Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 21

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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??) 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SecondLife Neualtenburg

Nothing but advertising. Title and text don't seem to have anything to do with each other. This is probably a copyvio, but I didn't want to list it there because I want a peremptory decision to delete so this doesn't get recreated. Rick K 00:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Reads more like an editorial to me, and a highly granular one at that. --Calton | Talk 13:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure trivia of barely notable MMORPG. Marcika 04:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is actually my project and I'm stunned (and thrilled) to see it on Wikipedia. Just so you understand, this is not your normal MMORPG build. This is an experiment in a sustainable virtual government which has it's own constitution. We're currently moving on to the second phase and I'd love to rewrite the page to reflect the true depth of the project, post our novel constitution, and share some details on the governmental structure. I feel it's not a vanity page rather a potential reference for a unique and notable virtual governmental experiment. --Ulrika 08:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought I'd add some more information. It appears that this description has been copied from the Second Life History wiki, a wiki created to record the development of the Second Life society. When we created our government, we drew very heavily on Wikipedia for references, utilizing a Social Democracy for our Mixed_government which combines a Democracy, a Meritocracy, and an Ergatocracy. Seats in our representative body are assigned using a Borda Count from scores generated from a unique ranked vote. It's a natural for wikipedia given that wikipedia helped lay the foundation of the city. --Ulrika Fri Mar 25 16:34:00 GMT 2005
- Edited out duplicate vote. RSpeer 17:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of whether it is an interesting social experiment, it is not content that belongs on Wikipedia, because it is original research. RSpeer 16:34, Mar 26, 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

[edit] Converting gallons per hour to Kg per second

This page should be deleted because it is unencyclopedic. It is a specific example of Conversion of units. There is no way to expand this article productively. FreplySpang 00:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no human will ever type in this title. Meelar (talk) 00:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessarily specific example of conversion of units. Is this somebody's homework? (Besides, Google can do this just as well: [1].) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think this pretty much defines "idiosyncratic non-topic". -- Cyrius|✎ 02:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Too specific to be useful in an encyclopedia. Bovlb 03:04, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
The page is even wrong. Volume per time can't be converted to mass per time. The page claims "we know that one litre of water weighs one kg" but water is not the only thing in the universe. What if I want to convert one gallon of lead per hour to kg/s? — JIP | Talk 05:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless we also want Converting miles per gallon to kilograms per second. DaveTheRed 06:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree that converting volume to mass is dodgy to say the least. Pour a couple of gallons on it and convert to heat energy. Grutness|^hello? 06:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per above. vlad_mv 13:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Also, allowing this would be encouraging the creation of a very, very large number of articles—even if—invalid conversions like this one were excluded. Converting pounds of feathers to pounds of gold is valid, for example. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, do tell me. How do you turn feathers into gold? Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

You don't. But you can convert from avoirdupois to troy pounds by multiplying by 1.2153. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's unencyclopedic - original research. ;-) FreplySpang 14:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to conversion of units, on the off-off chance that some human ever types in this title - let them do the math themselves. --BD2412 02:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
REDIRECT to conversion page.--ZayZayEM 07:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How can this be redirected to conversion of units, when it's flat-out impossible to convert between volume per time and mass per time? I stand by my delete vote. — JIP | Talk 08:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh, pshaw, if you know the density of the material (oil? water? gasoline?) you can convert from volume to mass... so if people want to go to the trouble, give them all the formulae and let 'em have at it. --BD2412 21:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, and where does it say in the title of this particular article what material it is? When someone types "Converting gallons per hour to Kg per second" (where Kg is spelled wrong, at that) into the search bar, does Wikipedia magically read their mind and find out whether they mean gallons of oil, gallons of water, gallons of gasoline, gallons of blood or gallons of Chateau du Yquem 1990? — JIP | Talk 05:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - That's the beauty of Wikipedia, they can always just look up water, oil, or gasoline to find the density, then jump over to the multitude of conversion tables and... ah forget, it. I concede defeat. -- 8^D ^gab 03:30, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  - You type #REDIRECT [[conversion of units]] and press "save page". c.f Wikipedia:How to edit a page--ZayZayEM 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - That was not what I was asking, you know. — JIP | Talk 06:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Wtshymanski 16:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. Nothing there, nothing to add of conversion of units. Need specific substance and its density to calculate anyway; uninteresting article deals with water, I though it might be aviation fuel. Which gallons, too? Absolutely nothing salvageable. Gene Nygaard 00:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn nerdcruft. ComCat 05:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not merge, do not pass go. Jonathunder 04:25, 2005 Mar 26 (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. – AB CD 20:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Microbiology,University of Dhaka,Bangladesh

Tagged on Feb. 27 by Gaurav1146, but not brought here. No vote. Joyous 00:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to add {{nonsense}} to this one. Vanity, non-notable. Delete. Alphax ^τεχ 00:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it could redirect to the university page. Meelar (talk) 00:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to the university page, although there is nothing here to merge. Rick K 00:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Given that we're here already, delete. Title is not good for redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete There's nothing here, but I note that there are over a dozen departments within MIT that have their own pages. Bovlb 03:13, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Delete, no useful content, merge all departments into the university page until there's enough material to break something out. Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Racist? deleting simply because it's in Bangladesh? That's a bit bigoted and hurtful???? Singjo Panraabi 02:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of racism are not helpful and are contrary to the community rules we've established. Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 05:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Individual university departments are not notable. Gamaliel 05:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, some are - certainly if its the first of its kind, or produces an unusual quantity of top contributors to a particular field... but nothing about this particular case suggests that. --BD2412 02:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. I should have said generally not notable. Gamaliel 02:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete Yuckfoo 06:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 04:30, 25 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. AB CD 18:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Foods

POV, original research. There might be a decent article on how different foods can cause problems, but this isn't it. Rick K 00:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as Rick. Academic Challenger 00:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Title is inherently POV, article is original research. This topic is more properly discussed at nutrition, among other places. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree with TenOfAllTrades. Also already covered elsewhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, original research. Binadot 02:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, inherrently POV, orig research. DaveTheRed 05:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV material which is already covered elsewhere. Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Commander Keen 3.5 :). Also, delete current content. Radiant _* 12:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Saopaulo1 07:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn foodcruft. ComCat 05:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Phobophile 03:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV; it would be more appropriate to have a balanced article on the different viewpoints various experts have over which foods are good or bad for you, with citations, but this isn't it. -- Dan -- 16:09, 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. AB CD 18:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All the Wrong People

Band vanity. Rick K 00:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Band vanity, even if "their music is well liked by all music fans". Cnwb 02:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. I am proof that their music is not "well liked by all music fans", because I'm a music fan and I've never even heard of them. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My first google hit is about a song by The Temptations. Delete old material and redirect to the Temptations to discourage recreation. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 01:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm also a music fan and I don't like them, and given their stated influences probably wouldn't like them even if I had heard of them. Vanity. Dsmdgold 22:29, Mar 31, 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. AB CD 19:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Mandicor

previous vfd

A scenario for an open-source game-building program. This was renominated yesterday by KimmoKM, author of both the article and the game, on top of the old vfd with the comment "Marketing" (diff). I fully agree. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, still in early development stages. Not notable yet. Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Did I miss something here or is the author himself requesting deletion? Shouldn't this be a speedy? vlad_mv 13:09, 21 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. ugen 64 21:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-ahwaz ittehad socialist party

