Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 26

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:GRider/Schoolwatch and User:GRider/Colleagues

Highly inappropriate user page. GRider is making a deliberate attempt to subvert the VfD process, by contacting dozens of people whom he believes would agree with him, and asking them to vote. check his contrib log. This is very similar to those cases where an article on an internet forum is put up for deletion, and people on that forum are asked to come here to vote. I should point out that an Arbitration process is underway against GRider for his abuse of VfD and abusing WP to make a point.

To establish a consensus on a group of articles, one should put them up in a public place (such as RfC, a WikiProject, or policy consensus on VfD). What is being done here is the opposite - not finding a consensus, but trying to out-shout the other party. He is also unilaterally removing opposing opinions from this page (diff here).

From the VfD Guide, "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy)."

Radiant_* 08:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with some points of the complaint against GRider ,but I feel this falls within the bounds of the acceptable. It's on his own user page, and while there are limits, I don't find this all that objectionable. Why, indeed, should he be prevented from notifying people who might be interested in a particular vote but don't follow vfd? I quote from Wikipedia:User page:
You can also use your user page to help you use Wikipedia more effectively: so you can use it to list "to do" information, work in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It's also good for experimenting with markup (a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox).
Another use is to let people know about your activities and opinions on Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed.

GRider, whatever my opinions of his methods, has every right to his user page, within the wide boundaries we've set as a community, and I don't see what he's doing as all that inappropriate. There's a big difference between inviting people to spam and inviting established editors to make their voices known. Keep this page. Meelar (talk) 09:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I can't agree there. There's a big difference between putting something on your userpage to tell people what you're doing, and actively engaging in ballot-stuffing, which is the only purpose these two pages can hope to serve, particularly when you look at "what links here" on the Schoolwatch page and find that it's been spammed to other users' talk pages in a deliberate attempt to get a sympathetic hearing for each case. You might want to check the wikipolitical stance of each of those members that have received a message on their talk page pointing to this. Precedent in the past has been to delete material which interferes with or attempts to get around VfD, so I see no exception in this case. Chris 11:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Meelar has a point, however there is a difference here. When an article of <foo> is nominated, it would make sense to alert some fans of <foo> because they can explain why the article should be kept. But GRider does not get people to explain something, he gets people who simply vote as he does. I know that high schools are a controversial issue, but this is not the way to resolve it, as it only encourages factionalism. Next thing you know the other faction will be similarly gathering votes to 'balance' it, and the result would only be that VfD gets even fuller than it is already. Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I regard this Vfd as an attempt to get around the Vfd process by restricting discussions and votes to hardcore vfd users. Kappa 12:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Discount vote as user is involved in said jury-rigging. It is not an attempt to restrict discussions. It is an attempt to stop one user from flooding VfD with users with a specific agenda to keep anything and everything, even beyond the point of common sense. Chris 13:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • What, my vote is to be discounted because some guy talks to me on my user page? Kappa 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You've been approached by GRider for his crusade, and by all accounts it looks like you've taken the bait. How do we know this vote is independent, and not a result of being motivated into action? In the latter case, your vote would essentially be a vote by GRider, by proxy. Chris 13:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • So motivation is now banned from VFD? One cannot even mention a vote to other users? Absurd! --L33tminion | (talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Er, Chris, Kappa is well-known to frequent VfD and to vote on a large amount of articles. I would assume his vote is in good faith, and see no reason for discounting it. Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. Until policy is enforced and VfD is deleted, Keep. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Discount vote as user is involved in said jury-rigging. Chris 13:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is nothing that prevents people who support deleting schools from keeping that page on their watchlists. - SimonP 14:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument that this page amounts to vote-stacking is nonsense, since deletionists can just as easily keep it on their watchlists as keepers can. If it is actively maintained it is a useful resource for anyone interested in the issue. It would be even better to make a policy about school articles and stick to it so that we don't have to bother with this silly dispute. --Zero 14:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This has gone way too far... This entire nomination is invalid and should be delisted immediately. There is nothing wrong in the slightest with someone publishing a list of articles to be improved upon within their own personal namespace. The argument that making such an improvement list is an attempt at vote stacking is a logical fallacy: deletionists can place it on their watchlist too, just as Zero points out. As much as I would like to assume good faith, it seems as if this listing is nothing short of an attempt at revenge by a small minority, and that's a shame. Inclusionism is not a crime. —RaD Man (talk) 16:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! this is no more invalid than a list of schools on the Inclusionist page on Meta! I strongly resent this being listed on VfD. How about if we all go list everything in radiant's namespace? It'd be doing the exact same thing. Radiant this petty revenge crap has to stop now.  ALKIVAR™ 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No personal attacks please, Alkivar. This is a legitimate concern that you may or may not share, but it certainly isn't revenge. I wouldn't even know what it could possibly be revenge for, since GRider hasn't done anything personally against me, to the best of my knowledge. Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, user space. --SPUI (talk) 16:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a big fan of people acting as a self-appointed party whip to get votes in order on a topic, but it is not a blatant violation of any policy. I admit I've been tempted to do the same at times, particularly when a worthless article is a single vote from deletion, but I have refrained. If GRider wants to then there's not much anyone can do. At times I've asked users to add their comments to discussions, which I think is perfectly fine, and this is only a bit beyond that. In any case, I've seen similar things on others user pages, without issue made. As a final note, I do find it rather poor to insist other's votes not be counted because they were solicited by GRider. I'm sure many would have voted to keep either way. -R. fiend 16:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as VFD has no jurisdiction over userspace. If you have a dispute with a user, take it to RFC or arbitration. — Dan | Talk 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There are really two separate questions this VFD raises:
(1) Should Wikipedia have a formal policy against informing like-minded voters of the existence of VFDs?
I would say "No." Because VFDs are not simple majority votes, it is technically not possible to stack the vote. If GRider's "Colleagues" raise intelligent valid points on a VFD page, their voices should be heard. And if they don't, admins are free to ignore them in reaching a decision.
Perhaps more importantly, I believe that the ethos of Wikipedia is inherently pro-information, rather than anti-information. I object to many of GRiders other actions--but in this particular case, he is simply providing information to people he believes may be interested in it. If you disapprove of the results, I'd encourage you to find a response that increases the spread of information (EG, noting possible bias of contributors in VFD; encouraging people with your views to participate in VFDs) rather than decreases it (by attempting to hamper GRider's efforts to communicate with other Wikipedians.)
(2)In the absense of such a policy, should a VFD be used to forcibly remove parts of a userpage?
I would say "No" in the strongest possible terms. Tampering with a user's personal page should be done only in the most severe cases, and it seems self-evident that a rule must exist before violation of it can be considered severe.

