Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 14

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplaces of music

A list of places (3) where types of music may have started. Unverifiable--nixie 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Even if those 3 places are verified, the other question we need to consider is should this list even be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 02:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that those kind of details that can be stated as fact are already in History of music, I fail to see the need for this list.--nixie 02:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think this list is necessary. Delete. Zzyzx11 08:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 04:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extraneous list. Tygar 06:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep could be interesting if cleaned up and expandedAndrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. Radiant! 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I know, music is generally not "born" but evolved from other genres, hence trying to pinpoint a single place as the "birthplace" is dubious, at best. -R. fiend 15:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A lot of this is already covered on List of places after which musical genres have been named or whatever it's called. Grutness|^hello? 10:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's rubbish. Robinoke 17:44, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Patel

Non-notable dog. Delete. For some reason I find this tribute very moving.-gadfium 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how this dog deserves its own encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 02:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the memorial wiki, and thereby counter its systemic bias. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope we don't hurt the author's feelings by deleting this, and it is a moving tribute, but unfortunately not an encyclopedia article. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And a German Shepherd/Lab cross as well. Possibly my two favourite breeds of dog. There ought to be a proper memorial wiki for things like this. Does anyone know if Wikicities has one? — Trilobite (Talk) 03:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the memorial wiki was specifically for memorials to people who had died in the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. DaveTheRed 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. That's quite a systemic bias there. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is it systemic bias to create a wiki with a narrow scope? If I created a wiki dedicated to square-shaped objects, would I be guilty of systemic bias because my wiki contained no articles on circular objects? DaveTheRed 05:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's called irony, honey. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ok honey, explain to me what part of this conversation is ironic, cause I sure don't see it. DaveTheRed 08:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• (Subsequently taken offline...)

• Delete, not notable dog. Megan1967 04:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Weirdly enough I find this more sad than most of the human memorial articles I see here. It still can't stay though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Awwwww. That's so sad. My condolences to the Patel family; Star sounds like he was a wonderful doggy. The article needs to be humanely put to sleep. DS 03:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very sad, but still not notable. Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sad, but no, it doesn't belong here. Perhaps someone should suggest to the owner that he puts it on a page on his website. Otherwise I'll be tempted to add my old cat (1982-2000). Grutness|^hello? 10:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dog died, owner sad, this is not the place for it. --StoatBringer 12:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this was 1999, I would suggest an internet startup for ONLINE PET MEMORIALS! NASDAQ, here we come! We're going to be rich! --AStanhope 17:45, 20 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Sills

This article is about a teacher in Texas who was arrested on drug charges. It's rather mundane and does not seem encyclopedic at all. Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, I think Carbonite misses the point. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, but it also transcends the values of traditional encyclopedias. This article contributes to local history in Fort Worth. I believe we should not be so pessimistic as to aspire to attain the merit of Britannica. Wikipedia can be much more. Note: Added by User:Morris181340
  • Wikipedia isn't paper, but it's also not a newspaper. Sadly, a teacher being arrested on drug charges isn't uncommon or especially notable. If the arrest of Mr. Sills is really a major event in Fort Worth history, perhaps a case could be made for inclusion in the Fort Worth article. Carbonite | Talk 03:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A great example of something that is verifiable, but does not belong in Wikipedia. DaveTheRed 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people in the United States are arrested on drug-related charges every year, are they not? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• The only way I would vote to keep is if further information regarding the protests were included demonstrating some higher level of significance then they seemingly have now. Or assertion that incident was somehow important in Fort Worth history as a whole, some broader significance, or some importance to his life or career behyond this. Unless and until this something else is added, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:24, 14 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on the concentration of biologically active substances and drugs and Biologically active substances and drugs

Identical articles, the content reads like a college project, it also lacks refs making it difficult for other editors to verify the content--nixie 01:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The article titles are very tenuously related to the article contents. Perhaps some of this stuff can be merged into drug metabolism? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these two articles. Merge any useful information that is not in the appropriate articles.--ZayZayEM 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Drug metabolism, no redirect. Megan1967 04:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research? This is hard to tell. Tygar 06:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Tygar said. Fuzheado | Talk 09:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these, uh, whatever the hell they are. Edeans 03:58, 18 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 - made into a disambig page - SimonP 15:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Original research, personal essay. No sources given for any of the statements in it. Nothing wrong with it, all sensible stuff, but all presented on the sole authority of the contributor. Should not be kept in its present form. (By the way, this is not a re-creation of the previously deleted material under this title).

The topic is encyclopedic—and is presently dealt with in the article Historicity of Jesus.

I personally think the disposition of The Quest for the Historical Jesus should simply be delete, because I don't think this is an appropriate title, and not one that anyone would be likely to type in when looking for this material.

However, two redirects are worth considering. One is to Historicity of Jesus. The other is to Albert Schweitzer, because the title is extremely similar to Albert Schweitzer's famous book on this topic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus and is a plausible mistake for someone looking for Schweitzer's book. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested above. Android79 02:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • To which target? Historicity of Jesus or Albert Schweitzer? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, both! :o) Sorry, wasn't thinking... I'd say Schweitzer, because I think the searching-for-book-title mistake is more plausible. Android79 02:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historicity of Jesus. Lacrimosus 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It could even conceivably be a disambig for Schweitzer and Historicity of Jesus, though a redirect to the latter is quite acceptable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, that's all very well, but what to do with the existing content? It appears to be a well-written essay with very little POV-pushing, and it would be a shame to just delete it. I suggest merging some of the background material into Historicity of Jesus, to offset that article's fragmentory nature. Or transwiki to wikibooks. Keep as the current disambiguation page. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's more than just a plausible mistake for Schweitzer's book title; there are numerous references on Google to Schweitzer's book that do give the title as "for". Should probably redirect to Schweitzer. I'd also suggest that the book appears notable enough that maybe an article on the book itself might not be a bad idea; if there already is one or somebody wants to write one, redirecting this title there might be an even better idea. Bearcat 02:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, but I'm not that person... BTW I assume Schweitzer's book was written in German so the title is a translation, but all sixteen copies in several editions in my local public library network's online category use "of." and it has stuck in my mind precisely because "for" would seem more idiomatic... just as On the Edge of the Primeval Forest" has always sounded odd because "Jungle" would seem to be the natural term... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schweitzer is probably best. I wouldn't bother merging any of the material. It reads like a personal essay, and I think a merge would cause more trouble than it's worth. DaveTheRed 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Albert Schweitzer. Megan1967 04:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We now have at least four articles:
  • Historicity of Jesus
  • Cultural and historical background of Jesus
  • The Jesus of History
  • The Quest for the Historical Jesus
• the neutrality of at least two of which is disputed. This seems too many and too much non-neutrality. Uncle G 09:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