No Google hits and the article is near-gibberish. Can't find anything to turn it into even the barest substub. Delete as unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is going to be a tricky one. I've identified the country for you (although this may be, like the ALO, a party-in-exile if it exists at all). I cannot find anything to indicate whether this is the Ahmed Qassem who apparently is a spokesman of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Syria [2] or the Ahmed Qassem who is an "independent political affairs analyst" [3]. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Party is not listed at Iran's page at Broadleft.org ([4]), which is a good indication that it either doesn't exist or the article is misleading. Delete. —Sesel wa 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep if significance (and existence) can be proven, as this sounds a bit like a terrorist organization. SusanaeIII
- Phrases like "fighting the Zionists" are typical of political parties in Islamic countries, and do not necessarily indicate terrorism. —Sesel wa 02:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless existence can be verified. Dsmdgold 22:16, Mar 31, 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. AB CD 19:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani terrorism

I think the title counts as "inherently POV". Current content is not much more than an intro and a link, but it might be intended to grow. Kappa 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, yeah I think that would fall under inherrently POV. DaveTheRed 05:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. CPS 06:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV (also, any allegations thereof would be heavily unsubstantiable). Radiant _* 12:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. Binadot 01:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Phobophile 03:40, 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. AB CD 19:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Dalton Pangburn III

Vanity - seems to me making a song or two that were "featured" MP3's is not nearly the same as having an actual recorded album on a real record label, which is the usual bar for notability. CDC (talk) 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, doesn't meet the standards of our musicians notability guidelines. Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for using all three full names and "III". No, not really; instead, delete for not yet meeting musical notability guidelines and otherwise being only a resume without encyclopedic value. Barno 21:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vainglorious Articles IV. Edeans 04:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I created this page as an experiment to see if others would add to it. It looks like the experiment failed.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. ugen 64 21:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priestcraft

As this stub-like article looks like a dictionary definition, doesn't appear to have any sources or provenance for its unusual definition of the word, and generally has a NPOV, ranty vibe (unscientific though I realise that sounds), I suggest that the article should be deleted entirely, as only the title would appear to be of any use to future contributors. --Chips Critic 02:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a dictionary article for the word at Wiktionary:priestcraft, complete with quotations. I strongly suspect that an encyclopaedia article about priestcraft (in either sense) would have a different title. Delete. Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictdef. Priestcruft. Jonathunder 07:58, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Delete. It smells to me like a neologism invented specifically to embed a POV, but even if evidence were submitted to verify that it is in use... it's still a dictdef, with no clear potential for expansion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It's not just a neologism. It's also a term in Latter-day Saint theology, referring to ordained clergy who do their work as a paid profession. It stands in contrast to LDS lay-clergy, who have their own unrelated employment and work in the priesthood as part of their role in life. More of this should be mentioned in this article. It's not merely a criticism—it's a theology as well. You see, in LDS belief, the love of money is considered evil, and to tie religious work with monetary income is perceived a conflict of interest. There are other kinds of uses of religious money, such as tithing (which applies to 10% of everyone's income across the board), as well as fundraising and such. But it's not considered appropriate to pay someone a wage or salary for religious work. - Gilgamesh 09:24, 31 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. ugen 64 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mishmash

Another dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia with no potential for metamorphosis into an encyclopaedia article and no sensible place for a redirect to point to. Wiktionary has an independently grown and better Wiktionary:mishmash (with the more generally accepted etymology, to boot). Uncle G 02:29, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Delete Starwiz 04:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to reduplication Nohat 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT is there a way to redirect to wiktionary? 132.205.15.43 01:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen 64 21:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make-out party

Entirely un-encyclopedic as it stands. I doubt it could ever become much better than it is. Starwiz 04:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Silas Snider (talk) 04:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I trust you mean Make-out party (to which I've switched the header), not its redirect Makeout party? Delete in any event. —Korath (Talk) 04:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- That's the one; I didn't notice the redirect at first...sorry about the confusion. Starwiz 02:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, unencylcopedic, and they even misspelled hors d'oeuvres! DaveTheRed 05:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, better than nothing. Kappa 09:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with other minor variations on festivities. Radiant _* 10:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, seems to be the work of a troll. HiramvdG 11:58, 21 Mar 2005 (CET)
Comment, maybe some experienced editor can turn this into a viable stub? Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-21 T 12:18 Z
Keep and allow for organic growth. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\^talk 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am sure there is an article somewhere that details the different types of parties that exist. This will be a perfect candidate to be stuck there. Zscout370 19:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I updated the page and I wonder what yall think about it. Zscout370 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Suspicious of anything created by User:SamuraiClinton. Maybe redirect to swinging? Chris 21:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I do not believe it should be redirected to swinging, since swinging involves BDSM and other various sexual practices. The main goal at swinging parties is to engage in sexual activities with other couples, mainly intended for adults. Make out parties' goals are for people to meet new people, not to engage in full blown sex. Zscout370 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic. Zscout370's edits are an improvement but the content still doesn't need to be anywhere in WP. Don't redirect to swinging, which is usually specific to married people (but not to B&D nor S&M). This article appears centered on unmarried teenagers, not to say "lacking in emotional maturity". Barno 21:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I give you a few points there, Barno, since this is the first time I heard of this type party. I think that we can keep this article tucked in the back of our minds and try to find something that talks about it (hoping we can avoid blogs). Also, thanks for the kind words. Zscout370 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Research. Ok, I found a few links so far:

I will let yall run with this and see what happens. I will not be surprised if views are/are not changed due to the links. However, I think most of the links are fan sites/dating sites. Zscout370 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn make-outcruft. ComCat 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Question. I keep on seeing the term "cruft" show up on here. What does that even mean? Can you show me examples? TIA. Zscout370 03:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Rationale shorthands. —Korath (Talk) 04:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - It means "I don't like this topic but I can't be bothered to explain why". Kappa 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Please read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Rationale shorthands and Fancruft for the proper meaning. I consider your attitude of giving a newcomer a misleading answer to stress your inclusionist position very lacking in taste. VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - I don't regard it as misleading, newbies deserve honest answers based on observation of actual usage. Kappa 20:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Rather, it means "IMHO this topic is trivial and only of interest to a small group of people" (e.g. pokecruft, schoolcruft, etc). It is a valid argument, if a POV one. Radiant _* 09:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Topic is not encyclopedic. android↔talk 03:34, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep valid article. Grue 16:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Under the current title, it's hard to imagine how this could become anything other than vague opinion and personal observation. From the earnest tone, I can't help suspecting that the author is 14 years old. Isomorphic 20:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. This obviously needs work, but it seems like a valid article. Binadot 04:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep (for the time being) see if it pans out into something better. It has potential. Saopaulo1 07:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to describe an actual phenomena, albeit one I had never heard of before this article. See this article for an example; the searches listed below contain more. --Jacobw 14:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Starwiz's original insight. Maybe (mayyyyyyyybe) the material would fit into an article on adolescent sexual practices in the US, or something, but it doesn't stand alone. FreplySpang 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete DJ Clayworth 20:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe some ignorant parent doesn't know what it is their kids are going to...lol...Zardiw 22:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Feels like original research. From what I know, the term is fairly subjective. Might be worth a transwiki, if it's not already there. --InShaneee 05:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete feels more suited for something like urbandictionary.com, not an article in an encyclopedia. Rmrfstar 23:01, 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. AB CD 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hollycocks