--Jacobw 16:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think this nomination ignore the fact that it's perfectly legitimate to improve articles while on Vfd, and the sooner that happens the better for the article's prospects. I'm not sure how many of the "colleagues" have actually worked on schol articles under threat, but I certainly have, and I'd work on more if they weren't going be deleted anyway. Kappa 17:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Editors should be welcome to keep lists of articles in their user spaces. There is certainly a valid concern that GRider pushes the bounds of acceptable behaviour on VfD (RfC1, RfC2, RfAr) but I can't really argue with his right to maintain a personal list of articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Futile. Besides the above, almost all of which is valid anyway, deletion would do nothing to prevent GRider from continuing to spam post lists of schools on vfd to scores of user talk pages. —Korath (Talk) 18:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I am reluctant to mess with people's user space, we wouldn't tolerate such obvious vote stacking coming from a message board or another website, so we are hypocrites if we tolerate it here. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • reluctant Keep. While I am strongly against the notion of vote garnering, I do not believe these pages in and of themselves should be deleted. Vote garnering is bad because it sets a bad precedent. I could find a bunch of people who think that all pokemon articles should be deleted, and then notify them whenever one is nominated. You can say that vfd isn't a majority vote rules situation, but the number of votes one way or another still influenecs the outcome. There is nothing wrong with the existance of these pages. It is the way GRider uses them that is wrong. As such, mention this in his RfC and keep. DaveTheRed 19:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it useful to know what schools are up for VfD so I can vote "delete" on them. Further, there is no basis in the VfD policy for deleting this page. --Carnildo 20:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD is a very large page. Nominator, please ensure any future nominations are legitimate borderline articles that it is ambiguous whether policy requires us to keep or delete the article. This isn't. Pcb21| Pete 21:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This could arguably fall under the 'inappropriate user page', nor am I the only one who thinks so. Nomination is valid, even if consensus says keep. That happens. Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Many apologies to you, I had forgotten that was included on vfdable things (though I do think it should be somewhere else really). Under the circumstances you were within your rights to post the vfd.
  • Keep. Except when inappropriate, what users do in their own userspace is their business. This is certainly not inappropriate. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Okay, point taken. Let me put it differently... frequently, articles on schools are submitted to VfD. For reasons that elude me, this is apparently the single most controversial thing on VfD. Any school nomination gets a number of axiomatic votes (e.g. keep, school and delete, school) and several have turned into shouting matches. Would it be possible to establish a consensus on this, rather than to keep repeating this almost daily? Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User space. RickK 00:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. It's user space, the notion of deleting these pages strikes me as a little too far-fetched. Nevertheless, I'd like to make clear that I consider this a perfectly legit nomination. Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy: vote stacking is absolutely repproachable, contradicts the consensus driven approach that is the core of Wikipedia's philosophy, and should be avoided, even if it targets other editors. Gathering people to vote Keep or Delete is not the proper way to settle this dispute over the notability of schools. I've been constantly concerned these last few days that VfD might eventually become the battlefield between inclusionists and deletionists, and not a place for arguments and discussion. VladMV ٭ talk 04:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's not a personal attack or harassment in some way you can put it on your user page. The only way a user's page should be deleted is for the offensive username criteria, clear harassment or an arbcom judgment. However, this does show why simple vote-counting on VfD is probably a bad idea (thought I admit I don't have a better). Demi T/C 10:03, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • mild keep. This is a separate issue to the spamming (which I am totally against). I am not in favour of an automatic keep (or delete) for schools - it should be a vote on the individual article. To try and provide balance I have this page on my watchlist, and have mentioned it on a couple of VfDs, and I've also placed a link to it at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Thryduulf 10:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • After further consideration, including GRider's behaviour elsewhere, others comments on this page, and the comments on several school deletion articles currently ongoing, I am changing my vote to strong delete. Thryduulf 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone tell me why we won't accept this kind of behaviour from message boards, but we will accept it here? Anyone care to say why someone going to a message board outside and soliciting comment from sympathetic users is different from someone soliciting comment from sympathetic users on WP? Ultimately, sending this message out to "deletionists" as well as "inclusionists" (I don't particularly like to use those terms, I prefer to think of them as "people not using their common sense" and "people without any common sense" respectively) doesn't do any better, because it attracts more users with an agenda, and does even worse to drown out the valid reasoning that normally goes on here. If this user page isn't deleted, then we can never delete another school article again, regardless of any policy that is formed, simply because the debate will be filled with sympathetic users with an agenda to push. If someone can put school articles beyond deletion, what's to say they can't get less worthy things a permanent place here by securing sympathetic hearings in the same way? For once, we have a case where the slippery slope is not a fallacy, because we're seeing it for real in front of us. Chris 14:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, can someone tell me how this does not constitute use of that page for vote-stacking/jury-rigging/whatever-you-want-to-call-it? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Some of these links are to current revisions at the time of writing, and may cease to work later Chris 14:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't the going out and getting support, but the non-Wikipedians voting. If a Wikipedia sees a message on an outside message board and votes because of it, that's fine. --SPUI (talk) 15:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please tell me what you think constitutes a "Wikipedian" and a "non-Wikipedian", without reference to the existing policy pages (I already know what those say - I'm after your opinion here). Sorry, I've just read this again. Let me get this straight, you're saying that vote-stacking should be allowed, as long as it's done by active members!? That's like saying "Rigging the general election is fine, as long as it involves established members of a political party"! Chris 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The idea is that someone who actively contributes here will actually look at these articles and vote on their merits according to Wikipedia standards. (In practice, I've noticed a whole lot of identical votes copy-pasted into ten vfds over the space of two minutes.) —Korath (Talk) 16:45, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • Even if this were the case, Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy: although votes are an essential part of VfD, we should try to reach a consensus through discussion and arguments, not just tally votes. VladMV ٭ talk 16:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Besides the actual act of voting, how is filling a discussion with people with an agenda to push any different from getting them out to vote? Chris 17:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure I follow your line of argument here. If one pushes the matters far enough, every vote is biased and thus compromised with an agenda. If you're stating there's no sense in discussing when people have an agenda, I take you to imply there's no sense in discussing anything on VfD, and it all comes down to tallying votes. I strongly reject this idea. VladMV ٭ talk 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Ideally VfD should only be used in cases where precedent and policy do not adequately cover whether to keep/delete a borderline article. In practice however the same old nomination-types keep coming again and again, and they're hardly fertile soil for novel discussions and arguments unfortunately. Pcb21| Pete 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Why don't we start a policy discussion on banning vote garnering. I'd support it. DaveTheRed 19:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I'd support it. Thryduulf 20:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • Ditto. We need some way of making sure each article is judged fairly, on its merits, and not on blanket beliefs. Chris 20:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • You mean, like the blanket belief that schools are not notable? --Zero 23:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • I at least don't have such a belief. I beleive that not all schools are notable, and those that are need to show in their article why they are. In other words, I maintain that schools must do the same as any other type of article has to do. Thryduulf 23:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • I don't think there is such a blanket belief. Nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed that "no schools are notable". The debate is between "some schools" are notable, and "all schools" are notable. Not that that makes it any easier. Maybe staring a WikiSchools project would be the solution. Radiant_* 08:44, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
                      • Phrasing the debate in those terms suggests that "non-notability" is a well-understood, well-defined acceptable reason for deletion in the first place. All polls on the issue have agreed that "notability" is very problematic (although more progress has been made in defining notability for schools - BEEFSTEW). Pcb21| Pete 09:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                      • Funny thing is that nobody really objects to the 'band inclusion guidelines' or the 'biography inclusion guidelines' - both of which boil down to notability. As one of the most often words used in voting here, notability (or lack thereof) is a de facto deletion criterion. It is, of course, not well-defined, but the same applies to several other VfD criteria. But aside from this, much information given in high school articles is not verifiable. Radiant_* 09:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a legitimate user subpage, and this VFD is simply harassment. I would like to see this, issue brought to a policy discussion, but until then, it is not policy that organization on votes is prohibited, and I don't like seeing it treated as such. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not harassment, it is a valid concern. "Inappropriate user page" is still a valid deletion criterion. The fact that consensus disagrees with me about this article doesn't make it bad faith. Radiant_* 08:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • People here may also be interested to note that a seemingly similar page was tried in the past, but has been abandonded since November 2004. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools. Thryduulf 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep userpages. What you do on your own userpage should be your own business provided it's not a basis for a personal attack, criminal activity or subverting the VfD process. I see nothing wrong with GRider's pages. Megan1967 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, user pages that are obviously related to work on Wikipedia. It's not like GRider is abusing user space as a free hosting service. And these pages don't contain personal attacks, recreations of deleted articles, or any other potential policy violations. If some kind of problem results from him using the "Colleagues" page to distort votes, that can be addressed in his current arbitration case, but the issue would be with GRider's conduct, not the existence of the page itself. --Michael Snow 13:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User space, and use to which it is being put does not violate policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valient attempt to improve school articles, and thereby improve the quality of Wikipedia. --BaronLarf 21:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think ArbCom's case takes precedence. JuntungWu 04:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its editors communicating with each other on content questions of common interest. Strongest possible keep. Samaritan 18:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing inherently wrong with having this on a personal user page, although it is clear that this issue should be resolved elsewhere once and for all. Fawcett5 01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 07:53, 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 keep. ugen64 02:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afrophobia

