthermore the very fact that I was able to do it suggests to me that IP addresses can nominate VFDs (i.e. de jure and de facto). I can't see why there would be any rule against it anyway.163.1.159.21 01:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In response to Kappa: Why should someone who gets a five minute slot on TV also get an encyclopedia article? Treborbassett 01:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • • A TV company with limited time/space thought they were worth covering. This implies they are also worth covering in an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 07:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 02:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A street mime... in an encyclopedia!?! This really is a case of "What on earth were they thinking?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Street mime is a creative profession, like acting or being a musician, why shouldn't they be covered the same way? Kappa 08:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that they are covered the same way. Most street musicians don't (and shouldn't) have encyclopedia articles, nor do very minor actors. I think we're putting far too much weight on the 5-minute TV appearance here. Lots of people make brief appearances on TV. I've been on TV more than once, and I don't think that gives me any automatic right to an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:

In what way could this be an advert? It's not even clear why it should be thought that it's vanity (the reasoning seems to be: this shouldn't be here, therefore the reason it was put here must be vanity, therefore it shouldn't be here, therefore...).

Where in the article does it mention that she's a mime? Given that there's an explicit reference to her reaching her audience though Hebrew, that rather suggests otherwise.

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Inbal nitzan for further discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's an advert.

A TV company thought she was worth five minutes of coverage. There must be thousands of people who have had five minute slots on TV. Furthermore, there must be armies of actors and musicians who (rightly) don't have encyclopedia articles because they don't have the notoriety. Treborbassett 14:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure there are thousands of people who've had 5 minutes on national television stations as examples of their art form. Luckily wikipedia has no size limits, so all of them can be covered. Television coverage seems like a good barrier to vanity/spam. Kappa 15:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Doubtlessly true, but I don't think appearing on TV for 5 minutes as an example of a particular artist type merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Who would look them up? Treborbassett 17:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Someone looking for examples of that kind of artist would look them up. If wikipedia tolerated a few street artists, we could have a nice annotated list of them inside Street artist instead of no examples at all. Kappa 20:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Since everybody gets their metaphorical fifteen minutes of fame, and this mime has so far had five, delete. Radiant! 18:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good grief, does nobody read the discussion before voting? She's not a mime. The rest of the comment is just trying to be clever rather than thinking about the issue. But I really should be resigned to that after a number of these VfD farces. A gaggle of deleters pile in, having neither read the article nor the VfD discussion. Then they probably go off and churn out a dozen more articles on minor comuter-game or comic-book characters. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you might be making a slightly unfair generalisation there. To draw a correlation between 'deleters' and propagators of computer game character articles seems a little unfounded to me! Treborbassett 20:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • True — it was a rhetorical flourish (I forget the technical name of the figure). Looking at five of the current deleters, though, all but one seem to spend an unhealthily large proportion of their time doing little more than voting in VfDs... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see how useful an example of a street artist is if he or she isn't notable - what purpose does a list of non-famous people serve, even if they do exemplify a particular profession? Although, it has to said she is gaining some notoriety, albeit indirectly! Treborbassett 20:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • My point is that is she is notable in a verifiable way, the TV program wouldn't give 5 minutes to someone completely talentless. She doesn't meet any particularly *high* bar of notability, but that's inherent in her profession. Kappa 02:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to do this Mel Etitis, but the article does actually say that 'Nitzan made a name for herself in impromptu mime...' - I think we can take this as meaning that she is a mime (or at least was). How's that for reading the article? Treborbassett 20:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • But to call someone a mime is to imply that that's all they do (and the reference to Hebrew suggests that it isn't). That's particularly important given a fairly general aversion to mimes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll give you that, but to say she's not a mime makes it sound like she doesn't do any mime at all! And why should people refrain from saying she's a mime if she does do mime? I'm not aware of any bad connotations of that word. If she does mime, she's a mime artist, even if she does do other art as well. I fear there's a danger of digression from the issue at stake here at any rate. Treborbassett 21:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It might be a specific cultural phenomenon (though I'd thought that it was at least common to the U.K. and the U.S.); there was a time when mimes seemed to have become the acceptable targets of otherwise non-P.C. jokes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand what you mean, but I don't see why this means that the word mime is unusable. The jokes might be politically incorrect, but I don't see that the word mime is. Again I'd like to emphasise the danger of digression here. I'm perfectly happy to discuss social attitudes to mime, but I think it's tangential to the subject of this page. Treborbassett 21:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It's probably minor (many users simply vote 'delete' if they haven't heard of the person and get nothing on Google; lazy and un-Wikipedian, but depressingly common. Some, though, might be influenced by an aversion to mime artists (it's no sillier than most other reasons given). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • But she does do, or at least did, mime. I don't see why this fact should be concealed to protect the article against 'mime-haters'. Are you suggesting that we avoid using the word mime to deter those mime-haters who won't read the article but do read the discussion? Treborbassett 21:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Deletestreet artists who get 5 minutes slots on TV. RickK 00:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see why a street-performer who is widely recognized and known by name (even if only a performance-name) by a large swath of the population of a major city (such as Tel Aviv) wouldn't be as notable as other types of performers whose fame is based on television performances, appearances in more traditional venues, etc. However, at present the article doesn't really establish this. Describing her as a "fixture" in the Tel Aviv "beach scene" isn't quite convincing, suggesting that she is more in the vein of an eccentric beach character. I don't know how to assess the 5 minute TV segment since I don't know whether the channel is important -- an "alternative culture" channel doesn't sound very mainstream. There is also the problem of the source and verifiability of the information in the article. I'm going to say *delete for now, but I'm open to changing the vote if more information is forthcoming. --BM 11:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless third-party verifiability can be found pronto - David Gerard 18:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. Verfiability doesn't seem an issue, and street performers seem like potentially valid topics (I'm amazed we don't have an article about Artis the Spoonman, who was the subject of a chart-topping hit song by Soundgarden), but nothing in this article shows why she is a notable street performer. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't even have an article on Thoth (movie) yet, and he won an Oscar. RickK 08:42, Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 05:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zazie