---

• Comment I've rewritten it as a disambiguation page. The original essay to which the above comments refer is here. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Comment And Megan1967 failed to notice Historical Jesus, which I've now added to the dab. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I failed to notice or are you just wanting to start a fight? Just about every other editor has suggested what I just said. So I dont understand what context you brought that comment up with considering the majority of comments so far. Megan1967 05:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Mr. Smith misattributed Uncle G's comment (the bulleted list with four entries, missing Historical Jesus as noted) to you instead. No need for fightin'. :o) Android79 05:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay I'll take your word for it, Android. Megan1967 06:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whoa! I screwed up bigtime. a) Wrote what should have been a thank-you so that it sounded like criticism and b) misdirected it. My apologies. Still haven't got the knack of this newfangled "on line" communication, it would seem. Let's try this again.
• Comment My thanks to Uncle G for pointing out two other articles on the "historical Jesus." I've since found a third one, named, oddly, Historical Jesus which would be another candidate as a redirect, reinforcing my feeling that it should be a dab. I've added it to the page.
• Keep in its present form as a disambiguation page. Good work, Smith.--Christofurio 15:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This should be about the book and the book only. If there is enough info on the book make it an article. If not redirect to Albert Schweitzer. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schweitzer. -Sean Curtin 02:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the piece, I am heartened by the response. I wrote it only because I did not find the historicity page, which goes far beyond what I wrote, off the cuff, but did find a page whose author read the Bible with little critical appreciation. Redirect it anywhere it should go.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aggridants

Phycological neoligism for a dominant individual, no reason given for the significance of this term or the theoretical context that it is used in--nixie 02:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary candidate?--ZayZayEM 03:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 04:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • But it makes no sense without some theoretical context, it'd be just as odd in wiktionary as it is in wikipedia--nixie 05:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Abraham Maslow and delete. Tygar 06:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:GVFD#Incompatible_votes. Which do you actually want, deletion or merger? Uncle G 09:41, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Hah... whoops. Thanks :) Tygar 09:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Abraham Maslow and redirect. If (unexpectedly) this got to be more than a paragraph or so, then it would be time to spin it back out. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merge not significant enough in its own right 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to Heal Traumas

Barely coherent, New Age-ish, unreferenced essay with a special guest appearance by Medusa. In cleanup for more than 6 months. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Delete. --Plek 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some sort of odd combination of personal essay, original research, unencyclopedic article, and patent nonsense. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't this nonsense? Perhaps a redirect to First aid?--ZayZayEM 03:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't even say it qualifies as *barely* coherent, frankly. RidG (talk) 04:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If the article is incoherent, please make it coherent. This article is based on the book "Waking the Tiger" (which I read). Medusa is a METAPHOR not a special appearance. The book on which this article is based on has helped many people to heal, control fear and paralysis. Pls don't just delete but contribute or improve on it. I have placed a request for peer review, ideally to any psycologist, so far no response. Since I am not a psychologist, it is an amateurish article but so is great portion of wikipedia, and open source itself. Linux was created when Linus was only a student.--Jondel 04:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The book Waking the Tiger by Peter Levine (1997) has a respectable Amazon sales rank of 1409. [2] If you want to write an article about it, I'd suggest you start anew and write something that is comprehensble to the average reader at Waking the Tiger (currently a redirect). --Plek 12:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree to rename/write anew Waking the Tiger.--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, I say. Even if it was somehow made coherent, it would still be patent nonsense. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Delete. RickK 05:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense, POV, non-encyclopedic, etc. Binadot 05:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no original research. Tygar 06:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, odd content. Fuzheado | Talk 09:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 12:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's not patent nonsense or original research or an essay; it's an explanation of the contents of Waking the Tiger by Peter Levine. That being said, however, I think I've had this article on my own watchlist for most of the six months it's been on cleanup and I haven't been able to tackle the task of taking it from what it is to something more encyclopedic. So while I support a "Waking the Tiger" article, I'm not sure this is the base to work from. Weak keep and strong cleanup; I'll start the cleanup with an intro that assumes it will be moved to Waking the Tiger. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You assume, of course, that the contents of Waking the Tiger are themselves not patent nonsense! Still the book is notable enough, so an NPOV discussion of its place in the greater scheme of things would not go amiss. I hereby change my vote to rename to Waking the Tiger. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree ->rename (will work on this a bit later )--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wierd and useless to anyone actually looking up this topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Book critiques and recommendations' their place is Amazon.com, not Wikipedia, unless the book ios so notable as to warrant its own article. --Zappaz 02:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The book is notable to warrant its own article and is very relevant, I believe. As suggested by Plek and GeorgeStepanek, renamimg or rather rewriting Waking the Tiger as a book review (paraphrase amazon.com?, in 1 or 2 weeks?) and removing seems to be most feasible option. I will be creating See-also links from articles on or related to Healing and Fear. I don't feel the need to push for this article anymore if the above is well done. The contents of Waking the Tiger might become a total rewrite (or borrowed from this ). I am definetely going to push for the survival of the contents of WTT (as a form of therapy). I've read the book, find it applicable and feel this should be read by many more people.--Jondel 07:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this new age pap. Please. Edeans 04:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have copied the contents to Waking the Tiger and will place a redirect after this. Unless even the redirect should be removed, I don't see anymore use for this vote. Thank you for your participation. Pls feel free to remove the How to heal traumas redirect.--Jondel 09:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The vote was 10 votes for deletion, NOT to redirect. Jondel's unilateral action of moving the article to a new page does not meet the voting consensus. RickK 10:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I 've reverted it to that of Antaeus Feldspar--Jondel 10:10, 20 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 15:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haketsi

Substub I can't verify, has been sitting around since October 2004 without any references or anything else being added. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (what little there is) to Georgia (country), and add redirect. Megan1967 05:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to merge, but I can't verify it. If it's not true, we don't want to be merging it. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:12, 14 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 15:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chuffed