Fails to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, unless I'm mistaken. Delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable cover band. Jgm 22:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete this spawn of the Garage Band Gremlin. Edeans 04:39, 25 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 pending deletion (block-compressed revisions). ugen 64 21:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loose Cannon

Got directed here from List of DC Comics characters. Right now, all there is is a dicdef and an article about a game that may or may not ever be released. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor a crystal ball. Delete. --InShaneee 05:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep ~~"dictionary definitions"~~ unreleased but nonetheless important games. Kappa 15:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ....huh? The dicdef and the game info were two different things here. --InShaneee 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh ok. Kappa 05:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - On what grounds do you think it's 'important'? --InShaneee 02:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - It's important to fans of Digital Anvil. Kappa 06:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Yes, but it has a mention there, where it also mentions it will most likely never exist. --InShaneee 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DISAMBIGUATE IT Turn it into a disambiguation page... with the proper definition of loose cannon as well. 132.205.15.43 01:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dick jokes

I don't know what this is. Original research? Nonsense? But not encyclopedic. Rick K 05:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research, I'd say. DaveTheRed 05:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic speculative essay. -- Infrogmation 05:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, definitely does not need its own article. KingTT 06:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic original research essay. Perhaps redirect to ribaldry or similar to discourage recreation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Idiotic articles make Baby Jebus cry.--Kross 06:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Richard Jokes, if such a person exists and we have an article on him. In the unlikely event that either of those aren't true a simple deletion will suffice. -R. fiend 07:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 10:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete genitohumourcruft. Chris 21:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn dickcruft. ComCat 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wikipedia should cover even these topics. Grue 16:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it were a decent encyclopedically written article, I might agree with your keep, but I'd say this doesn't qualify. "Musicians and other club performers all have a dick joke in their act"? Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 18:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Is it just me, or has anyone else here never, ever heard the term "dick joke" used to describe a performer's failsafe device? --BD2412 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to toilet humor... dick jokes typically involve some bodily function. --BD2412 02:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable (though it was better than I expected) Saopaulo1 07:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Oh how I wish this could be redeemed! Could be merged to toilet humour.An An 11:51, 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. AB CD 19:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities that participated in 15 February 2003 Anti-War Protests

Oh. My. God. What an ugly dump of text. This is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 06:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ow my eyes. Delete. Its placement in Global protests against war on Iraq is painful enough already. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. On second thought, burn it.--Kross 06:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just a frightful mess. The information is possibly useful with some explanation of the size of protest in each place (what is the criteria for deciding whether or not a protest is a protest; do 3 people standing on a street corner a protest make?), but as it is now - unusable. Moncrief 07:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The information is already at Global protests against war on Iraq. Article is redundant. DaveTheRed 07:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Activistspam? Protestcruft? Whichever, it's not encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The table itself is already in Global protests against war on Iraq. Redundant. vlad_mv 13:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, please. The content is already in Global protests against war on Iraq, though I wouldn't blame them for trying to move this section out. Can't this be boiled down to "An estimated $low_estimate to $high_estimate million people (sources) participated in the 15 February 2003 protests. Official demonstrations were held in 793 cities on six continents."? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another pointless abitrary list. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the love of $DEITY. Painful to look at. That said, I'd like to meet the brave bunch that headed down to McMurdo Station to protest. Chris 21:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The consenus is clear, but mightn't this be a good way to factor this material out of Global protests against war on Iraq? That is, keep it on a separate page, lose it there? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pointless list. Megan1967 05:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's an eye sore. Can we also get rid of the one in Global protests against war on Iraq Saopaulo1 07:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge.. It needs to be somewhere! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Please note this table is already "somewhere", namely in the Global protests against war on Iraq. vlad_mv 16:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't know that the penguins at McMurdo staged a march too. Delete it anyway. Edeans 04:50, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesuits alumni

Usability and relevance, not entirely convinced that such a list is needed.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the page, my defense is that I wish to get some sense of the global impact of Jesuit Education, as possibly one of the most succesful education networks in the world. One way of doing that is to develop a comprehensive list of Jesuit alumni or students. Wikipedia seems perfect for this as it opens this list for contributions from areas of the world where this information is difficult to encounter, eg Egypt, middle East, Russia, Japan, etc..... SO clearlt my vote is to keep it... Hope that convinces you! Timsj 11:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, usable and relevant list. Kappa 11:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but only if renamed. A major movement like Jesuits would deserve a page on famous members - but this page title implies that anyone who graduated as a Jesuit could be listed there, which is unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 12:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: A point of clarification... there is a already a page on the Jesuits which incorporates a list of famous Jesuits and link to pages about them. This is not a page of people who have graduated as Jesuits, but of famous and influential students who have graduated from educational institutions founded and run by the JEsuits. There is a a section on Jesuit Education in the original page on the Jesuits and this page is a link from it. I have changed the title as suggested to avoid this ambiguity. Timsj 14:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If this is kept, I believe to something like List of famous Jesuits alumni would be a more suitable name. vlad_mv 13:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename (I suggest List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions). Jgm 22:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I moved it as per suggestion and then spotted that it says in the blurb that articles shouldn't be moved during discussion. Oh well, it's not a list of "freedom fighters" moved to "terrorists" or the like, and it can always be moved again if the new name is intensely unpopular. Wincoote 13:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep (especially under the new name, which is clearer.) If there is insufficent support to keep it, at the very least, it should be merged into the main article on the Jesuits. It's an interesting and noteworthy demonstration of the influence of the Jesuit movement on the world. Note that it could be made even more keep-worthy if it contained information on the Jesuit educational philosophy, or quotes from members of the list on how their Jesuit education influenced them. (Note that I'm not proposing that the author engage in personal speculation as to the influence of a Jesuit education--that would be original research.) --Jacobw 15:29, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to word size.

[edit] 10-bit

Either delete or merge - somewhere... (where?). At the moment it is one sentence which sounds like the last sentence of a paragraph which is obscure enough to give no real information. Grutness|^hello? 06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to byte. —Korath (Talk) 06:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Hrm, or to ~~baud~~ or something related. —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) (RS-232 was the page in this vein that I was looking for, thanks. —Korath (Talk) 15:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC))
Redirect → Word size, an article that explains the concept of various bit-length words and provides links to common sizes. --Allen3 17:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to RS-232 or byte. Gazpacho 14:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Word size as per Allen3. IMHO it makes more sense than RS-232. Sarg 16:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish holidays 2000-2050

A list of the placement of Jewish holidays in the Gregorian calender for the next 50 years, basically a modified text dump, would be better in an almanac setting. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Widely useful. Wikipedia incorporates an almanac. The first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article reads, "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being; lists, timelines, tables or charts)". Please consider withdrawing this nomination as it is based on a misunderstanding. Wincoote 09:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep almanac-like information. Kappa 10:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Jewish holidays and generalize. Radiant _* 10:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Useful information in a horrible format. Merge to Jewish holidays and to the individual holiday articles. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. —Markaci 2005-03-21 T 14:11 Z
- I've made several changes. I created a table of contents, added links to each Jewish holiday, and changed the format of each holiday line. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-21 T 15:02 Z
Keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful and encyclopedic. Binadot 01:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Jewish holidays. Megan1967 05:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge, not useful on its own. Grue 17:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 22:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Neutrality^talk 22:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Clean. It looks awful, a decent cleanup and it should be fine. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:00, Mar 23, 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. AB CD 19:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jodi Brooks

Teaches at University of New South Wales....., ok so is their anything else..... --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. --Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy case 1, anyone? Delete, regardless of method. Chris 21:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded; looks like speedy case 1 indeed. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, Mar 22, 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. – AB CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John webber band

Advert for an Illinois country/cover band. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 10:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
John who band? Delete. Chris 21:01, 21 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 merge and redirect to University of California, Berkeley. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Csua

Possibly notable, but looks better as a merge to me. If it's kept it should be at the full name or CSUA, anyway. Grutness|^hello? 07:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI, CSUA is an acronym for the Computer Science Undergraduates Association at Berkeley. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's the name the article should have had, rather than Csua - although (as I said), it's probably better as a merge. Grutness|^hello?