This single sentence substub appears to be a dictionary definition in its present state. Pardon my asking, but should this not be deleted in accordance with the current Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Would this not fall under the category of a neologism? No vote, as I am unfamiliar with the term. --GRider\talk 00:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If you don't know, then why even bring it up? Mike H 00:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you find a dubious page, isn't it better to Vfd it and find out if it's keepable or not, rather than let it sit there?
      • User:Kappa, it is better to VfD it, but only if it's done properly. However, you can't consider this "being VfD'd" when GRider overtly doesn't support his own nomination. Incidentally, if someone later nominates this article properly, this VfD should not stand under the "it's only just been on VfD" argument. Chris 01:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, The Economist seems to have used it in a headline, so it's not a neologism in my book. Could be expanded to discuss the causes and effects of Afrophobia. Kappa 01:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) No vote Kappa 02:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn afrocruft. ComCat 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 02:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete gets about 100 unique Google hits, but quite a chunk of these are from a joke list of phobias, where Afrofobia is defined as "fear of the return of 1970s hair styles". A lot of the remainder are citations of one or two legitimate articles like the one mentioned by Kappa above. Still, a term used a few dozen times at best is a neologism in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • The term is certainly obscure, and rarely used by the general public (except when misused for humorous reasons), but it is far from being a neologism. It is actively used by academics to describe a very real phenomenon--a phenomenon which, unless I am mistaken, has no other name. If we decided to avoid this term, we force ourselves to (A) ignore the concept utterly, or (B) resort to a verbose, cumbrous circumlocution like "Anti-African sentiment", which is as inaccurate as it is clunky. Afrophobia is an existing (albeit misused) term with an academic history. Binadot 18:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--this is a dicdef at best, and it's not used enough to expand into an encyclopedia article. I'll take Binadot's evidence for wider usage. Keep, possible move. Meelar (talk) 14:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I'm worried this is part of Mike H's campaign against GRider. (comment left unsigned by User:Jscott at 3:59 UTC, March 26)
    • Since when do I have a campaign against GRider? This is one of the few times I've actually given a public opinion on this matter. Besides, my vote would have been Delete anyway, so that blows your whole reasoning for the delete vote out of the water, honey chile. Mike H 04:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just read Jscott's rationale. Talk about ridiculous and completely off-point/counterproductive! No wonder the post wasn't signed. *disgusted* deeceevoice 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It does not show up in my dictionary (Websters Ninth New Collegiate). If verified, transwiki to Wiktionary. Otherwise, delete. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does. ☺ Looking at phobia one finds the redlink farm that no doubt spawned this article in the first place, and it's full of made-up words, like trisderkaderkaphobia and paretriaderkedephobia. (Look in the dictionary, folks. The correct words are triskaidekaphobia and paraskavedekatriaphobia.) Moreover, the edit history shows that made-up phobias have been cleaned out of the list a couple of times. I suggest a look in the dictionary here, too, at afrophobia. Whilst there's plenty of evidence that this is a word, there's not so much evidence that this is a real phobia, rather than a political weapon. Uncle G 11:35, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Either delete as non-notable neologism, or redirect to -phobia (I liked the old title "List of phobias" better) to prevent possible recreation. (It looks like its cleanup time for our phobia articles again.) -- Infrogmation 18:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Change to no vote for me. The rewritten article looks like it has some valid information, but the title "Afrophobia" still seems a bit much of a neologism. The web citiations of the term below are rather minimal; unless there is documented use in mainstream or academic print publication, I would strongly urge the material be moved to a different title or merged. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a familiar term in AA culture and pronounces itself in various ways. Review the page for additions and understanding - Afrophobia comment left by anon user:24.163.104.237 who for some reason signed with the article title
  • STRONG keep. The term and concept are well-known among anthropologists, though they lack a strong internet presence (i.e. 164 google hits, most of them jokes about the Jackson Five). A far more popular term (with 5,340 google hits), with its own article, is negrophobia. I would not, however, propose to merge these two pages, since negrophobia is a distinct concept concerning the view of blacks in the antebellum United States, whereas afrophobia has a considerably wider scope (with an emphasis on modern attitudes). This is the only serious site I could find which uses "afrophobia" in its anthropological sense, though there are undoubtedly others. Despite the paucity of electronic resources on this phenomenon, and the current sad state of the article, I think it is obvious that it should be retained, even as a stub. To delete it would be ridiculous--like deleting Anti-Semitism but keeping pogrom. Binadot 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT!I'd add something here, but Binadot has said everything I could possibly say about it. Yeah, it's stubby -- but that hardly justifies deleting it. In fact, I'm willing to contribute to it what I can, but right now I'm involved in an RfC dispute -- and I'm having computer problems. So, I've got no time to spare right now. Give it time. It'll grow. :-) deeceevoice 04:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Binadot and Deeceevoice. Look through the Google hits carefully, ignoring the Wikipedia mirrors and the stupid 70s jokes, and you will find some stronger evidence for the use of this term. The article obviously needs improvement. Antandrus 04:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Clean Up The little hair comment at the end is cute but out of place. Lilyana
  • Comment: I've made a major rewrite of the article. I think it's a lot more than a stub or a dicdef now. Binadot 21:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this rewrite; I have stricken my old vote. Mike H 22:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is expanded but not yet verified. Until the use of this term in this sense is authoritatively sourced as something other than a neologism or original research, I can not change my vote. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The term isn't common by any stretch of the imagination, but it's well-known among students of African culture. Most of the Internet resources are of the Afrocentric bent, but the term (and the concept it describes) are used by mainstream anthropologists as well. It may well be called academic jargon, but I don't think it's a neologism. Binadot 03:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the extensive list of links. Unfortunately, when I tried to review them, many failed to open or opened to pages which did not include any of the cited words. If I kept count correctly, I found 18 dead or misdirected links. 8 of the links were to pages which I would characterize as "casual" - that is, where the tone of the prose led me to believe the author coined the term to describe a personal feeling or thought. 2 of those explicitly put "afrophobia" in quotes - a sign that the author may also believe the word to still be a neologism. Only 5 of the links above went to authoritative sources using the word as an established technical concept. The question then is "Is five enough?" Reading through them and evaluating them in contest, my answer is not quite. No change of vote yet. Since many of your cites seemed to be subscription-based websites, perhaps you could cut-and-paste some of the more authoritative sources into the article's talk page? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. I gets rough and stuff with my afrocruft! —RaD Man (talk) 07:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for topic, but also Rename. There should definitely be an article broadly about this very important topic, but there is no need to use an obscure term. If the article is about racism against Blacks, call it Racism against Blacks. Of course "Blacks" has a particular (the most common) meaning, but it is no more of a misnomer than "Afrophobia" which does not include prejudice against most North Africans.--Pharos 09:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I would oppose a redirect. Afrophobia is a much broader topic than racism against blacks, just as homophobia is broader than, say, gay-bashing. Afrophobia involves a cultural and ethnological dimension, and extends to self-loathing and insecurity on the part of blacks themselves. There is some concern that the term "afrophobia" is a neologism, but a cursory Google search shows that it is merely obscure. Binadot 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • "Racism" unlike say, "gay-bashing", does not imply violence or direct attack, and (like many things) is a cultural phenomenon. "Racism" does not imply that it cannot be self-directed, indeed many would say that it often is. I have specifically not said that "Afrophobia" is a neologism, but rather that it is obscure, very obscure, and for that reason it would be best to have it at a more common name, that could be found by searching for say, 'blacks racism' in the google box.