A dictionary definition that has been since moved to Wiktionary. --Alexs letterbox 05:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If already in Wiktionary, delete. Radiant! 12:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The transwiki process has not been correctly performed. There is no mention of this article being transwikied in either the Wikipedia:Transwiki log or the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log, and edit history has not been recorded in the new article. Delete. Transwiki process performed. No need to keep this dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 00:30, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Whoops! I was unaware of the transwiki process. So until I learn how to do that. Keep --Alexs letterbox 08:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have listed the article on the Wikipedia:Transwiki log and I have copied the history to the new article's talk page. --Alexs letterbox 08:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 14:53, 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athasastra

The content of this article is original research and or copyright violation--nixie 05:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay, book promo. Megan1967 06:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arthashastra, where the article already is. (Some of it may be mergeable.) Antandrus 06:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Antandrus, and while you're at it get other spelling variants like Arthasastra as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 14 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 15:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kromulent

23 hits on Google. - BanyanTree 06:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. RickK
  • Agreed. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Pwqn 07:18, 2005 Mar 14 (according to history Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC))
  • DO NOT move invented words to Wiktionary. RickK 09:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Especially since Wiktionary already has cromulent. ☺ Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Delete - Cromulent, the "right" spelling of this fictional word, already exists. No real need for this odd misspelling. Fuzheado | Talk 09:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cromulent is a redirect as I indicated above. RickK 09:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't negate xyr point, though. What negates xyr point is to note that there's little evidence that "cromulent" is the correct spelling and "kromulent" is not, given that the word is only said and not written and especially given the various other "K" for "C" substitutions that occur in the programme. Uncle G 13:02, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
      • No, but fandom (and consistency with other English words) would imply a "C" spelling. For comparison, Cromulent gets 38800 googles, while Kromulent gets 23. Radiant! 15:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect → Made-up words in The Simpsons. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:16 Z
• Redirect DJ Clayworth 17:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 09:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. It's a perfectly cromulent misspelling. --Carnildo 03:57, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article cannot be deleted at this time due to block-compression revisions BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amp3.com

Defunct online music retailer, had 5000 users at its peak. Unencyclopedic, I suppose it could be merged into a history of online music retial or something similar--nixie 06:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lasted about a year, and 5000 users isn't really a lot for a commercial website, especially not one that offers MP3s Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 15:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anaconda vice

There is no vfd precedent for individual wrestling moves. Delete, yes or no?--nixie 06:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Professional wrestling holds. DaveTheRed 08:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect → Professional wrestling holds. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:12 Z
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:57, 14 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anjali Venugopal

A local criminal, i can find information on the person, but nothing about any crime? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neither notable nor verifiable. DaveTheRed 08:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, not enccolpedic, sounds like bad intentions on author's part doles 22:23, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable even if true Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antiquing

Jackass stunts are unencyclopedic, delete--nixie 07:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete to clear the edit history so someone can write a proper article on the furniture refinishing technique. - Lucky 6.9 07:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lucky. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 11:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I always thought that this word referred to the process of hunting for antiques to buy. Could be an encyclopedia article, but this is not it. Meelar (talk) 21:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can mean both that and a technique of making something look old. Concur with the clear consensus here. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• And so it does, originally. Delete as per Lucky 6.9. Content is a possible merge with Jackass. Lacrimosus 22:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As Meelar, I'd long heard the word in a context irrelevent to the alleged meaning here. -- Infrogmation 04:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Lucky's furniture idea (but include a line to redirect to jackass). Delete. Radiant_* 16:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wellexcusemeprincess.com

This site gets 817 google hits [7] and an alexa ranking of 2,069,670 [8]. Not very good for a supposed internet phenomenon. Also, while not technically grounds for deletion, the site is extremely irritating. DaveTheRed 08:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Though not largely visited like other IPs such as zombo.com, the site is considerably popular among some Internet frequencies. --Patach 01:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 08:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a webguide. jni 08:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The site is certainly not popular. More importantly, with next to no content, this article has no potential to become encyclopedic, unless it actually becomes a phenomenon. Foobaz·o<
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 09:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not much of an internet phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should we just list the web site on The Legend of Zelda series#External links? Zzyzx11 23:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcruft. ComCat 09:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, webcruft. Edeans 04:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 04:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Jeez. My website gets a higher ranking than that. Some phenomenon. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 10:37, 18 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

Dictionary type entry - I've created it on Wiktionary Wiktionary:Backlog, not enough content to be an encyclopedia article. Greenman 14 March 2005

• The m:transwiki process has not been correctly performed. There is no mention of this article being transwikied in either the Wikipedia:Transwiki log or the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log, and edit history has not been recorded in the new article. Keep. Uncle G 10:29, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic. Let it grow. Grue 18:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to expand. Edeans 04:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• One can have backlogs of all sorts of things, from national parks maintenance, through stocks and shares to be sold, to Wikipedia articles. This is far too general a word to match a specific topic by itself, and unexpandable without something to relate to. Delete. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 20:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 15:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chico's Bail Bonds

Oy. Bad News Bears-cruft, now? Bearcat 09:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Bad News Bears. --Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with The Bad News Bears. --Vik Reykja 09:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (creator)
• Redirect (with addition of a sentence about it there) to BNB article. Moncrief 09:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect → The Bad News Bears. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:02 Z
• Redirect to The Bad News Bears. Megan1967 11:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As creator of that article, I've decided not to waste everyone's time and just redirect it to BNB where it should have been in the first place. Correct me if I should not do this with my own bad judgements in the future. --Vik Reykja 10:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if possible. ComCat 09:01, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sovereign Dominion of Eyros The Sovereign Dominion of Eyros/History and The Sovereign Dominion of Eyros/Economy

Vanity. Some gaming group's D&D campaign. Not encyclopedic. RickK 09:49, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable fan fiction vanity (see the edit summaries). Also The Sovereign Dominion of Eyros/Religion. Gazpacho 10:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I was transferring the information over, but I agree we were incorrect and this page does not belong on Wikipedia. Sorry. Abisashi 10:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy as deleteable by author request (see above)Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• It's always cheering when you spot a title that looks vanity and think to list it on VfD... and then find out it's already been listed, saving a good five minutes. Delete. Shimgray 08:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wrong place to put this stuff.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - some kept othres redirected - SimonP 15:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The result was:

1. Quinquagenarian, Sexagenarian, Septuagenarian, Octogenarian, Nonagenarian redirected to Ageing.
2. Centenarian, Supercentenarian kept.

Carnildo 19:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quinquagenarian

Also, Sexagenarian, Septuagenarian, Octogenarian, Nonagenarian, Centenarian and Supercentenarian.