I agree, merge. Rick K 07:21, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into University of California, Berkeley. If that article gets to be unmanageable, then a Student Activities at UC Berkeley article can be spun off some time in the future. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as suggested. vlad_mv 19:09, 21 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. AB CD 19:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bum rush

Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 07:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 10:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weirdly, this is a different definition to the one usually encountered in this part of the world. But it's not needed here, anyway. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 12:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang, dictdef, and possible neologism (as this appears to be completely different from "the bum's rush"). -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang. Peter Isotalo 19:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've heard the phrase. Wiktionary it at least. Sniffandgrowl 01:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:25, Apr 1, 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. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kid Retard

Even for an underground comic i would expect that i would have found a small blurb about it on the web somewhere, especially with it's "cult" status. Their is also no corosopnding information of the publisher either.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete CDC (talk) 16:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, retardcruft. ComCat 01:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, hilarious. Grue 16:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dumb hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 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. – AB CD 19:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page could not be deleted due to block-compressed revisions. – AB CD 19:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Doty

No stated notability; remarkably few google hits -- #2 is to a mirror, majority seems to be to an assortment of different people. Strange goings-on in edit history. Probable vanity and/or spoof. Alai 08:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. --Viriditas | Talk 09:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, also really boring. Dsmdgold 02:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 03:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Ho Cheung

Vanity, deleted previously per vfd, see this vote's history. Posted his article to this vote. DDerby 19:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If something has previously been deleted through vfd, you can tag it as speedy delete. See wp:csd. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:25, Apr 9, 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. – AB CD 19:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Science: highlights and stats and Israeli Science and Business: highlights and stats

Unsubstantiated trivia, original research. Rick K 08:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 05:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:03, Mar 23, 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. – AB CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LSB Nation

Smells of an advert. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete advert/spam Gazpacho 09:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website promo. Megan1967 10:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Tastes like spam. Ad. Zzyzx11 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, adcruft. ComCat 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LWS

Smells like a advert. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - little more than an ad and platform for an external link CDC (talk) 16:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advertising for an entirely unnotable web forum. --Ctz

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. No interest in my suggestion to move. Sjakkalle 08:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hippopotamus Defence

Hippopotamus Defence should be deleted because the article is technically inaccurate. The page can't be repaired because Hippopotamus Defense is not a well defined term in the chess literature.

The opening given in the article is not commonly called the hippo. (There appears to be only one fringe website that claims this move sequence is called the hippo.) Most commonly hippo is used in the sense of the Hippopotamus System, which is a Black hedgehog formation featuring a double fianchetto. Unlike precisely defined openings like the Ruy Lopez, the Hippopotamus System is a type of postion, not a specific move sequence or even a specific position. A Hippopotamus System page could be added, but no content from the existing page is useful for this purpose. --Quale 06:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quale put the vfd tag on this article, but it seems that he did not submit it to the vfd-page, so I have done it. If the problem merely is that the article has the wrong name, move to the correct name (unknown to me) is perhaps the best measure. I would like to add however that this opening is very rarely played, even in amateur tournaments, so I will leave you to decide on the notability of this opening. Just to make it clear: my vote is currently at move. Sjakkalle 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge stubs on individual chess openings. Radiant _* 10:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by Sjakalle's reasoning, so keep. Radiant _* 12:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that we do not merge. Some weeks ago we finished the unmerging of the chess openings article since it was too big. Sjakkalle 11:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep unusual chess openings, so long as they have references. Google provides plenty; the "fringe website" cited in the article and above is the first hit, but hardly the only one. —Korath (Talk) 20:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep separate if merging is incovenient. Kappa 21:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep since it has Google references. Zzyzx11 01:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Most of those references are links to the single Bogon page or copies of wikipedia. Others don't give enough info to tell what opening moves they are referring to so are no help, and others still give opening moves different and not related to the Bogon/wikipedia version. The only somewhat authorative sites are [5] or copies derived from the same source material (apparently an openings list from gnuchess). Still, I've reconsidered a bit. This opening isn't notable enough to deserve an entry of its own (note that the article doesn't have anything to actually say about the opening itself), and I agree with Sjakkalle that we don't want it on the main chess opening page. The main page is primarily devoted to general opening strategy and popular openings and is already medium-long, and needs more material added to cover the history of the evolution of opening theory. Instead, perhaps Hippopotamus Defence could be made to redirect to a new B00 Openings page similar to the way that Amar Opening and others redirect to A00. Or perhaps there should be a single Irregular Chess Openings page that could include ECO codes A00, B00, C00, D00 and E00. Looking just at the B00 section, we have Hippopotamus defence, Corn stalk defence, Lemming defence, Fred, Barnes defence, Fried fox defence, Carr's defence, Reversed Grob (Borg/Basman defence/macho Grob), St. George (Baker) defence, Owen defence, Guatemala defence, Colorado counter, and Neo-Mongoloid defence. Of these, really only the St. George is notable (GM Tony Miles used it to defeat then-World Champion Karpov). But the names are cute, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have them as redirects to a single page. In addition to the redirects from these opening names to a new Irregular Chess Openings page, the existing chess opening page could link to it and I could pare down the list of openings there. How does that sound? --Quale 01:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well C00, D00 and E00 are not really "irregular" and the most common B00 is the Nimzowitsch Defense, which is reasonably regular and respectable if somewhat uncommon. If we merge this anywhere I think merging it to Irregular chess openings is a better option. Sjakkalle 09:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed that irregular openings have a phletora of names attached to them? I made an article on the Dunst Opening today and have already discovered three alternate names. Compare that to the popular Sicilian Defence which only has no alternate names. Sjakkalle 10:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and expand. Unusual but notable opening move. Megan1967 05:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep is possible, but expand isn't — there's nothing notable to say about this opening except that it has a cute name. It's almost never played. --Quale 14:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 8 clear "delete" votes and 4 variations of "keep" votes. One of the keep votes is from a very new user. There is no evidence of sockpupperty but also not much evidence of understanding yet of the community's goals and standards. Reviewing the article, I also find that this is at best a blog topic or news article, not a topic normally found in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clue 9

ebay fan-cruft. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- - Note: duplicated at User:Clue9 <--- WTF! Clue9 15:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE Text after <--- was added to the original post by Radiant! VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

delete, non-notable trivia. Thue | talk 10:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, maybe a small mention in the eBay article is warranted, but an entire article about a contest isn't encyclopedic. If it is, expect articles about the HP SuperSleuth Contest and the contest started by my local mall. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep baycruft. Kappa 11:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ebaycruft. Additionally, this is not Wikinews. --InShaneee 05:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MacGyver. Radiant _* 09:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a valid article about an internet phenomonen. Clue9 04:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: user has six edits, all of which relate to this article. damn right buddy. i am a new wikipedia user and i want to contribute, so i thought the first article i could write would be about a relevant topic, namely clue 9. I am then insulted by you listing my page as a 'candidate for deletion' what utter piffle. 15:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Text added after "this article." by Clue9 VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete transient interest to tiny minority. Dave 17:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Please note Clue9 has previously removed the VfD tag from the article, supplying "rm homossexuality" as his edit summary. VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to eBay article. --Theo (Talk) 09:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Come on. Folks all in a lather about a one-time tempest in a 6 hour teapot. Unmemorable, unremarkable, uninformative. Geogre 16:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I have changed my mind as a compromise. Clue9 12:29, 28 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.