--Pharos 21:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. as a redirect to Racism against people of Black African origin which is more specific, encyclopedic, and polite than Racism against Blacks. This is a legitimate topic and I cannot understand, why anyone would now oppose making a redirect to the expanded article at a new name. People will search for Afrophobia, and it will redirect to an NPOV; e.g. neither Eurocentric nor Afrocentric, article. Our policy encourages many redirects, and we are not limited by paper. Always remember, we are not Britannica— we're better. -JCarriker 10:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • You may change your mind. Even if you've already voted, see: talk:Afrophobia "Brainstorming the potential" You may end up with a different take on the potential/usefulness of this article -- and come up with more ideas. deeceevoice 11:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.This page, and a refined title, should be kept as a valid and important entry to the wikipedia. Its context needs be broadened historically, psychologically and culturally. Historically, the phenomenon is likely driven by humankind's longstanding, inherent fear of the night or the dark; and this should be explored by the page. Culturally, the term 'afrophobic' needs to be recognized as extending beyond the fact that "blacks" reside in or come from Africa. In general, most individuals have developed a negative perspective on Africa and things African (even without the consideration of the presence of "blacks"). Given these comments a suggested title change would focus on valid terms that denote the fear of: "Dark or Night - Nyctophobia"; or "Darkness - Achluophobia, Myctophobia, or Scotophobia". Karhu 16:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • MAXIMUM KEEP WOW...did not expect the firestorm which has spewed forth...originally intended this as part of my research on a book regarding the topic...never had a chance to return to it since creating the stub (my bad)...its obviously not a neologism...most factual evidence to support keeping it has been put forth previously by others...news articles have used the term so it would seem that would squash any need to VfD...am working on research from the scientific perspective...IMHO this should be in the APA DSM-IV...the Vfd confirms its validity by those who are in denial...the jokes are further evidence of its existence...that is what makes it a joke...the truth encoded in the joke makes it funny...funny weird or strange as well as funny ha-ha...one of Arsenio's "things that make you go...hmmmm"...regarding the frequency of use...can anyone quantify the frequency necessary to justify an article???...at one time the same could have been said regarding bling-bling but now to Vfd that would be a foregone conclusion...in addition how frequently are ANY of the phobias used?...its not part of Mike H's campaign against GRider...OHhhhh MAN LMAO...A political weapon???...give me a break...next it will be considered a cultural weapon...then Not PC...then all kinds of what not...its just a word...remember??? sticks and stones will break my bones but WORDS???...people will type anything...IF you voted for it have you contributed???...if not then why not??? Racism against blacks dilutes the validity of the term and disavows the mental illness afrophobia represents...hence the need to define an aspect of reality that has heretofore been ignored...like any illness it can not be treated until diagnosed...a person engaging in extreme violence or hatred regarding a person of African ancestry, the history of Africa, and the culture of Africa and all they represent is a psychopathic racial personality according to the late Dr. Bobby Wright in his book "The Psychopathic Racial Personality". Such behavior is a direct result of Afrophobia. At this point it must be clearly and emphatically stated that since Afrophobia is a mental illness no one can consider themselves immune from it unless they have been given a psychological assessment, just as no one can consider themselves immune to malaria unless they have been examined by a doctor. Therefore, a person of African ancestry who bleaches their dark skin to a paler shade, wears blue contacts, and straightens then bleaches their hair blond is engaging in a form of self-mutilation which manifests as a by-product of self-hatred. Clearly, this absolves from blame or anyone who might in the deep recesses of their mind view this as a political weapon, although that is a perspective which has not been considered. This is not an attempt to point fingers and place blame. It is definitely an opportunity to confront and recognize the unreasonableness and excessiveness of certain behaviors in order to treat the illness they represent. Afrophobia is real in spite of the fact that it has not been documented as the historical phenomenon that it undeniably codifies--Nazikiwe 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The fallacy in your argument is that an encyclopedia is, by choice, a secondary source. Real or not - intuitively obvious or not, we do not want to create or popularize new concepts. That's not what encyclopedias do. We report on established concepts. It is not yet obvious to the rest of us that this is an established concept - that it is no longer a neologism. You explicitly claim that "Afrophobia" is a mental illness. Can you cite a medical diagnosis code? Or even a published medical journal article supporting that claim? It would go a long way toward considering this to be a verified concept. Rossami (talk)
    • Response: My intent is not to define Afrophobia but to show that it has yet to be recognized. Again, primary sources have been cited previously. Its not a new concept it has ben established, just not acknowledged. "The Economist" used the term. That use obviates the "establishment" of the concept. I defy anyone to find a more establishment publication than that. It seems that the previous votes are not being read before a vote is submitted. A count of the keep votes shows that it is an established concept "to the rest of us", even including Grider the initiator of the VfD. Afrophobia is a term that recognizes the global aspect of "colorphobia" towards people of darker hue who trace their origins to the African continent. No, I can't (at this time) cite a medical diagnosis code or a published "medical" journal article. However, it must be reiterated that should this standard be applied across the board to all articles under "phobias" most of them would have been VfD'd by now. This discussion is of benefit in my research. AS a by-product it has become clear to me that so-called "white flight" is a result of Afrophobia. It helps to see the different perspectives that need to be considered (ie, Uncle G's mention of political weapons). Your comment is much appreciated and valued.
  • Keep and allow for continuous organic growth. Edits by Binadot and Deeceevoice illustrate that ths is a real term and not a neologism. Google has been proven to be ineffective at measuring whether a topic is notable or not, hence my original "No vote" at the start of this discussion. --GRider\talk 18:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Neologism, original research. Mikkalai 21:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please read the Economist article and other links referenced above for the original research.
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. There' no original research, nor is this a made-up term. --FuriousFreddy 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - looks ok to me, seemingly NOT a neologism...while "Afrophobia" gets few "scholarly" Google hits, "Afrophobic" gets plenty. Fawcett5 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Afrophobic - If votes count - I'm giving this a definite YES. Name changing arguments may re-direct you from completing the article. Deal with re-naming issue later. I also believe the whole Afrophobic issue deals with a FEAR of black people that started pre history. Read about Solomon's times when the Queen of Sheba (from Kush) was a great power. If Africans (in the past) had great civilisations, great spiritual beliefs this would lead to the Fear and Envy that started Afrphobia.
    • Note. Above vote left unsigned by 81.158.48.79. --GRider\talk 21:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename, or disambiguate other definitions Sniffandgrowl 00:50, 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)
  • Regarding the thoroughly erroneous (and, I believe, herein successfully challenged) contention that "afrophobia" is a neologism and, on that basis alone, the article treating it should be deleted: I just happened upon New anti-Semitism. The lead-in reads: "The New anti-Semitism is a controversial neologism which has emerged in the last decade to describe a perceived increase in prejudicial behavior, verbal invective, and threats and attacks directed at Jewish targets around the globe." So, what's that about? Is Wikipedia hostile to only some "neologisms" and not others? Curious, indeed. deeceevoice 14:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Not entirely. The thing is that Wikipedia is not the place to coin a new word or phrase. It happens quite often that somebody conceives a new word or phrase and puts it on WP as if it were widely accepted, possibly in the hopes that it will become widely accepted. That is generally frowned upon, so neologisms are often deleted - via VfD, giving people the chance to prove that it is not a neologism. Which was done here. If you feel that new anti-Semitism shouldn't be here, feel free to nominate it for deletion and we'll discuss it. Radiant_* 20:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of the VfD discussion surrounding New anti-Semitism; I participated in it. My rhetorical question remains: "Are some neologisms less prohibited, less offensive than others?" My point is that "new anti-Semitism" is actually defined as a neologism in the article itself; yet it remains on Wikipedia. So, clearly, being a neologism is not in itself grounds for deletion -- as one certainly would be led to believe by the discussion at hand -- because new anti-Semitism is an obvious exception to Wiki policy. Again, however, the most salient matter in this regard is the fact that the contributors to this VfD have proven fairly convincingly that "Afrophobia" is not a neologism and, IMO, that the article has merit. deeceevoice 07:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes, I agree with that. Keep this article as expanded. I think that the neologism issue means that established neologisms (those found in pop culture, or expansively on google, or whatever) are encyclopedic, but new neologisms (those limited to a small area as yet) are not. Radiant_* 10:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