NOT FAIR TO INCLUDE SEVEN DIFFERENT ARTICLES ALL TOGETHER! CERTAINLY THE WORD "CENTENARIAN" MEANS MUCH MORE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAN QUINQUAGENARIAN.

This is just a case of "WIKTIONARY GONE WILD." Someone just discovered the "fun" of creating dictionary entries and is now on a rampage against the WIKIPEDIA. But let's face the facts: an encyclopaedia tells a whole lot more than a mere dictionary ever will.

While I am not saying this should be deleted I will point out the following problems with this article: It consists of the following: a definition, a calculation which is not year aware and so must be manually edited the first of each year (and is not particularly informative in my opion, but that's just opinion) and a list of people in a certain age range. This list is (1) incomplete and (2) always changing as people age into and out of this range. This would require perpetually manual maintenance. I suggest it be considered if the page, as constructed, is useful or even possible. RJFJR 03:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia	Wiktionary	Already in Wiktionary since:
Quadragenarian	-	-
Quinquagenarian	-	-
Sexagenarian	-	-
Septuagenarian	Wiktionary:Septuagenarian	2005-03-04
Octogenarian	Wiktionary:Octogenarian	2005-01-10
Nonagenarian	Wiktionary:Nonagenarian	2005-03-04
Centenarian	Wiktionary:Centenarian	2005-03-04
Supercentenarian	-	-

Keep. First of all, there are people creating these lists, and to them this must mean it is important. To claim that the lists should be deleted because it is "too much work" is an argument that could be made for Wikipedia itself. Second, since few people reach age 110--and even then, the "lists" include only a short, top-ten or something list--this is certainly NOT going to change every day. How many times is the record for "oldest person in England" going to be broken? It was set in 1993, and still stands. Meanwhile, track records fall every week.

I agree that the articles on "quinqagenarian" or whatever aren't very useful, but all you have to do is to trim them and get rid of the "living 50-year-olds" which is a waste of time. But don't throw the granny out with the bathwater. ~~

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, minus the impossibly incomplete unmaintainable list. DaveTheRed 04:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 07:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Maintenance nightmare. Wiktionary - David Gerard 13:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there any reason this article gets put on Vfd but sexagenarian, septuagenarian, etc. do not?? Georgia guy 16:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really, no.
    • Yes. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Denni☯ 18:47, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Strong concur with RJFJR, delete the unmaintainable lists and move the short description to wiktionary. Radiant! 08:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Supercentenarian, keep Centenarian without the list, Wiktionary the rest. --Carnildo 09:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• My votes:
  • Quadragenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus an unadorned dictionary definition (with a note about attestation). Remove the list and Wiktionary.
  • Quinquagenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus an unadorned dictionary definition (with a note about attestation). Remove the list and Wiktionary.
  • Sexagenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus a dictionary definition plus information about retirement. Remove the list, add a {{wiktionary}}, and Keep.
  • Septuagenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus an unadorned dictionary definition, that didn't improve in 15 months whereas Wiktionary managed to come up with a better one in two days. Remove the list and Delete.
  • Octogenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus a dictionary definition, that didn't improve in 13 months whereas Wiktionary managed to come up with a better one in two days, plus information about life expectancy. Remove the list, add a {{wiktionary}}, and Keep.
  • Nonagenarian — A badly maintained and not useful relative-to-present list plus a dictionary definition, that didn't improve in 11 months whereas Wiktionary managed to come up with a better one in one day, plus information about dead presidents (☺) that isn't particularly useful, and already exists amongst all of the other Trivial Pursuit answers at President of the United States in any case. Delete or {{wi}}.
  • Centenarian — A reasonably maintained and presented list, that is not relative to "now", plus a dictionary definition, plus information about longevity and telegrams from heads of state. Add a {{wiktionary}} and Keep.
  • Supercentenarian — A well maintained and presented list, that is not relative to "now", plus a dictionary definition, plus information about extreme age claims. Add a {{wiktionary}} and Keep.
• Note that "Wiktionary" in my votes can be replaced by "Delete" without loss. There is ample evidence here (and elsewhere) that Wiktionary can come up with better dictionary definitions from scratch in a handful of days than collaborative editing at Wikipedia can achieve in months (or even years in some cases). Uncle G 12:35, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • I would suggest though that information about retirement, longevity and telegrams from heads of state should be put in articles by those names. Radiant! 13:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep centenarian and supercentenarian - good pages with information that does not change very often. No opinion on the others. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep centenarian and supercentenarian—delete all others. Postdlf 13:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a general information base. People keep wanting to create "list" articles that don't add basic information to the encyclopedia but simply present the results of a hypothetical query against the information present in other articles, assuming that information was in a form that could be queried. For example, this list is the result of the hypothetical query: Select NAME from BIOGRAPHY_ARTICLE where (NOW - BIRTH_DATE)<60 and (NOW - BIRTH_DATE)>=50. The problem is that there are an infinite number of such queries and the list articles that are created by this approach must be manually maintained -- the software is not actually doing the work. Manual maintenance means inaccuracy, incompleteness, and WORK! Furthermore, in many cases the query implicit in these articles is not even of great interest, such as this case. --BM 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh? Supercentenarian is effectively an article on the oldest person. In what sense is that not encyclopaedic? -- ALoan (Talk)
• Unless and until any of these articles can have more information in them than definitions and lists of people it will be very labour intensive to change (maybe even daily!) delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Re-direct quadragenarian and quinquagenarian to middle age, sexagenarian, septuagenarian, octogenarian, and nonagenarian to old age. Keep centenarian. Georgia guy 22:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cent. and supercent., and delete or redirect the rest. -Sean Curtin 02:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep centenarian, supercentenarian, delete or redir the others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep centenarian and supercentenarian since they are encylopaedic and interesting. Delete the others, I guess, since they change quite often (although, since they are ordered by year, they are not that hard to change: just delete someone from 'septuagenarian' and add them to 'octogenarian' when they turn 80). But delete them if you want. --Ben davison 13:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Supercentenarian! Keep only the list of those who are already dead. Don't keep the still alive ones -- add them when they die. sherry.