I count three clear "delete" votes plus my own opinion that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a newspaper vs two "merge" votes. This (barely) establishes the necessary supermajority needed to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ganignunt Aiemsakul

Delete as nonnotable. Having one's disappearance and presumed death overshadowed by Chandra Levy's disappearance and presumed death does not make one notable. --Angr 10:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sad but not notable. Megan1967 05:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Chandra Levy - if people were really taking down this girl's flyers to put up Levy flyers, that is worth mentioning as demonstrative of the effect of Levy's disappearance on related situations. --BD2412 02:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Chandra Levy - as BD2412 said. --Theo (Talk) 09:58, 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. – AB CD 19:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vinyl Solutions

Non-notable local record store. Delete --Teknic 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete article speaks in the past tense, so it might not even still exist. Even if it does, no reason to keep single record stores unless evidence of notability is abundant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vinyl Solutions is also a distributor of vinyl decking, and a record label. Both of those seem more notable than the record store.
Delete. Needs more evidence of notability. Zzyzx11 01:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, store promo. Megan1967 05:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Garcia

Suspect vanity. -- Scott e^iπ 11:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity CDC (talk) 16:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Only claim to fame seems to be through the sim city community. Not notable, vanity. DaveTheRed 18:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the first certified case of cruftcruft. Delete Chris 21:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Smells like vanity. Zzyzx11 01:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 01:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could this be...simcruft? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qormi

Second largest only to B'Kara? What about the island's capital. Also, this sounds more like a travel guide than an article. Delete unless expanded and verified. Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I hereby retract this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. The municipality of the capital city, Valetta, is actually quite small (although most of the individual "towns" in Malta are in fact pretty much one built-up area). This is a perfectly acceptable substub, and hardly a travel guide. sjorford →•← 14:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - towns, especially the second-largest city in a country, are certainly notable. CDC (talk) 16:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see absolutely no reason for deletion. Martg76 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have expanded this adding info on geography, population, climate and history. As of 2003, it is the third largest town in Malta behind Valletta and Birkirkara - although the municipal area of Valetta is small, the southern harbor district has 85,000 people living there. (Source: The Statesman's Yearbook 2005. Irrespective of that, it is a verifiable real place so it should be kept. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep articles expanded by Capitalistroadster Kappa 19:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In fact, I suggest removing the Deletion tag within 2 days, unless there are substantial opinions to the contrary. ---Martpol 22:26, 22 Mar 2005
- OK, I'm removing the tag - not votes for deletion, and even the original contributor who suggested deletion has now retracted. ---Martpol 11:46, 24 Mar 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to The Amazing Race 1 (there was nothing to merge). —Korath (Talk) 00:31, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Frisbee and Brennan Swain

Winners of The Amazing Race 1. Not notable for anything else. Articles contain near to no information. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Same should apply to Chris Luca and Alex Boylan (winners of series 2). Mgm|^(talk) 13:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Merge onto Amazing race articles. Radiant _* 15:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the The Amazing Race article. Zscout370 20:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Policy of allowing articles for fictional TV show characters is well established; I see no reason it should not extend to real people. Harmless at worst. Jgm 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But there's nothing informative said about these people. It could've been a speedy deletion candidate under criterion 1. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Amazing Race. Megan1967 05:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that they're already included in the articles about the shows. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with The Amazing Race 1 (if needed). Dunro 05:26, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

07:44, Mar 22, 2005 Postdlf deleted Worser (content was: 'Worser offically isn't really a word. -Used as a synonym for worse - it can be used to describe that something is getting more worse at a bigger rate, related to [worseleration].')

[edit] worser

As the article helpfully tells us in its opening sentence, this isn't a word. Even if it were a word, an article for it such as this would belong in the dictionary, not in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 13:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Can't we speedy this as nonsense? Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and while you're at it add an article for bester, bestest, and worsest. Speedy. Wow. Someone has too much free time. Pufferfish101 17:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not a word. This article is worser than I though it would be. DaveTheRed 18:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleting this will make Wikipedia more gooder. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speedy under general case 1. Chris 20:52, 21 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. – AB CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flair football

POV rant, not encyclopaedic, as one's own concept of what is flair/entertaining in football is entirely subjective. Qwghlm 14:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

15 pieces of flair!!! Oh, and delete this little essay article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
DeleteDJ Clayworth 20:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please kill it. Lord have mercy. --Woohookitty 21:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV essay. Megan1967 05:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – AB CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogger's contract

Unencyclopedic. Google search reveals few hits, which for anything related to blogs doesn't bode well; doesn't seem to be widely used. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Specific to being a student. Might make more sense in context of an article about Internet-based educational practices or something. Sitting out by itself, no. Since it is mostly an example taken from an external website, is it a copyvio? FreplySpang 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I tagged it as copyvio from here DaveTheRed 23:36, 21 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 ambiguous.

Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the nomination. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.

Reminder: Any editor can be bold and "merge and redirect" the article. That decision does not destroy history and therefore does not need the extraordinary process of the VfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginglith

Is every single fictional person, place and thing from the make believe world of J. R. R. Tolkien considered to be inherently noteworthy? At what point is something so far below the line of notability that it does not merit a redirect? Is there such a line? --GRider\^talk 17:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- - This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
Merge to Beleriand. All of this Tolkien stuff should be merged, not deleted. DaveTheRed 17:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you DaveTheRed for your feedback. Are you of the opinion then that all Tolkien-related topics, no matter how minute and insignificant, should at the very least be merged somewhere else? --GRider\^talk 18:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - A Merge appears consistent with Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters --Allen3 20:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Greetings Allen3 and thank you for the link. Ginglith is not a minor character; it is a waterway in the world of Middle-earth. To further clarify, are you making a vote on this particular article or just a broad statement regarding minor characters, which this is not? --GRider\^talk 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - GRider, if you're interested in finding some sort of consensus on classes of articles, feel free to start a policy consensus discussion. The main VfD page isn't really the right place to do this. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - For parties interested in this outlet of discussion, please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. --GRider\^talk 22:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - To answer your question, yes, I believe that all minor information pertaining to fictional universes in which there is a extremely large fanbase (ie. tolkien, Harry potter, pokemon) should be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. DaveTheRed 23:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Chriscf/bad-vfd If you want it deleted, say so. If you want it merged, be bold and do it yourself. Chris 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep minute and insignificant Tolkien related topics. Kappa 20:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge Everyking 01:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, more tolkiencruft. ComCat 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 02:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:02 Z
- Vote is malformed. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nomination is invalid.--Gene_poole 04:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Vote is invalid. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, malformed nomination. Megan1967 05:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Malformed vote. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. Radiant _* 09:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I can't abide Tolkien, but this looks like the best way to cover these rivers as there are so many of them.
- Unsigned by Pcpcpc. [6] —Korath (Talk) 00:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, useless. Grue 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; merge; whatever. —Xezbeth 17:39, Mar 22, 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 deleteno. – AB CDNO 19:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress errors. – AB CD 19:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language of no