  • Immigrants in Chains: Afrophobia in American Legal History, 76 Oregon Law Review (1997)by Dennis Greene Professor of Law University of Dayton school of Law
  • Writing Marginality in Modern French Literature: From Loti to Genet" by Edward J. Hughes
  • "The Not-so-dark Continent " and "America loses its Afrophobia", pp. 18, 23-24, The Economist (April 26, 1997).
  • The Rising tide of color against white world supremacy by Lothrop Stoddard

[edit] External links

--Da Stressor 22:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Da Stressor is the new name of Nazikiwe. Since he's not voting twice, that shouldn't be a problem, but just FYI. Radiant_* 20:31, Apr 7, 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. -- Scott eiπ 08:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Condensed Flesh

A band from California, but no entry in Allmusic or the UBL. Band vanity. Meelar (talk) 01:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- band vanity. - Longhair | Talk 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity indeed Feco 06:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur vanity Fawcett5 01:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vAnIty Klonimus 07:47, 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 speedily deleted as spam. jni 12:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering career

Non-encyclopedic TigerShark 02:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, yep, non-encyclopedic. Kappa 02:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Part of a recent pattern of advertisements that all end in "Article Continues at {{{URL}}}". Delete. Uncle G 03:16, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)


SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DELETED ALREADY. TigerShark 12:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup, it has been speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 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 a clear majority to delete, but some have expressed interest in a redirect. At any rate, the consensus is that the content is not worth keeping. A redirect to List of Super Mario characters it will be. Sjakkalle 08:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mario monsters

Delete. Not much more than X is a website about Y. Here is a link to X, where you can learn all about Y. I don't see much potential for growth. Just for reference, the website has an Alexa ranking of 474,292. android↔talk 02:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unpopular website. Meelar (talk) 02:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable website. DaveTheRed 02:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When Wikipedia decided the web site was good enough to channel garbage web surfers to it as an external link in Goomba then Wikipedia deserves to pay by having an article about the web site. S.B. 03:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • User's second edit; the first was also on a vfd. —Korath (Talk) 03:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • What does that even mean? android↔talk 04:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 03:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that a site is an external link in an article does not on its own mean that the site requires its own article. If the only evidence of a site's notability is that it has a link from Wikipedia.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with redirect to Enemies in Mario games or something similar. Radiant_* 09:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Super Mario characters. RayC 18:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, fresh Samuraicruft. VladMV ٭ talk 04:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete web site ad courtesy of our buddy User:SamuraiClinton Fawcett5 01:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Enochlau 07:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Cleanup This page is just a repeat on what other pages are doing User:Kevino7 21:39 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Super Mario characters and add link to "External Links". -- Jwinters | Talk 20:41, 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 redirect to singular. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentominoes

There is already a page called pentomino in Wikipedia, and having two pages discussing the same topic is redundant since the information in the "pentominoes" page is already present in the pages polyomino and pentomino. HappyCamper 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I realized that in some sections of Wikipedia, the word "pentominoes" is used to mean exclusively the game pentominoes and particular aspects of it, not the 5-square blocks.

I changed all the internal links pointing to the page 'pentominoes' to 'pentomino' in anticipation of this page delete (Is this part of the procedure?). These were Game complexity, solved board games, and polyomino.

Maybe an alternative for deletion would be to make a disambiguation page which explains that "pentomino" usually refers to the singular form of the 5-square blocks, while "pentominoes" can mean either the plural form of "pentomino" or the game "pentominoes" which is played with pentomino pieces on an 8 by 8 board. What are your opinions? HappyCamper 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect, not about the game. Alphax τεχ 04:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This has already been merged into pentomino. Redirect to finish the job. —Korath (Talk) 06:36, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Noisy | Talk 10:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the singular. -- Infrogmation 19:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It would have been better to leave the game at pentominoes. Gdr 18:09, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Redirect Don't care which name it is under, just pick one. -- Glen Finney 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Redirected to singular HappyCamper 01:46, 2 Apr 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuyioru

Withdrawn since a reference has been provided

Possible machine translation. I very much doubt if anyone will be able to make enough sense out of this to clean it up, so I'm bringing it here. "Fuyioru" gets 0 google hits. Kappa 02:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iam knowed the original source of this.these name no having exist in any common web finder,this proceded from direct translation of old 1854 Russian map,why based in ancient Japanese sources named with these denomination one town ubiqued in area of miaojie(chinese) or actual city of Nikolayevsk-on-Amur site,in mouth of Amur River.

these information proceded from http://www.karafuto.com/ historical web site.in this observed the Maps of region section, and readed the next article over these map:


"This is an old Russian map which was drawn after Mamiya's trip and still follows the habit of the western world at that period: the geographic names of the area are noted in Japanese, for example Strait of Mamiya instead of Strait of Nevelskoi and Karafuto instead of Sakhalin".

Wlad K. Wlad k 9:48, 26 Mar 2005

    • OK I found it on the map. Maybe it can be cleaned up with the help of that website, so I'll withdraw this nomination. Kappa 03:05, 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. – ABCD 20:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newagesymbol

Inappropriate name for starters. This is just a copy of someone's personal webpage: http://sparknrg.websspace.com/TheNewAge.htm Delete Cacophony 02:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete deep thoughts. Gazpacho 14:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. RickK 00:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greetings to everyone, I came in to do some correction and to also inform you all that I am the original author for the sparknrg site and is coming under the name as sparklelight1 as i was having trouble getting 'sparkle' to log in as that name is already been in use, I do apoligize for all the inconvenience. And please do inform me if there is anything wrong as I am not into dealing with troubled living... I like peace*. If I do contiuned getting objections I will take out all of my articles here and leave in peace as these messages i send is very important... but.. if it confuses anyone I will go my way for i have nothing to loose.

Thanking you kindly sparkle*

  • Hi there Sparkle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't feel bad about this article being nominated for deletion. It's nothing personally against you, it's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and your article doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia as such. However, we would love to see you share your knowledge. Maybe you could go to Category:New Age and browse the articles, you probably have useful information to add to those articles. Radiant_* 19:55, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Megan1967 04:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks radiant for taking the time to write to me i respect that much, and yes i do agree with you on this subject. I will visit the page *smile*

Thanks so much for your kind response

sparkle*

  • Delete - rife with original research/speculation Fawcett5 01:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Travis eddings

Non-notable filmmaker/writer. Probably vanity. -- Scott eiπ 02:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete The author deleted all the content after the VfD when up. Cacophony 02:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google returned 55 hits and these were mostly forum posts on other websites. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity unless otherwise verified. Fawcett5 01:46, 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. -- Scott eiπ 08:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turtlemaster

Drinking game = What Wikipedia is not. Delete Cacophony 02:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've been unable to find any evidence that it's an actual popular drinking game. If such evidence can be found, then merge to drinking game. DaveTheRed 02:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notable Drinking games should be kept. However, this doesn't appear to be one, so no vote. Kappa 12:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 401 google web hits for Turtlemaster, but sample of top hits show no relevence to subject of this article. 4 google hits for Turtlemaster drink, 2 for Turtlemaster drinking. Article is an orphan other than deletion discussion. -- Infrogmation 18:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete has the tone of a how-to guide, and is unverifiable. Fawcett5 01:47, 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. – ABCD 00:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KaraÐoz