• Keep Supercentenarian, preferably in a version without table-formatting,as I have pleaded on the article's talk page.(Compatible with every browser except mine is not an advance over compatible with every browser;I find editing formatted tables enormously more difficult than plain-text lists).When I started work on that article it was just a redirect to Centenarian,from which it needed to be sorted.I think the oldest living persons belong there (while the National longevity recordholders belong in their separate article),though the list of oldest-livings should be kept fairly short so it doesn't need editing often.Keep the Centenarian article but prune the lists,it is not necessary to have everyone over 100 you have ever heard of,only the most famous centenarians.The rest,might as well delete/redirect,but keep the List of people who are nearly centenarians.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. Fix! Remove continually changing info and try some statistics. ie - the world's quinquagenarian population in the 1990s was some percentage.  The Steve  20:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn listcruft. ComCat 03:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep the page--Jonano
  • The above edit was by User:24.122.51.203 --Carnildo 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Supercentenarian. It's actually a good article, has been around for some time, and has been getting even better and more readable. Jonathunder 02:05, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
• Keep Centenarian and Supercentenarian. Delete, redirect or merge with wiktionary the other entries. Oska 02:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

• Keep Nonagenarian,Centenarian,Supercentenarian.I believe that people living for 90+ ages is indeed a remarkable thing.Ravichandar84 10:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Birch

Is this or is this not the ultimate proof that there is an irrefutably heavy bias towards inclusion of Pokémon-related articles? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 18:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pokécruft. Android79 18:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This appears to be a direct extension of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Nintendo items. The discussion is still active but appears to be favoring a merge unless the item can show notability outside the game. --Allen3 19:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is incorrect; Professor Birch is not a Nintendo item, the discussion is unrelated. --GRider\^talk 19:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, merge if you must. Why have you listed this again anyway? Xezbeth 19:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well-known character in a very popular cartoon & game series. 3,180 Google Hits as "Prof. Birch" and a further 597 as "Professor Birch". Come on, now... the previous VfD ended less than 2 weeks ago and was only tallied yesterday! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It was tallied with, quote: 9 clear "delete" votes, 3 clear "keep" votes and 3 clear "merge" votes. Odd, isn't it? --GRider\^talk 20:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So the reason that this article was re-nominated a scant 11 hours after its previous deletion discussion was closed was that 9 is not a multiple of two. Uncle G 10:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
      • My trust is that you understand why this was renominated. --GRider\^talk 21:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Grue 20:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and as for Average Earthman's retort below, we can create a disambiguation when and if another Professor Birch gets an article. Meelar (talk) 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm I should just vote clear Keep to make it easier for vote talliers. While there is clear bias towards pokemons vs other -mons and suchlike, this article isn't a particularly good demonstration of that. Kappa 21:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per starblind. Also keep out respect for the result of the last vfd. DaveTheRed 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be argued that the solution most likely to garner acceptance would be a merger with a larger topic...I'm not sure if a flat "keep" is respecting the last VfD when there were only 3 keep opinions and more than half the voters wanted the article deleted outright. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:GVFD#Votes. There were 6 keep opinions, and 9/15 is less than 2/3. Uncle G 10:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • Or one could also argue that since the end result of the last vfd was to keep, we should honor that instead. But really, I would accept a merge too. DaveTheRed 07:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:GVFD#Incompatible_votes. Choose one. Or at least let the closer known which circumstances would result in which choice. Uncle G 10:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • I didn't say delete and merge, I said or—performing one but not both of those actions is GFDL compatible; perhaps I should have said xor. Either would be acceptable to me. A merger and redirect would be fine, but I don't want my opinion taken to mean that this article should be kept outright--which seems to be the way that these things are counted. If we had an appropriate shorthand notation for that vote, I would use it. (I'm sure there are a lot of 'mergist' Wikipedians who are also frustrated by this.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, pokecruft. Megan1967 05:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 07:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• There were 9 deletes and three merges to 3 keeps, so it got kept? I don't get it. My personal opinion is to Delete still, but I'd suggest merge would be the reasonable compromise from the previous vote. Average Earthman 10:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:GVFD#Votes. There were 6 keep opinions and 9 delete opinions, and 9/15 is less than 2/3. Uncle G 10:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • I count three keeps, and three merges. Are you saying a merge vote is a keep vote? Average Earthman 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:GVFD#Voting_shorthands Uncle G 10:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
        • No, merge doesn't say 'keep this article', it says move the info and create a redirect. So 12 votes say this isn't good enough for its own article, and 3 say it is. That is a pretty strong vote not to be left as its own article, and the compromise in this situation would clearly be a merge, unless there is clearly no appropriate article to merge to. Average Earthman 10:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Wrong. Merge does say keep the article. Read WP:DA and think about the actual mechanics of a merger process. Also read WP:GVFD#Closure and Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you've been voting "Merge" up until now thinking that it meant deletion then (a) you've been making the WP:GVFD#Incompatible_votes mistake, and (b) you've not performed enough article mergers. ☺ Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
            • What do you mean, I'm wrong? "Merge to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, leaving a redirect afterwards" - that from the link you just supplied. And to me, that is what I just said. If you think that a merge vote does not mean move the content into another article and create a redirect, then I suggest you should read the links you supplied. Average Earthman 13:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as below. The page should have been deleted or merged before. Martg76 17:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• So if an article gets 10 delete votes, 10 merge votes, and 1 keep vote, it's kept because there was no consensus to delete? That makes no sense. A merge vote should not be treated exactly the same as a keep vote because they are not the same vote. Delete this, or failing that, merge, which is probably what should have been done initially, as a compromise between keep and delete. -R. fiend 16:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Or, to look at it differently, there were 3 votes to keep this as a separate article, while there were 12 votes saying that this should not be its own article. 3 to 12? Don't tell me the bias towards keep is that great. -R. fiend 17:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd like to point out that one of the three keep votes was a commentless vote from The Recycling Troll, who has since been banned indefinitely by Jimbo for trolling. In light of that I'm not sure his vote should be given full weight. -R. fiend 22:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not changing my vote, as I believe Professor Birch is a sufficiently important character in the Pokémon series. However, this article is within the jurisdiction of the (poorly-organized) Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav, so any executive decision must eventually go through their membership. kelvSYC 22:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you implying that those participating in this VfD discussion (or, more specifically, the administrator that makes the final decision) do not have such jurisdiction? Android79 23:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pokecruft. Edeans 04:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per clear consensus on previous vote. Merge means get rid of the existing article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - David Gerard 22:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Important character, important topic (unfortunately). I read Pokemon articles when i'm bored. Keep. Hedley 03:22, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handsworth Grammar School