Yet another conlang, consisting entirely of appending "no" to all words. --fvw * 14:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I believe this to be a speedy candidate. A non-existant language made up by a non-existant King of a non-existant country (who happens to have the same name as the author who signed the article). DJ Clayworth 14:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Under what criterion from WP:CSD? --fvw* 14:39, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
  - Patent nonsense. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Hmm? this patent nonsense? It's not random characters, so you claim you can't make heads or tails of it? The text is quite easy to parse, the fact that it's obviously untrue has no bearing on the patent nonsense issue. --fvw * 08:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. Someone's made-up "language", and not a particularly interesting one at that. May not be patent nonsense, if added in good faith. --MarkSweep 01:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I re-added this to the VFD page as it somehow got removed from there without a decision. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleteno. Thisno isn'tno ano realno languageno. DaveTheRed 17:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speedy would be better. Call it patent nonsense, vandalism, user test, hell it could be any of of those. Keeping here for a week or two on a technicality is pointless. -R. fiend 19:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity conlang. —Korath (Talk) 19:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Deleteno thisno nonsenseno. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought this was the opposite of Canadian, eh? Anyway, delete, no? Chris 20:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is this what conlangs have come to? Binadot 02:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity conlang. Megan1967 05:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with R. fiend. This is complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 05:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaaos

Band Vanity. almost no information. I suggest a Speedy but I thought I'd take it here. Pufferfish101 17:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

delete -- Jwinters | Talk 18:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Qualifies as a speedy under Case 1. Delete either way. Chris 20:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep bands who made ~~albums~~ an LP in the 1980's which is being re-released now. Kappa 03:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Guidelines at WikiProject Music require 2 alba. Chris 20:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I count a re-release as much as a second album. Kappa 20:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, they made EPs in the 80s not albums, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- There has been a red link to this band since August 2004. [7] Kappa 13:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - and ...? Chris 20:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - This implies that we should asume good faith, that someone wanted to help wikipedia out with something it wanted, not promote a band. Kappa 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - What makes you think we want this? No evidence of worthiness of a page in WP to be found. Chris 18:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Just replying to Radiant's "vanity" theory. Kappa 20:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No allmusic.com entry. No evidence of significant notability presented. Gamaliel 02:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. VladMV ٭ ^talk 20:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I had a vote I'd vote Keep. Notable part of Finnish punk history. Interviewed by the one of the largest music magazines in finland (Soundi). And I just added some more content and references. (by 193.64.14.2 07:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC))
- I guess it's too late now, but being interviewed by a large music magazine qualifies it under the guidelines. I think this is a case of a notable and influential band getting deleted because the original article was short. Kappa 07:26, 28 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. – AB CD 19:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tragibots

This was added by someone who reportedly added a bunch of nonsense articles. Apparently they were speedied before I saw them. Anyway, I see nothing notable or even verifable here, and google wasn't helpful. Few hits; couldn't tell if any were relevent. It's tagged for a merge/redirect to Mia Matsumiya, which will likely simply be redirected (no merge) to Kayo Dot (also VfDed, prognosis positive), and as tragibots have nothing to do with Kayo Dot this might as well be deleted. -R. fiend 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pyoro

Pyoro is a simple, rather unremarkable bonus mini-game in Wario Ware, a title which itself consists of micro-games. This is the starring "character"'s sole appearance so far. While I have no objection to this entry's information being merged to the main game's entry as a couple of simple short sentences, I do not think such an esoteric subject with so little information available should have its own article in Wikipedia. What do you think? Sinistro 19:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think merge or keep fancruft. Kappa 20:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "fancruft" supposed to be a negative term, as in "Delete fancruft"??Sinistro 20:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I used to think of fancruft as "stuff made up by fans", which should be deleted, but Vfders apply it to pretty much everything so I adopted their vocabulary. I will add that I think the question of whether or not something should "have its own article" is of interest only to editors/users of that particular subject and to random page users and thus should not be a big priority for wikipedians in general. Kappa 21:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not an integral part of the storyline or gameplay, and wikipedia is not Gamefaqs. --InShaneee 04:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 05:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor character. Radiant _* 09:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge as minor character. Pyoro actually has a significant feature about him; it's the exceptionally long tongue he has. --TheSamurai 22:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) SamuraiClinton is the article's author.
Merge or Delete; granularity far, far, FAR out of proportion to influence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge --NelsonJ 02:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Pyoro as a character does not need a seperate section. While I don't want to look self-referential, maybe you could plug Pyoro into the Minor Wario Ware Characters article I created. I also have entries for other minor recurring characters.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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.

Concensus was not reached on whether this article should be kept as an independent article or should be "merged and redirected" back to the parent article. That decision, however, does not require voting on VfD and is appropriate to discuss on the respective article Talk pages.

Sinistro, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/January-February 2005#Merge and Delete for why we need to redirect rather than simply delete. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mona_(Wario)

While Mona, like the rest of Wario's video game developers team, warrants a mention in the article under the character section, I see little reason for her to have her own article. The amount of information presented is misleading, I think: half the article describes in every detail the sketchy scenario concerning her microgame stage. I believe that all important information could be easily trimmed into a small paragraph which could be merged to the main article. What do you think, Wikipedians? Sinistro 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is Votes for deletion and not Votes for merge. If you think it warrants a merge, be bold and merge/redirect it. This page is for proposing pages you think should be deleted. No vote at this time. Chris 21:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But I do believe that the page should be deleted. I just suggest that part of the page's information is preserved by being added to the main article. Thanks for encouraging me to Be bold, I'll keep it in mind in the future!Sinistro 20:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, when you say you want part of the information kept, you might be saying delete, but what you actually meant to say was merge and redirect, which isn't what this page is for. Chris 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep according to the article, she's been in 4 games already, all of which are major games by a major developer/publisher. I'd say that warrants an article. I think the title is awkward though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Starblind's argument. Kappa 21:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft. Even if this character deserves to be mentioned in another article, a redirect resulting from a merge is unncessary. Thus, the page should go. Martg76 21:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recent general consensus seems to indicate that this should be merged and redirected into the appropriate parent article. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --GRider\^talk 21:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mariocruft. ComCat 01:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge She may have been in four games, but mostly as just a face with little to no personality, and therefore little worth noting in an individual article. --InShaneee 04:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, same reasons as Starblind.--Matteh (talk) 05:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 05:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor character. Radiant _* 09:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep "cruft". It's not as if this article is only a few sentences, so merging is unnecessary. —Xezbeth 17:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Starblind's reasoning. --Cohen the Bavarian 15:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --JuntungWu 08:12, 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 ambiguous. Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the way the nomination was made. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination. Rossami (talk) 20:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Foster

"Blogger cruft"? Vanity? Encyclopedically notable? Which is it? --GRider\^talk 21:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