The article claims its subject is a "recently discovered [piece of] folklore", but googling on [KaraÐoz Croatia] returns one hit, which appears to be unrelated, and a search on "CuttaJoes", the suggested alternate spelling, gets no hits. Delete unless verified. Meelar (talk) 02:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why would this article be selected for deletion? I recently heard this story from my girlfriend who is from Croatia and told me about the KaraÐoz myth among other things and thought I would add it under the proper category (lists of species in folklore.) It does not break any of the rules for deletion (i.e., not copyright infringment, not vanity page, spam or advertising, and is not patent nonsense) and fits perfectly within the mythologies already listed under the catagory. And incidentaly, a mythology, by Wikipedia's own definition, "are generally stories based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself." and "many simple legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content". Just because a particular search engine has not been able to pick up on a regional myth is no reason for deletion. There are THOUSANDS of such myths and folklores that, when searched for, do not garner hits in Google. I say keep until proven not a myth. As for Google, my domain name and website, genshi.com has been online since 1999 and was always searchable until this year when searching for genshi.com garnered ZERO hits. I had to beg and fight with Google for this omission and now (as of the past month) genshi.com will show results when searched on Google using quotation marks. Point being, I think Meelar puts too much faith in Google! genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • All of user's edits are to his user page, to the article, or to link to the article. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How do we prove it is not a myth? Is not the total lack of evidence supporting this entry enough proof? Provide one single reference and you will have gone a long way in making your case. A web page, a news article, a journal article, anything will do. Word of mouth is not enough to substantiate an encyclopedia article. So I vote delete as this is a likely hoax or urban legend until I see evidence to the contrary. Gamaliel 03:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Again I say Keep because word of mouth IS enough to substantiate a myth. That is the whole point of myths, folklores and urban legends. How do you think the ridiculous Jackalope and Chupacabra got started? Now they can be found everywhere including movies, but I remember when Chupacabra first started in the early 1990s, and that WAS a hoax to begin with. Of course it will be hard to find written documentation for a strictly oral tradition from a country like Croatia (especially given the recent history of Croatia where they were not even able to keep written records of their OWN actual history due to the communist rule as Yugoslavia and the subsequent Croatian/ Bosnian/ Serbian war! Research that and you will find it is true.) genshi 03:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you must realize that without some form of verification, we can't tell whether this is real, or an elaborate prank. Unfortunately, the Internet can bring out the worst in people. Good luck on your search (I personally wouldn't know where to begin), but we must delete this unless a reference is provided of some sort. Thanks again, Meelar (talk) 03:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparent hoax. Delete unless referenced. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is very discouraging. I had read an article regarding Wikipedia in Wired magazine and thought it a fascinating and brilliant idea (me being a long time supporter of the open source community.) My first contribution to this site and within minutes an elitist storm wants to delete the entry. I would understand if it was an article falsely making statements regarding a current president or giving ridiculous statistics on an historical subject that has known and provable facts, but this is an article about a regional oral folklore... a myth. And a myth is a myth; it doesn't exist to begin with except as a myth, so why so adamant about not including it? There are many oral myths that are not provable until the first bold person puts it into print... and isn't this just what Wikipedia encourages? This is NOT a hoax and there is nothing malicious in my intent of this article, it is simply a myth that I heard. genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not what Wikipedia encourages. In fact, Wikipedia prohibits it. One of the rules here is no original research. Wikipedia is not intended to be a trendsetter for cataloging new and cutting edge material, it is by its very nature a secondary resource which records and summarizes the work of others. This is nothing new; encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new, whether it be scientific discoveries or oral traditions or whatever. If you are the first one to put this myth into print, the proper place would be something like an academic journal. Then we can use such journal articles are resources and references to write a Wikipedia article on the subject. The use of such references is hardly "elitist", nor is demanding that one back up one's assertions with facts. Gamaliel 04:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ahh... Sorry, I did not realize the no original research rule. I just sort of jumped right in and then was shocked that so soon everyone wants to delete something so simple and harmless (and still true.) Wikipedia keeps saying "Be bold with your edits" or "be bold with what you write" so I misunderstood. But it makes sense the way you put it Gamaliel, "encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new" and I would have to agree with you on that as well. I apologize for being so sensitive to this, my first post. genshi 04:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Hi genshi and welcome to Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your first contribution to Wikipedia was nominated to vfd. Don't be discouraged if this article gets deleted. Wikipedia has many rules and precedents, and you may have to hang around for a while to get used to all of them. DaveTheRed 07:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless published documentation of the myth/legend can be provided. --Angr 11:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and comment: an alternate spelling (not mentioned in the article) would be Karadjoz, which is the name of a 1970 miniseries and seems to be a Muslim given name in Bosnia. Still can't find a reference to it as a mythical creature, but then a lot of the sites are in Croatian/Bosnian, which I can't read. --Angr 11:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not to beat a dead horse here but, Karadjoz is not an alternate spelling, it is a completely different word (a name actually.) Remember also that the whole region which was once Yugoslavia is made of of at least three different peoples, Croatians, Bosnians and Serbians, all of which had their own languages, cultures, mythos, etc. The Karadjoz muslim name has nothing to do with Croatians, but because they were all forced to live together for so long, the word quite easily gets confused with KaraÐoz (and it is possible that this is where the Croatian myth of the KaraÐoz came from, except that they would have more than likely used a Serbian word to name their mythical mischievous creature as the Serbs were their enemy during the war, not the Bosnians!) So, just because an extra letter is added doesn't make it an alternate spelling. It is the equivalent of the Irish words "teach" (house) and "teacht" (coming) yes? genshi 18:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Dj is a variant of the letter Đ in the Latin spelling of The Language Formerly Known As Serbo-Croatian; the Cyrillic equivalent is Ђ. (See Zoran Djindjic, for example.) In other words, Karadjoz and Karađoz are completely equivalent; both would be written Карађоз in Cyrillic. I don't know why this article uses capital Ð instead of lower-case đ. --Angr 15:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Because what little is written regarding KaraÐoz is written in Croatian, if I may have a couple of days to translate a few of the sites regarding KaraÐoz in hopes to find some sort of reference to the myth, I would appreciate it. Though, I will admit, this may be futile. genshi 18:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some references are added --Neigel von Teighen 18:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least long enough for genshi to produce a source. It does not have any characteristics of an urban legend or another hoax.
  • Delete as unverifiable, though I will be happy to change my vote to keep if confirmation from an outside reliable source can be offered. -- Infrogmation 18:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, probably hoax. What the heck is "newly discovered folklore" supposed to be anyway? Fawcett5 01:50, 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 (spam). jni 13:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering book