I find this article unencyclopedic as it describes this school from the writers personal point of view. In my opinion the article got nothing of interest to wikipedia, except what distance the school lies from Birmingham. --Emuzesto 18:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• To me, this article seems like vanity. Delete. Tygar 19:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. This is a valid school-stub. --GRider\^talk 20:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not a basis for deletion, a basis for editing. Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. No potential to become encyclopedic. Gamaliel 21:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, especially as fixed up. Kappa 21:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the wiki and info related to open-source computing I found was interesting. I expect that much more info useful for inclusion in the article could be found with a deeper look into their wiki than the cursory glance that I took.Drw25 21:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established; interesting article. These are the sorts of facts that set an article like this apart from all the cookie-cutter school stubs around here. - Lucky 6.9 21:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to develop. Wincoote 01:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn grammarcruft. ComCat 09:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I don't believe this can be usefully expanded (i.e. any expansion is just pointless padding), but what is there is factual. I'd personally want this merged as part of an article on the local schools. Average Earthman 10:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Handsworth, West Midlands and delete - Skysmith 10:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not often you see a school using an all-Linux network. (Yes, Chris is voting "keep" on a school article! Must be a cold day in Hell ...) Chris 16:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination doesn't meet deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 22:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it does, as vanity. And delete. Radiant! 08:59, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Furthermore, "does not meet deletion criteria" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 07:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • If you have evidence that the article author was also the school's founder then please share it - otherwise it is not vanity.--Centauri 11:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken. It could also be considered vanity if written by anyone related to the school (e.g. any student) just like vanity articles on a person could also be written by relatives thereof. Radiant_* 10:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Your reasoning is way off kilter. Merely attending a public institution or using a public facility does not make writing about it "vanity". By your criterion, nobody could write an article about a transport facility they've used, a church they've attended, or in fact any place they've ever physically been in without it being "vanity".--Centauri 22:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Nomination is invalid and should be retracted. —RaD Man (talk) 02:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nomination is perfectly valid. Not a tap-and-run and not disruptive. Chris 07:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly fine article. --Zero 13:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge to something on the locality. Has potential. Nomination perfectly valid, though, and cannot imagine how anyone could call this an "extreme keep", it just barely makes the cut. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• There's a lot of extremism when it comes to VfDs on schools. Seems to go with the territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a school. --Centauri 11:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, no potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 04:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• kee[p this school please. is schoolcrufta delenda est italian? Yuckfoo 20:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Latin. It's more or less what Cato the Elder kept repeating about Carthage. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - the exclusive use of OSS is somewhat notable at this stage - David Gerard 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no reason why this information (if it is indeed the only one) could not be included in the relevant open source software articles.
• Keep. JuntungWu 06:48, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Equalitarianism

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

• Korean. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an article, just a rant. It goes something like "Look UN! This is a world across the sea. Has technology advanced this far? I don't know..." Kappa 12:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<end moved text>

• Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egalitarianism. -Sean Curtin 02:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egalitarianism. Megan1967 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Technology didn't reach that far, the Fig Rolls of Doom ate it at the 23rd hour. This article is useless in any language. Hedley 03:31, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - SimonP 15:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Frankly

Is this professor from Goomba University noteworthy and encyclopedic? --GRider\^talk 20:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 20:26 Z
• Delete. This character has an entry in a list of characters in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; it doesn't need to have its own article. Android79 21:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. Disambiguate if there are any other professor Frankly's. Kappa 21:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; this is already covered, more coherently and with context, in that article. CDC (talk) 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, duplicate entry. Megan1967 05:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn mariocruft. ComCat 07:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing to merge, so Redirect as per CDC. This is another byproduct of overwikifying lists of names. Uncle G 10:57, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, someone might search for this. —RaD Man (talk) 02:21, 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 delete. Cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mental health of men

Looks like original research to me. If for some reason you guys want to keep it, it should be renamed to something more encylcopedic-sounding DaveTheRed 20:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I meant to nomintae this ages ago, it does read just like a college paper, delete--nixie 22:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, essay. Edeans 04:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for all the same reasons already listed Feco 07:33, 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 delete. Cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adams' Grammar School Senior Debating Society 2

User:80.168.224.36 added the {{vfd}} tag to this page, but failed to create a new section on the VfD page for this second debate (see the first one here). I am completing it's nomination by adding it here. Drw25 20:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) However, I vote:

• Keep. I'm surprised this article's up for deletion again so soon, and yet it's developed since the last vote. We now have confirmation that the society's over 90 years old and the Question Time thing could gain the society even more prominence. Any way, my vote still stands. Drw25 20:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article is of decent length, but a lot of it is trivia (names of officers) and filler ("Minutes are kept at every meeting and are stored in the school's archives..."). This is the sort of thing that, in my opinion, would have to be pretty darn special to warrant an article, and I don't see any evidence of that here. Oh, and only 2 Google hits as an exact phrase, if the article title is correct. (edit: both those 2 Google hits are from a Wikipedia mirror)Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school club. Anything worthy of note can go in the school's article, but what's here is mostly exciting trivia like the fact that they currently don't have a treasurer. Gamaliel 21:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, high-school clubs are not notable. DaveTheRed 21:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a 90-year-old high school club is still a high-school club and no more notable than any other equivalent, much younger, society. Lacrimosus 21:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, better as a separate article than merged. Kappa 21:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not for self promotion, this is just vanity for an non-notable organisation--nixie 22:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Secondary school club. No evidence of notabilty. --BM 00:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I cannot even beleive this page exists. I attended this school, the school itself barely merits its own page. What is more, the little boys who created the page for the debating society have completely cocked up the school page. Piersthompson 05.45, 15th March 2005 (UTC)

I resent this comment. First reason: No personal attacks and secondly: if you are referring to the major problems with the page that occured overnight, you should know that the major changes to the school template were absolutely nothing to do with anybody from AGS. The person who made these changes should've checked and modified the pages that use the template before they changed it. If you have issues with the current incarnation of the Adams' Grammar School page, take them up on its talk page or with the users who made the specific edits, and please don't use inflammatory language...Drw25 16:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity and/or NN. Radiant! 08:28, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A 90-year old high school club isn't that suprising in a 90 year old high school, and there are plenty of them around. Average Earthman 10:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 10:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 04:29, 18 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Makai Wars

Are games in development for the Sony PSP inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? --GRider\^talk 20:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. You are supposed to provide your own reasoning for deletion, you know. Xezbeth 20:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge games in development with their notable developers, Nippon Ichi. Or keep them. Kappa 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article does not belong. Arkyan 01:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 05:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it actually exists. Radiant! 08:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn gamecruft. ComCat 08:59, 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colon health