I don't know. You tell me. Chris 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Beats me. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 02:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And we too, as we know not the nature and qualities of virtue, must ask, whether virtue is or is not taught, under a hypothesis: as thus, if virtue is of such a class of mental goods, will it be taught or not? Let the first hypothesis be that virtue is or is not knowledge,--in that case will it be taught or not? or, as we were just now saying, 'remembered'? For there is no use in disputing about the name. But is virtue taught or not? or rather, does not every one see that knowledge alone is taught? Faethon387 02:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reply hazy, try again. Magic 8-Ball 14:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-22 T 03:04 Z
Delete, not notable, blogger vanity. Megan1967 05:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He claims to be a notable weblogger, but gets less than a thousand google hits. Sounds like vanity to me. Radiant_* 09:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- "Rusty Foster" produces 8370 hits. Kuro5hin+rusty produces 21,400. How did you get less than 1000? Average Earthman 09:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vanity indeed. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and de-vanitize. He created the Scoop software for collaborative web-content development... uh, blog software, more notable than most of its type. He created (and edits) kuro5hin, which was an influential early tech-and-society discussion forum and still is more notable than most of its type. Radiant, did you try Googling kuro5hin? Or Scoop + software? Barno 16:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I do not dispute Kuro5hin's notability. Merely Rusty's. Radiant _* 18:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keepish - he's of the same caliber of importance as Slashdot's Rob Malda. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and de-vanitize. Seems like it could be informative. Needs serious editing though. -- 16:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Radiant, you should put in some basic effort before continuing your VfD crusade. Rhobite 16:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- No personal attacks please, Rhobite. My crusading efforts are strictly limited to here. Radiant _* 18:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-encyclopedic, vanity. Martg76 16:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this one is probably notable enough. Grue 17:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Who is this GRider fellow? Rusty Foster is extremely notable! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity blogcruft. ComCat 02:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not a vanity blogger, and the lack of hits for his name probably is due to his signing himself just 'rusty' (a google for Kuro5hin+rusty provides 21,400 hits). I suspect that photo is putting a lot of people off. At most, merge with Kuro5hin. Average Earthman 09:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bloggers are not inherently notable--nixie 09:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; ban troll. — Dan | Talk 04:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, Hi, this is Rusty, the subject of the page. I don't really have a stake in what happens to it, but for informational purposes, it should be noted that I didn't create it, and I don't maintain it. I did change the picture once (that picture is terrible) but apparently someone changed it back. This is all fairly entertaining though. :-) Kuro5hin 01:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, You know, on second thought, I'd vote to delete. It's got all that trolly stuff about $70,000 and tax fraud in there, which is nonsense. Dropping it would make Wikipedia a more accurate place. Kuro5hin 01:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've spoken to Rusty several times and never detected vanity in his nature. I'm slightly less confident, but only slightly, that he's encyclopedically notable. I think he deserves a small article at least for Kuro5hin's sake (this is me trying like mad to restrain my pro-Rusty bias here). -Kasreyn

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riverbend

Is this blatant and POV blog spamming, or encyclopedically notable content? If nothing in this article can be factually substatiated, is it still notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Shall I continue? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance --GRider\^talk 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

Please do. We don't know what you want to do, so we can't decide if we support it. Chris 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Shall I continue? No. I have an idea, GRider: how about actually giving your reasons for adding things to VfD. I also took the liberty of deleting the POV and accuracy tags from the article: GRider, if you're too lazy to engage, you ought not to be cluttering articles with extraneous tags. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There was one, unsigned, set of rhetorical questions. Tell you what, you stop behaving like a troll and I'll stop treating you like one and actually talk to to you. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Was there not a mention left on the talk page? How is any of this information verifiable? Other than a first-person link to a weblog, what references are cited? What is an example of her "elegant, near-perfect, English"? In its current state, how is the entire article not speculative, unreferenced POV? --GRider\^talk 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Copied from User_talk:GRider#Riverbend.)
    - Please note that the article has been updated with sources and more information including a quote from the New York Times (one of many mainstream publications that have taken note of her). Perhaps we can spend a few minutes with Google before slapping a vfd on everything in sight. --Lee Hunter 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and keep: well-known blogger, even if GRider can't be bothered to find out. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:05 Z
- Vote is malformed. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - "Vote is malformed"? What is that supposed to mean? --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep No, please don't continue, please cease your vfd activities entirely. Wincoote 13:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Funny, I don't see any personal attacks worth reminding about. Chris 20:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - "please cease your vfd activities entirely" is what then?
      - Sound advice, politely given. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Famous blogger? Sounds like oxymoron. Grue 17:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like an uninformed opinion. Daily Kos? Pax Salaam? Little Green Footballs? Juan Cole? Ring any bells there? --Calton | Talk 00:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Not at all. This "Riverbend" could be easily a fat bald bloke living in Honolulu. Grue 06:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Uh huh. And this has to do with "oxymoron" how, exactly? You do know the meaning of "oxymoron", right? --Calton | Talk 14:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Do you know the meaning of Wikipedia:Verifiability? How about Wikipedia:No original research? All articles must be based on objective, verifiable information; this is not. How are fellow Wikipedians able to verify what is written in this article is accurate? If you can't give a print source for the information contributed, it should be removed. --GRider\^talk 02:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Are you and Grue playing tag-team non-sequitors? Do you know the procedures for nominating articles for deletion? Do you even do the slightest bit of research before launching your VFD nominations? Do you know the meaning of don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Do you even have a point? Did you get a big box of question marks at Costco you're trying to use up? Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? If your mother says don't chew it, do you swallow it in spite? --Calton | Talk 05:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is this another attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Is the nominator ignoring two RfCs brought in regards to this behaviour? If the nominator refuses to desist from this behaviour, will the current RfAR end with sanctions imposed? See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#GRider. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bloggercruft. ComCat 05:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep She's a brilliant writer, frequently referenced by other notable bloggers like Middle East expert Juan Cole and Danny Schecter, one of a tiny handful of Iraqi bloggers, one of only one or two Iraqi women bloggers. Notable enough to become the target of a few right wing nutbars in the US. Notable enough to get 60,000 hits on Google. (I've also added some more information re her identity and her book). --Lee Hunter 02:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I also want to register my displeasure with yet another malicious nomination from GRider.--Lee Hunter 13:50, 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. AB CD 19:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha Doors and Gates and Aloha doors and gates

Non-notable advertising. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly are there other listings commercial listings? i.e. goto the los angeles home page and their are several businesses listed there. I'm sorry I didn't really believe that I was spamming or doing anything that was of a questionable nature. Only adding a listing that didn't exisit yet. Here are a several examples that are already in the wiki to support what I mean.

List removed. Comment by anon 216.52.210.36, 8 edits, of which 6 are directly related to this VfD.