Delete Vanity Page note that the artist was featured in issue of Computer Graphics, not notable enough of history in the arts(only several shows and Webism exhibits) to warrant an encyclopedia article. Google brings up only 225 hits when typing in Zazie Evi Moechel (her real name). "Zazie" is of course a very popular name in Europe for films, books and TV. This emerging artist is not notable enough to have article, though I highly recommend a user page.Classicjupiter2 17:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Google for Zazie Surrealism gets 1310 hits, -Wikipedia gets 946. -- Infrogmation 18:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Only reason that this article was proposed for deletion is Classicjupiter2's personal dislike of subject. Discounting Webism exhibits is POV, for whatever one thinks of Webism is not relevant here. Observation about Zazie being a popular name might be grounds for converting this into a disambiguation page, but is otherwise irrelevant. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not discounting Webism exhibits, since I mentioned them, plus other shows as well. No personal dislike of article subject, just stating facts on this emerging artist who I highly recommend having a user page like you, Dan.Classicjupiter2 20:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No entry in the Grove Art database or any database or journal index I searched. Gamaliel 19:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Just above the bar of notability. Should be moved to Evi Moechel with either a redirect from zazie, or a disambig for zazie if we can find any other zazies in wikipedia. DaveTheRed 19:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs to be renamed Evi Moechel, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 02:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, needs third-party verifiability. Nomination appears querulous - David Gerard 18:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. --Valmi ✒ 17:02, 22 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 05:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Hill

Are fictitious chairmen of financial institutions notable enough for the great purge? With 370 google hits, should a minimum bar of "notability" be met before a subject is included in a parent article by way of a merge? --GRider\^talk 18:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This character was in Episode II. Why must you follow the Google Test with such heart? Keep or Transwiki to Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge or transwiki and shun the heartless Google test. Kappa 20:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. This is an extremely minor character. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep character from Ep 2, was made into an action figure (I have it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, should every Barbie doll and G.I. Joe action figure have its own article as well? --GRider\^talk 00:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm pretty sure that most of the GI Joes and Barbie characters have articles. I might be wrong though. Anyway, with Star Wars, the existence of an action figure is a good way to tell whether the character appears in an actual movie or not. Most of the movie characters get figures, whilst the book, video-game, and RPG characters generally do not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lucascruft. Wyss 02:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. Radiant! 18:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge some damned place - David Gerard 18:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:12 Z
• merge into Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars. I'm not going to do it yet b/c there are a fair few keeps however I fear that while there may be a majority to keep in the end it seems unlikely that the article can be expanded much. Feel free to prove me wrong. I will check back in a few days and if the article isn't expanded or there emerges a consensus to merge then I will do it. -- Lochaber 19:44, 15 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 05:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Of The Future Buddhas