This was tagged as a speedy for being "patent nonsense" but it's a serious article and more like a "recipe" or DIY treatment, so I think it could be transwikied to wikisource. I'm not sure about the other ingredients but I know chlorophyll and acidophilus are supposed to be good for the colon. Kappa 21:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE I'm no doctor and can't be 100% certain whether this is good or not, but I do know that certain things taken as an enema can be extremely harmful and even fatal. A beer enema does not sound to me like a good idea. I strongly recommend that this be deleted until, at a minimum, an actual doctor assures us that the recipe isn't harmful. I've seen some pretty tense issues here on VfD before, but this is the first one I would consider potentially a matter of life and death. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering that, I put another speedy tag on. Kappa 23:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick Googling mostly confirms my fears about this topic. Using alcohol in enemas can indeed be fatal, apparently it is absorbed into the bloodstream far quicker than it would when drunk, and death by alcohol poisoning can happen even with relatively small amounts. Even the few who claim to try it (as a sex thing, not a health thing) advise a weak dilution of 1 part beer to at least 5 parts water. This recipe is nowhere near as diluted as that, and 8 oz is plenty. And I'm sure none of them would ever dream of doing it daily for weeks as this article suggests. I have strong reason to believe that this recipe could be fatal if the directions are followed. I HAVE NEVER OPPOSED AN ARTICLE AS STRONGLY AS THIS ONE This isn't cruft, or spam, or vanity. This article could kill someone. KILL IT FIRST. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think this counts as original research, someones home brew colon treatment shouldn't be in wikipedia, nor should it be transwikied, we are not in the business of givng health advice--nixie 22:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as potentially fatal info. Can the article be protected from editing? - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. And frankly, I doubt anyone will follow this recipe in the next week. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care if the chances are small, even a 1-in-a-million chance is too much. When was the last time we had an article that could potentially kill someone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be funny if not for the fact that it's fatal. DaveTheRed 02:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does say that this is a "formula for a sick colon". I suppose that's true in at least one sense. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect to "colon" after deleting is okay by me. I have no objection to speedy delete. -- Infrogmation 04:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Make redirect so as to discourage recreation. Lock if necessary - David Gerard 22:56, 18 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 15:38, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morbuzakh

Seeing as how none of this content is referenced, is any of this notable and encyclopedic? --GRider\^talk 21:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No vote. Could you please state whether you want to delete this article or not? If not, don't nominate it in the first place. This page is large enough as it is. Thank you. --Plek 21:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge if we have a Bionicle Characters article to merge it to. 1,060 Google Hits. If we were to start deleting things based on lack of references, 99% of Wikipedia would disappear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Bionicle characters, or something similar--nixie 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merging would be acceptable too. Kappa 22:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge → List of Bionicle characters or similiar. The prinicples from Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Nintendo items seem to apply to this article. --Allen3 23:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Bionicle characters. Megan1967 05:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bionicruft. ComCat 07:40, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green marble

The (sic!) Green Marble (sic!) is a café in Mystic, Connecticut. As such, it is not notable, so even a redirect to the correct The Green Marble would be pointless. Also, there is a picture of that café on the Mystic page. <KF> 21:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic--nixie 22:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this unless notability is proven, but keep the picture on the city page. Pics of local businesses or areas are very helpful in city articles. Meelar (talk) 00:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn cafecruft. ComCat 08:57, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cumulus Tower Winnie

I can accept that towers in and of themselves are notable. But planned towers? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if a tower hasn't been built yet, it doesn't deserve an article. BTW, there are over a dozen articles on planned towers at the List of masts page. Consider this VfD a test case for the rest of them. DaveTheRed 21:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that if it isn't in the ground, or in the case of products available for purchase (unless a part of some long established franchise), then it shouldn't be in wikipedia. See wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete--nixie 22:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Nixie. Radiant! 08:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nixie. Let's come back to it when it's actually built. Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 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 - merged and redirected - SimonP 15:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boy's Love

In what way is this remotely encyclopedic? Please discuss amongst yourselves. --GRider\^talk 21:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to yaoiAny article starting with the phrase "X is another name for Y" is a strong candidate for merging. It's definitely a notable subject, with 21,000 Google Hits on its own and a further 666,000 Google Hits under the more common term yaoi (and surely more than double that if I knew how to search for it in Japanese). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• No, you tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 22:41 Z
• Merge and redirect to Yaoi. Megan1967 06:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yaoi as per Megan. Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yaoi. Rich Farmbrough 08:54, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

[edit] Popes (gang)

This was tagged for a speedy but gangs can be encyclopedic, like the Crips, so I brought it here. Kappa 22:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and encyclopedic street gang. --GRider\^talk 22:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete According to http://www.chitown.com/bigshoulders/gnglist.html there are hundreds of gangs in Chicago alone. I also think that with a few truly famous exceptions like the Crips, street gangs tend to be unencyclopedic because their activities, members, and notability are almost impossible to verify. In other words, delete street gangs as unverifiable unless they get a lot of press. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • What research did you do to determine that this is unverifiable or "impossible to verify"? --GRider\^talk 23:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Even the police often have difficulty determining what gang pulled off what crime, how many members each has, etc. If we say "Chicago has 300 street gangs and 50 deaths believed to be gang-related", how do we sort the big-time killahs from the gangs who prefer to sit around and sip weak tea? Or do we assume, with an average of less than 0.35 deaths per gang, that none of them are notable? It's not like any of them put up scoreboards of their hit count or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Andrew. Megan1967 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Starblind. Radiant! 08:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable gang, membership roster may be impossible to verify, that does not mean the gang itself is not.  ALKIVAR™ 09:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, notable gang which is insanely easy to verify. Next time, justfuckinggoogleit.com. —RaD Man (talk) 10:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps if there was an article on 'Street Gangs of Chicago', their name alone might warrant mention in a paragraph near the bottom as part of a list which could be sourced from news reports; but how can Wikipedia source and verify any of the statements made in this article? The whole topic seems to be one of the things which Wikipedia can't cover, because it's mostly unwritten, unwritten-about folk memory. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, this is easily verifiable and the gang still exists. Refer to the link provided above. —RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The link doesn't work, and who writes it? To which standards is the information in that link held? Does the gang still exist? Did it ever exists? If it persists, in what form? Is it notable? How can we know that the gang still exists? And more importantly, how can Wikipedia, as a collection of reputable references and links, how can Wikipedia know? If you mean that I should use Google, the first page that emerges is for a gang called the 'Insane Popes', and it's laughable; this page [9] has mention of the Popes in passing, amidst a much larger list? How do we know that the gang is not just three people, with a spraycan? How can we reference or source any information in the article, given that they are essentially a 'secret society'? And given that America has amazing lax gun laws, why hasn't anybody gunned the bastards down yet? My position is that (a) the gang's existence is unverifiable, (b) the gang's composition and history is unverifiable and (c) in any case, they aren't notable. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:58, 20 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 15:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ly the Fairy