Delete Blatant spam. Kill it before it hits the mirrors. Chris 22:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spam. Rick K 00:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just advertising, nothing notable or encyclopedic here. --Idont Havaname 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad spam (and cliché-ridden ad copy) of the worst kind. To the anon's credit, s/he seems to accept the fact that the listing is inappropriate. - Lucky 6.9 05:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. If there is a notable achievement by this company, i.e., they invented the garage door or they are the largest in the country, then that'd be different. -Willmcw 00:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad. Not notable. Dsmdgold 22:44, Mar 31, 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faraz Rabbani

How is encyclopedic notability being illustrated in this article? If it isn't, should it be shunted over to List of bloggers or List of translators? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

I don't know. Should it? You tell me. Chris 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum? Faethon387 02:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Outlook good. Magic 8-Ball 14:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-22 T 03:05 Z
Delete, under the bar of notability, reads like a promo. Megan1967 05:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Valid article. Invalid nominator. Wincoote 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a keep to me even with the promotional overtones. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote Malicious nomination. --Lee Hunter 03:55, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnar Tørnquist

If Wikipedia is not paper, can we spare enough disk space for articles detailing every single game developer who happens to blog? --GRider\^talk 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

I don't know. You tell me. Chris 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whatever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 01:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now, if there be any sort of good which is distinct from knowledge, virtue may be that good; but if knowledge embraces all good, then shall we be right in thinking that virtue is knowledge? Faethon387 02:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ask again later. Magic 8-Ball 14:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-22 T 03:05 Z
Keep game developers. Kappa 03:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He is a waste of space. Delete.
- Unsigned by 203.10.59.63. —Korath (Talk) 00:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, is there a Chris/Dpbsmith/Lacrimosus/Faethon387/Markaci VfD template kicking around here somewhere? Anyway, I'm thinking delete. Game developers on the whole are not yet at the level of movie directors in terms of notability. Most of the article looks like vanity anyway. -R. fiend 04:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, since he's been part of some noteable games.--Matteh (talk) 04:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. Zscout370 14:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Note: GRider wrote "828 Googles" in his edit summary when he put the VfD notice on the article, but it is fair to point out that I got 928 Google hits for "Ragnar Tørnquist", and 1990 Google hits for "Ragnar Tornquist" Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable game writer. Gazpacho 14:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Xezbeth 17:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
No Vote Malicious nomination to prove a point. --Lee Hunter 03:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Of course, he's in entertainment, so we're going to be far, far more likely to keep someone of his level in than if they were in something such as academia or business. But notable games? Umm, not really that notable. Peter Molyneux, fine. Sid Meier, definitely. But this chap? To me, he fails the average games designer test. Average Earthman 20:40, 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 as unverified. Rossami (talk) 20:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eat Ch

Rule free card game something like Mornington Crescent (game). Cannot verify, so suggest deleting as original research. --Henrygb 22:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 970 google hits, the vast majority of which are typos, and the rest appear to be derived from the Wikipedia article. Unless someone can demonstrate that this isn't original research, it does not warrant an article. Average Earthman 20:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems familiar, I was introduced to a game with these rules (or lack of them!) on a campsite in Norway. Perhaps the game has a different name in Norweigan? Matthewmayer 08:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. AB CD 19:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ITard

appears to be an invented word

delete - Melaen 22:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Will accept speedy as patent nonsense as alternative. Chris 23:10, 21 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

Are all children with unusually long 43-character names inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? Why or why not? --GRider\^talk 22:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

I don't know. You tell me. Chris 23:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and ~~list~~ keep listed on WP:UA. —Korath (Talk) 23:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and write more articles instead of delete existing ones. Dmn / Դմն 00:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Trivial, but interesting. If it were only a line or two I'd say merge into List of unusual personal names but it's a decent little article. I wish it were better referenced. I believe that the number of children with 43-character-long-names is small enough to suggest notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 02:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Obvious keep. As well, this vfd is malformed, as Chriscf already pointed out. JYolkowski 02:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 02:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-22 T 03:07 Z
I thought I recalled a similar VfD a while ago and a suggestion was made to merge into some sort of page of unusual names. If one exists then merge and redirect there. -R. fiend 04:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I should read all the VfD comments first. Dpbsmith mentioned the article I was thinking of: List of unusual personal names. I still think it could be covered there adequately. -R. fiend 05:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is notable because it's the only known case of anyone trying to name their child like that. — JIP | Talk 05:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep; this. Yuckfoo 06:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Noteworthy. Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with unusual name, per R.Fiend. Radiant _* 09:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Xezbeth 17:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep – How many children were originally not named out of protest, and then, under threat of law, were named something like that? Notable, and a great example of an UA. – Clockwork Soul 23:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. This shouldn't even be up for discussion! I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's getting harder to do. - Lucky 6.9 02:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm it's kinda funny when someone nominates an article called "Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116" and someone else questions their good faith. Kappa 21:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sigh...Kappa, with all due respect, the person who listed this for deletion is up for an RfC for possible abuse of the VfD process as a sort of Socrates or even that Mike Myers character. "Discuss amongst yourselves." I remember this case. Weird story and not without its humorous overtones. You're right that odds are good that no one could even spell this correctly and therefore look this up. BUT it's in the unusual articles page which makes it highly visible. No change of vote. Back to Wikivacationing. - Lucky 6.9 03:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -JCarriker 09:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable and obscure! What a wonderful combination. --Theo (Talk) 09:47, 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 keep. – AB CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tapwave

Not notable. The company that made "the Tapwave Zodiac, a Palm OS 5-based PDA, and the first Palm-based device developed with gaming as a primary consideration". r3m0t ^talk 23:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, companies are notable. Grue 17:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

00:20, Mar 22, 2005 RickK deleted Alex brady (content was: '#REDIRECT Alex Brady')
00:20, Mar 22, 2005 RickK deleted Alex Brady (teen vanity)
00:19, Mar 22, 2005 RickK deleted Alex Brady (vanity)

[edit] Alex brady

Vanity. --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 21 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 21

[edit] SecondLife Neualtenburg

[edit] Converting gallons per hour to Kg per second

[edit] Department of Microbiology,University of Dhaka,Bangladesh

[edit] Dangerous Foods

[edit] All the Wrong People

[edit] Battle for Mandicor

[edit] Tiffany Yu

[edit] Al-ahwaz ittehad socialist party

[edit] Pakistani terrorism

[edit] Kenneth Dalton Pangburn III

[edit] Priestcraft

[edit] mishmash

[edit] Make-out party

[edit] Hollycocks

[edit] Loose Cannon

[edit] Dick jokes

[edit] List of cities that participated in 15 February 2003 Anti-War Protests

[edit] Jesuits alumni

[edit] 10-bit

[edit] Jewish holidays 2000-2050

[edit] Jodi Brooks

[edit] John webber band

[edit] Csua

[edit] Bum rush

[edit] Kid Retard

[edit] Andrew Doty

[edit] King Ho Cheung

[edit] Israeli Science: highlights and stats and Israeli Science and Business: highlights and stats

[edit] LSB Nation

[edit] LWS

[edit] Hippopotamus Defence

[edit] Clue 9

[edit] Ganignunt Aiemsakul

[edit] Vinyl Solutions

[edit] Joel Garcia

[edit] Qormi

[edit] Rob Frisbee and Brennan Swain

[edit] Mindree

[edit] worser

[edit] Flair football

[edit] Blogger's contract

[edit] Ginglith

[edit] Language of no

[edit] Kaaos

[edit] Tragibots

[edit] Pyoro

[edit] Mona_(Wario)

[edit] Rusty Foster

[edit] Image:Autofellatio.jpg

[edit] Riverbend

[edit] Aloha Doors and Gates and Aloha doors and gates

[edit] Faraz Rabbani

[edit] Ragnar Tørnquist

[edit] Eat Ch

[edit] ITard

[edit] Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

[edit] Tapwave

[edit] Alex brady

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search