Here is another psychedelic trance project article created by user:Ld, this time from Sweden. Ld maintained earlier that this group is notable, but I recommend that its article be removed because it meets none of the Music notability criteria. It has 366 unique google hits 585 unique Lycos hits [google is fairly useless for hits with large numbers, as Bruce Springsteen gets 833 unique hits] 216.119.136.113 , but as I said before, that is the approximate number of psychedelic trance junkies who log into blogs. The individuals behind the artistic project, Magnus Blath, Johan Rosen and David Tingsgard searched with the word "trance" get about 13 unique google hits a piece. The project released two albums on Boom! Records, a label which has released a total of 19 albums. It has been established fairly exhaustively {64.154.26.251 03:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) see comment} to a reasonable degree that this is not an important independent record company as per the notability criterion dealing with record labels (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fractal Glider). It is not mentioned on All Music Guide. 216.119.144.35 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fractal Glider, which was nominated by the same user for similar reasons. The general consensus on that vote right now is to keep. -Ld | talk 19:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The two cases are not comparable. If there is a consensus to keep Fractal Glider it is only because you have finally provided evidence the project has been on some kind of international tour, which is one of the Music notability criteria. And earlier votes to keep may have been based on misleading information provided by you, Ld, about the importance of the label. 216.119.136.134
    • Please show evidence of where I am providing misleading information. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and my contributions have never been accused of providing incorrect or misleading information. You can review the contributions on my user page, if you wish. You, on the other hand, are posting from an annonymous IP (and not even signing your posts), and putting up many of my contributions for VfD. I recommend you create an account before doing any more VfD submissions. -Ld | talk 20:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The nature of the misleading information is covered rathered thoroughly at the Fractal Glider deletion entry. Why are you acting as if providing misleading information is necessarily some kind of bad act? I don't know what your intentions were. There is no need to recriminate by accusing me of "not signing my posts," when I forget to do so once. I haven't put many of your contributions for VfD, I've put only three (one of which the consensus so far has been 7-1 to delete). You, Ld, on the other hand, may have made about a hundred psychedelic trance stubs with no research into their notability, and then you definitely said "Please feel free to nominate any of them for VfD if necessary" here. And now it's as if you're getting angry at other people for doing the job you should be doing yourself. 216.119.136.134 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • In fact, I have abstained on that vote because in that case the band is in fact of dubious notability. By saying "if necessary" I was implying inconsistent with the guidelines. I am not denying a few of my stubs may not meet the guidelines. If you nominate those, I will either abstain or vote to delete/merge. In all other cases I will argue strongly against deletion. -Ld | talk 20:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ld, on my side, I am not trying to delete all of the stubs, just those that don't come up as notable on the web searches. Since you admit there is a problem with some (ten? twenty? thirty?), I would prefer if you nominate the non-notable ones yourself. In this particular case, you may wish to appeal to the guidelines or show some other kind of widespread notability. I'm only going by educated guesses that they're not notable other than the guidelines, because of google hits and because what they put as their accomplishments on their own website is pretty thin. 216.119.143.43
            • I would say there is possibly a problem with perhaps 0-3 stubs. Even so, it depends on how you view the guidelines, i.e. do EPs count as releases? What makes a label notable? I tried to compile a list of artists that in my mind are notable, however since I am very familiar with the subject I might have went further than I intended in a few cases. -Ld | talk 23:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • You are making misleading remarks again, Ld, deliberate or not. The guideline clearly says "two albums" not "releases". The guidelines clearly define that a label must be major or "important", it doesn't use the word notable, but it clearly defines the word "important" as I explained to you already in the Fractal Glider deletion section, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) (this is not to imply that the guidelines are the sole means of providing evidence of notability, but on the other hand I didn't see any mention of this group in the main "Trance" articles) 216.119.143.43 00:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No allmusic.com entry. More Boomrecordscruft. Gamaliel 23:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • allmusic.com is completely useless as a measure of non-US artists - David Gerard 17:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Wyss 02:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: What I believe I established in the Fractal Glider article was that Boom! Records had too small a roster of notable performers to be considered important. Here are the facts: The label has released a grand total of 19 albums, 8 of which are compilation albums, 11 of which are actual albums. 2 of them were released by a probably notable performer [according to deletion consensus], Fractal Glider itself, and the only other performer ever on the roster that is included in All Music Guide released 1 album with Boom!, Ubar Tmar. Ubar Tmar may be notable, having released an album on a larger independent label afterwards, but he is no longer with the Boom! label. Also, all of the other performers, including Battle of the Future Buddhas, have fewer google hits than Fractal Glider. 64.154.26.251 03:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 18:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - meets keep criteria. These nominations appear querulous - David Gerard 17:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That springs from the fact that it seemed as if someone had put their record collection on the wiki without regard to quality, and then asked us to research and nominate the non-notables. See Lucy in Space with Diamonds with 60 Lycos hits. I'm fairly satisfied, now, that that is not the case. All Music Guide contains a great many foreign acts. David, can you suggest a better measure if you don't find that source reliable? 216.119.136.113 22:38, 13 Mar 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dookie touch