This article opens with the following sentence "Ly the Fairy is a cat-like fairy made by Polokus, the spirit of the world, with only one mission...to help a limbless rabbit hero we know as RayMan." Should this be deleted or kept? Does this subject warrant a merge into a new article, such as List of Rayman characters? --GRider\^talk 22:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 22:47 Z
• Keep appears in four games, 6,280 Google Hits for Ly +Rayman Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge → Rayman series. There is nothing to suggest this character is notable outside of the context of her video game series. --Allen3 00:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Starblind, or maybe merge per Allen3. Kappa 02:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Megan1967 06:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Rayman series. ComCat 07:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. Radiant! 08:36, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final-nelson

Is this supposed combative move somehow encyclopedic? Why or why not? --GRider\^talk 22:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You tell me: clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 22:58 Z
• Delete, probably joke. Jackie Chan wasn't dead, last I heard. Kappa 02:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, "the late Jackie Chan" - likely hoax. Megan1967 06:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn hoaxcruft. ComCat 08:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. I'm pretty sure Chan isn't dead. Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedel

Delete Article appears to be the definition of a slang term used by a small number of people. Searches for Pedel and PDS return no relevant results on a number of search engines. Google searches for "You are such a Pedel!" and "It's like Pedal!" (phrases suggested by the article's creator as examples of common usage (See: Talk:Pedel)) return no results at all, further suggesting that the term is unused outside of an extremely small group. As such, it appears to be both a vanity page, and an article with no potential to become encyclopedic -- g026r 23:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no potential to become encyclopeic, unsuitable for transwiki--nixie 03:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pedal to prevent article recreation. Megan1967 06:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• please see again the discussion, more arguments arrived. 80.144.124.167 14:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Amusingly, in amongst all of their "why can't we have an encyclopaedia article on every word? This is a free encyclopaedia!" flailings at Talk:Pedel, the anonymous users have (accidentally) hit upon a real meaning for this word in their random Google citations. It's a position, akin to a master of ceremonies (for graduations, public processions, Ph.D. examinations, and the like), in universities in the Netherlands. The term is derived from bidellus generalis, the same root from which comes Beadle, a similar (but not identical) master of ceremonies in Scotland and England. This article, of course, mentions none of this, and (given that it gives "dick" and "janitor" as synonyms) is very probably an attack page directed at the person in the photograph, whose initials no doubt are "P.D.L.". Delete, unless you want me to do yet another rewrite. ☺ Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uncle G, who seems to have been put to more trouble than this article could have ever been worth. Edeans 19:38, 18 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 15:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashrak

How is encyclopedic notability being illustrated in this article? Should it be deleted? Or merged into List of minor characters from Stargate SG-1? --GRider\^talk 23:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Ashrak. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 23:52 Z
• Merge or keep minor characters from Stargate SG-1. Kappa 02:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Stargate SG-1. If I'm reading the article right, Ashrak is not a character, rather a type of character. As in, "Oh look! That man over there is an Ashrak." DaveTheRed 02:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. You know, GRider, you should be bold and merge all those minor character stubs you find, rather than listing every single one of them on VfD. Radiant! 08:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stargate SG-1. ComCat 08:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stargate SG-1. Edeans 19:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• merge Yuckfoo 21:09, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milky Bar Kid

Question: Encyclopedic? --GRider\^talk 23:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Milky Bar Kid. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 23:53 Z
  • I agree. Hedley 03:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known advertising symbol. Kappa 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Kappa. Let's remember not to be too US-centric. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wincoote 01:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Famous ad campaigns and slogans should be included. Lee M 01:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, I've started an article for Milkybar, and have merged this there. I would like it if someone could add some info on the European dolphin version of the Milkybar kid. I don't think it needs its own article--nixie 02:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and redirect to Milkybar. Concur with Peta. Megan1967 06:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as with Nixie. Radiant! 08:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Milkybar. ComCat 08:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Internationally-recognised brand/campaign. Shouldn't the VfD nominator actually state their reason for listing an article here? --Gene_poole 22:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Milkybar. -- FP 05:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, famous enough to deserve a page, and would possibly come under categories that milky bar itself wouldn't come under, such as long-running advertising characters.
• Delete and redirect to Milkybar. Edeans 19:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because the milkybar kid is strong and tough, and only the best is good enough.. Although, funnily enough, the kid in the adverts was always about four foot high and looked like a stereotype wimp. Hedley 03:47, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Immer Neant

Verifiable? Notable? Encyclopedic? Worthy of inclusion? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 23:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, tag with {{music-importance}}. Bring it back if notability isn't established in a week or so. Kappa 00:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 3 Google hits [10], fails to meet Wikipedia music guidelines for notability. Megan1967 06:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Megan. Radiant! 08:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 08:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am doubtful that even the Garage Band Gremlin would take note of this one. Edeans 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with no third-party verification - David Gerard 22:54, 18 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Walsh (Politician)

Self-promotion for a non-notable minor (has held no public office) self pronounced political figure--nixie 23:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. RickK 05:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence provided that he has ever won or polled strongly in a notable election. Average Earthman 16:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Green Party candidate for British Columbia general election, 2005 (See here.) As with others currently on VfD, either merge to a single Green Party of British Columbia candidates, 2005 election article or delete. Can have an article if he wins, but not until then. I'm beginning to suspect the Greens have organized a concerted effort to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Bearcat 00:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's starting to look that way, isn't it. Delete the current version, but keep the option of bringing back the page as a redirect. CJCurrie 00:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 00:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, CV. I think Bearcat is right about the Green's use of wikipedia. If so something should be done. -R. fiend 15:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, a political resume. At worst, a conspiracy to hijack WP. Begone. Edeans 20:05, 18 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 delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahbod_Sedaghat

Appears to be a vanity page. The article claims that it's about an Iranian politician, although the subject does not appear to have done anything or held any position meriting an article. Delete, assuming no-one turns up something significant this individual has done. Lupin 04:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article does not establish notability. RickK 05:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:47, 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.