I've never heard of such a phenomenon, but that doesn't mean it's nonsense (I suspect it is, though). Google returns ~10 hits [21]. Consensus? Katefan0 19:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is true, its cruel. Kids nowadays think up the weirdest sh*t. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted: "patent nonsense or very obscure". It made perfect sense as a variant of Tag, and obscurity isn't supposed to be a criterion, maybe we could have found a more common name for it. Kappa 23:15, 11 Mar 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 - SimonP 05:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Tonks

Garnering 695 googles, how does this stub illustrate notability? Should this be deleted or expanded? --GRider\^talk 20:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We have lots of minor-character stubs for Harry Potter characters. And with the book coming out this summer, it may grow into a quite notable part of the mythology. grendel|khan 20:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor characters even in popular fictional universes shouldn't have separate articles unless there is something to say about them. Put them on a list somewhere. --BM 20:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fictional genealogy entry. (If he actually appears in the books - I'm fairly sure he doesn't - then merge to Nymphadora Tonks.) —Korath (Talk) 20:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesnt appear in the book i think. kaal 21:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr. Tonks' appearance hints at something bigger in Books 6 and 7. ral315 21:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One paragraph, mostly speculation? I'm not impressed. Ms Rowlings hardly makes her books incomprehensible (writing books that are quickly understood is what made her so succesful after all), so speculative geneology is hardly useful. At most deserves a passing reference within the book that references them, not that this article could be bothered stating which book that was. Average Earthman 21:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Potter-vaporcruft. Wyss 02:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn pottercruft. ComCat 02:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge if there's a really good place to merge it to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as terminally major character. If he actually becomes big in book 6 (which is wild conjecture at this time), it can be reinstated. Radiant! 18:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Appears in book 5, but extremely briefly. тəzєті
• Merge if possible - David Gerard 17:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very minor compared to the other ones nominated, so merge if necessary. Xezbeth 10:40, Mar 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan-atheism and Pan atheism

This has been on VfD twice before, it seems. The first time, tThe vote was Delete:3 Keep:2. The second time, it was Delete: 5, Keep: 1. It is not clear to me why it was not deleted after the second vote. Pan atheism (no hyphen) is apparently an article that was created to circumvent the first VfD vote. It was a duplication of Pan-atheism. The problem with this article is that "pan-atheism" is a joking or sarcastic reference used by its critics for Naturalistic pantheism. There is some suggestion that the number of critics who use the term is very small anyway, and that it might be only one critic. The term makes the point that naturalistic pantheism is actually a form of atheism. Therefore, it is at best a dicdef or perhaps a neologism. More to the point, this is not a topic independent of naturalistic pantheism, and discussion of the criticism of naturalistic pantheism that is embodied by this term belongs in that article. Delete. --BM 20:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article was contributed by a notorious POV banned user, and has never been encyclopedic in any sense. It is a neologism invented by the banned user and is intended as nothing more than a POV attack on Naturalistic pantheism. Should have been deleted long ago. --Nat 00:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, nonsense, attempted fork. Wyss 02:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possible Speedy as previously VfDed material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't tell if it was ever actually deleted; the previous deletion votes are a little confusing. David Gerard's comment at the beginning of Talk:Pan-atheism/deletion2 suggests that vote might have been about a duplicate article. If David notices this discussion, perhaps he can clarify as well as vote. In any case, the article should still be deleted. --BM 15:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - the 'second' vfd listing was for Pan atheism (no hyphen), a very similar article by the same author, which should have been deleted according to its votes. I redirected it to this article before its time had elapsed, and it seems that no-one bothered to delete it since its existence as a redirect was more useful. This article itself has only been listed once before, and there was no consensus. 80.255 20:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Oh, that explains it. Thanks for the information. --BM 21:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the content is meaningful and encyclopaedic. I have seen the word used by people other than Paul Vogel. 37,100 hits on Google. As a term critical of perceived materialistic pantheistic conceptions it is a valid one, and it meaning is explained in a NPOV manner. I strongly object to any attempt to 'speedily delete' this article without due process. N.b. alternatively support redirection if outvoted, but only as a last resort to save a valid term. 80.255 20:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: confused and/or dishonest, and essentially nonexistent aside from the propogations of Paul Vogel. -Sean Curtin 00:39, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to these redirecting. If these are redirected, Panatheism should also redirect. -Sean Curtin 18:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• These were created as POV forks by Paul Vogel. Redirect both to Naturalistic pantheism and mention in that article - proponents of naturalistic pantheism jokingly use the term as well - David Gerard 15:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I should support redirection (along with proper incorporation of the material in the Naturalistic Pantheism article) if, as seems likely, my vote to keep is overwhelmingly opposed. 80.255 20:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, attempted POV fork. Fire Star 23:59, 13 Mar 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 - SimonP 05:13, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muzgash

Question: Encyclopedic? This subject receives 226 googles. Contrast and compare to Shagrat which returns over 47-thousand googles. Should all non-notable science-fiction and fantasy related material be kept and/or merged, while other similarly notable non-fiction subjects ultimately be deleted? Discuss amongst yourselves. --GRider\^talk 20:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with other minor characters unless there's more to be said. I don't have a copy of The Return of the King handy to check. —Korath (Talk) 20:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Expansion of this article is not possible. Muzgash's entire role in the LOTR trilogy is to appear in a single sentence as someone who was shot. Delete this article. Arkyan 00:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm, worse than I'd thought. Yes, delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, LOTRcruft, no article here, I've read LOTR at least 4 times and this leaves me cold, move along... Wyss 01:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to discourage recreation. Do not merge unless perhaps someone feels like adding a (necessarily brief) "list of Orcs named by Tolkien". I am generally all in favor of Tolkien-related articles, but this is ridiculous. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I agree. - That list of Orcs actually exists in the form of the category Middle-earth Orcs.--Niels Ø 11:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Collaboration of the week, maybe? I see featuring on the main page in this article's future! Everyking 09:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (That was a joke, just in case anyone missed it—keep or merge.) Everyking 12:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable even within the realm of LoTR characters. RickK 01:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to discourage recreation. And that template so has to go - David Gerard 15:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:16 Z
• Merge as minor character. I've added the {orcs} template to TFD. Radiant! 13:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - Tolkien's orcs articles merit more development than the present wide spread use of journaling in Wikipedia to cover adult material. -- John Gohde 14:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:43, 23 Mar 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 - kept - SimonP 05:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boldog

Is this a speculative rant which needs to be deleted, or a truly noteworthy and encyclopedic article worthy of inclusion? What can be said of its ultimate potential? You decide. --GRider\^talk 20:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-cited material, and there's enough here to not need merging. —Korath (Talk) 20:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, not speculative or a rant. Kappa 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you ever post anything else to Wikipedia? RickK 05:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• This might serve better if it were briefly merged into Orc (Middle-earth). It's a very minor concept, although somewhat interesting. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it as above. Wyss 01:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn tolkiencruft. ComCat 02:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Not so crufty. Useful information. RickK 05:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 15:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 15:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:14 Z
• KEEP - Tolkien's orcs articles merit more development than the present wide spread use of journaling in Wikipedia to cover adult material. -- John Gohde 14:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks fine to me. Bryan 04:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it as above --GingerM 18:40, 27 Mar 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 - SimonP 05:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24/7

Moved to Wiktionary as requested (wiktionary:Twenty-four seven). ral315 20:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• The edit history has not been transferred, and this page is not listed at Wikipedia:Transwiki log or Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. See m:transwiki for the process. Keep. Uncle G 20:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Keep, this article has potential for expansion including the effect on staff health and safety, legal conditions and logistics. Kappa 14:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in case someone didn't know what 24/7 meant they could come here. Although we expect everyone should know this some people may not. It is not copyright infringed and the website isn't having space issues. Although perhaps it should be moved to Wiktionary, but unfortanutly no one goes there in comparison to wikipedia. Redwolf24 19:27 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (this is an anonymous vote disguised as a real vote, see the page's history ugen64)

* Delete - The edit history has been moved. This has about .1% chance of every becoming more than what it is, and if it every did I doubt they'd use 24/7 as the article name. Kevin Rector 17:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the potential for expansion that Kappa sees. All of the instances of this contraction in other articles could be replaced by the full phrase without loss (and indeed to the benefit of the article concerned in a couple of cases). And articles such as shopping hours are better disposed to discuss particular legal concerns. Weak delete. Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, with no encyclopedic potential. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Stop acting like children nanaszczebrzeszyn (anonymous vote struck out by ugen64) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 05:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news

Dicdef, added to Wiktionary (wiktionary:Breaking news). ral315 20:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with news. Real thing. Kappa 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously a dicdef, already on Wiktionary. --Fastfission 22:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to News or keep. Currently a dictdef but has potential. JYolkowski 22:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef of a trivial word construction, potential fork, a re-direct is a good idea. Wyss 01:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Meelar (talk) 07:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to news - David Gerard 15:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Expand with examples, as I'm against deleting stubs, which have potential. TAS 15:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, roughly the same thing as news. Radiant! 13:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digg

Website started last december. Gets one google hit [23], and an alexa rating of 21,087 [24]. Article admits that it has a small user base. Not notable. DaveTheRed 21:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Great Site
  • Anonymous user vote - not countable. ugen64 04:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful and informative site, fast updates, constant growth.
  • Unsigned by Jkf6030
• Keep
  • Unsigned by 69.211.99.222
• Keep bwats2 02:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit
    • Digg.com Webpage - link added by User:Bwats2 in place of above comment, which s/he deleted
• Keep Digg is a strong site that is growing in popularity every day. The term is being adopted quickly as daily lingo, and is synonymous with "I saw that and found it interesting or worthwhile" as in "I digged an article about Wikipedia.". If Slashdot deserves a page on Wikipedia, as I believe it does, then so should Digg.com Anewal 00:28, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • Vote actually from 68.57.45.253
• Keep Note that Google automatically only gives one hit when searching for "foo.com". If you click one of the links below it, you'll note that 8,670 sites LINK to digg.com, and 121,000 CONTAIN the term "digg.com".
  • Unsigned vote from 69.208.69.114.
  • Oops. Didn't see that. Still think it could possibly be deleted due to the fact that its so new and has a small user base. But my vote isn't as strong anymore. DaveTheRed 21:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by it's design, this site attracts links. Maybe later on, when their user base is bigger and there's some verifiable cultural impact somewhere. Wyss 01:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Wyss. Radiant! 18:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 07:23 Z
• Delete ad, needs third party ref - David Gerard 15:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JubbaG 23:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote actually from 24.225.143.72.
• Keep.
  • Unsigned vote from 69.163.58.35
• Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 18:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Unsigned by 69.69.62.10
• Keep Well, this encouraged me to finally get a Wikipedia account. I need to work on some of your arcade (full size arcade game) pages anyhow. About Digg, it isn't a large site, but I consider it a noteworthy one. It is the first worthwhile site that I am aware of it give editorial control back to the readers. (Not just to submit, but to promote stories to the front page.) This factor makes it an interesting data point in peer-to-peer journalism. Actually, I think this article should also be expanded to add in the benefits and flaws of this model. For example, really cool links from 1998 seem unavoidable in a peer edited story list. Also the changing of group desires over time and the influence of a vocal minority. FWIW, digg is referenced on the Slashdot entry.) Jmccorm 19:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • User's only edit.
• Keep It's nice to see that some people have the foresight to not only be a repository for news, but a built in reflection of public interest where peole choose what news they want. Ultimately this is a refreshing change from traditional media where specific groups of individuals determine what hits the airwaves, paper, or web. People choose! This is what my country (US) is supposed to be all about!
  • Unsigned by 69.211.215.49
• Keep Digg is currently my #1 site for news. Due to its intelligent system of users adding and "digging" (supporting) links, the news gets to the front page faster than all other sites, including slashdot. Please keep the Digg page on Wikipedia.
  • Unsigned by 0perator; it is his only edit
• Keep I love this site for my tech news!
  • Unsigned by 70.32.67.44
• Delete agree with Gamaliel Crazynas 6:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I contributed a lot to fixing this article up, not to mention it's a great site with a lot of presence on the web (Google / Alexa presence). --Hoovernj 02:29, 29 Mar 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.