Delete: vanity and/or advertising. Definitely not worthy of an article. Cacophony 02:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Part of a recent pattern of advertisements that all end in "Article continues at {{{URL}}}". Delete. Uncle G 03:16, 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. -- Scott eiπ 09:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riggensob

Quote from page: "This word is used almost exclusively by a group of six people". A word only used by six people is not encyclopedic. JeremyA 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, extreme neologism. DaveTheRed 03:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The reference to 6 people is to at the time of the word's creation and has increased drastically since then. Furtheremore, the word is NOT neologism as it has existed for an extended period of time. In addition, this directly conflicts with general rules prohibiting the "biting of newcomers", "Wikiquette", and civility regulations. —This comment by 24.238.51.35
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologilatistical to TEH XTREEM. Alphax τεχ 04:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • And I am being attacked for being "neologilatistical to TEH XTREEM."? obviously an uncivilized comment and presents no complaint that I have not explained and made null and void. —This comment by 24.238.51.35
  • Do Not Delete How can it be neologism if it has been used over the duration of years? And to call such a creative entity so is overrated and shows you aren't used to accepting things different from the norm. —This comment by 24.238.39.115
You appear to have voted twice. -- Dan -- 04:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence has been supplied for the "drastic" increase of usage of this word beyond the original six people, and little information is given on the meaning and usage of the word. -- Dan -- 04:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, egregious vanity, neologism. See also Twotch and The Membrane, also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 04:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is troll an acceptable reason? If not, not notable, neologism, and vanity will have to suffice. android↔talk 04:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blame "no original research", as well. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it's a valid word, it should be on Wiktionary, not here. Delete or transwiki in case it's referenced. And please don't feel attacked anonymous user. It's all about the article, not you personally. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've certainly learned that new words in the modern-day world are unwelcomed in this site, and also that users of this website are vicious and attack without provocation. Thanks for letting me in on such a well kept secret, as I wouldn't have figured this out if I didn't try to expand this site and wasn't recklessly attacked as a result.In response to "And please don't feel attacked anonymous user. It's all about the article, not you personally.", I do feel attacked. That's not changing anytime soon.
Unsigned comment by 24.238.51.35 (talk · contributions)
Whether you believe it or not, it's nothing personal; I don't think anybody here knows you at all, so why should they have a personal grudge against you? It's simply not the function of this site to introduce or popularize new words or concepts; it's an online encyclopedia, intended to describe things that already exist and have sufficient popularity or notability to merit inclusion. -- Dan -- 16:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Korath. To the creator of the page, I'm sorry you feel attacked. I'd respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not really the right place for somebody who is going to consider reasoned disagreement with his views to be a personal attack. However, it very much is the place for a smart and creative person, which you seem to be. So if you can get used to the idea that people will offer polite but pointed criticism of your contributions, and if you are willing to take the time to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is supposed to be, you'd certainly be welcome. If you think people here are being unfair to you, the best way to prove them wrong is to create a great article on a topic that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Best, Jacobw 16:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Calling this article "vanity", "not notable", and the blatantly overused "neologism" is not polite but pointed criticism. This is intentional and flagrant insult of myself and my article. Any attempt to explain the behavior of these "administrators" is easily repelled for there is no excuse for such action.
Unsigned comment by 24.238.51.35 (talk · contributions)
People here are not trying to make personal attacks on you; they're just describing your articles in terms of their suitability for Wikipedia in accordance with its policies and principles. Being nice to a "newbie" doesn't require that everybody always agree with your views on everything, or that they should have to "sugarcoat" their criticisms so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. -- Dan -- 16:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Words like vanity, non-notable and others are in fact voting shorthands, and might not mean what you think they mean. Take a look at the Guide to Votes for deletion. --cesarb 17:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, we're not all administrators. I'm not. Anybody can participate in a VfD discussion, though comments from anonymous and very new users don't typically carry much weight. android↔talk 17:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
See my comment at User talk:24.238.51.35. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 19:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles about words belong in Wiktionary. However, an article about this purported word does not, because it does not meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that this word exists at all. Articles about the people/places/concepts/things denoted by the words belong in Wikipedia. However, as this article itself states, this purported word doesn't actually denote anything. Delete. Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can't have dicdefs and neither neologisms. --Neigel von Teighen 18:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, vanity neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non-notable neologism. Binadot 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism / website ad Fawcett5 01:52, 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 --Carnildo 04:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twotch

Another made-up word used by only six people and therefore unencyclopedic. JeremyA 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete As with my other pages recklessly attacked by these users, the amount of users has increased dramatically from 6, is not neologism as the word is prominent yet recently introduced to Wiki, conflicts with no biting of newcomers, civial regulations, etc. AND the comment of only used by six people is not stated in the article and is therefore unreasonable.
    • Unsigned by 24.238.51.35. All but one edit are to this article or to Riggensob or The Membrane, both of which are also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 04:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused neologism. 16 Google hits, and none look relevant at a glance. —Korath (Talk) 04:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as for VfD:Riggensob. android↔talk 04:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence has surfaced of this word having any sort of widespread use. The fact that some fictional characters (e.g., Harry Potter) have Wikipedia entries is no justification for including this one; unlike the Twotch, Harry Potter actually has a sizable number of fans who are interested in him. -- Dan -- 05:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Non notability = delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wide use is referenced. Submitting articles to VfD for valid reasons is not a personal attack. If you can prove this is not a neologism by providing references, you can save the article. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:35, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dtobias, MacGyverMagic, and Korath. I'd encourage the creator of this (and the other Membrane-related pages) to learn a little bit more about what Wikipedia is and is not, and to channel his obvious enthusiasm into more appropriate contributions. --Jacobw 16:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles about words belong in Wiktionary. However, an article about this purported word does not, because it does not meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. As with "riggensob" there's no evidence that this word exists at all. (The only occurrences found by Google Web are either telegraphese contractions of "to watch" or mis-spellings of twitch. Google Groups has 1 result, a name.) Articles about the people/places/concepts/things denoted by the words belong in Wikipedia. However, as this article itself states, the thing denoted by this word is a figment of one person's imagination, and is thus (to say the least) unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as admitted vanity neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:01, 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 and redirect w/o previous history. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROC before 1949

This article was created by User:160.39.195.88 who has been involved in an ongoing dispute at Talk:Taiwan about the name of the political entity that governs Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China. The current article essentially duplicates Republic of China and, as far as I can tell, was created against community consensus. Delete for now, as no content will be lost; if and when consensus is reached regarding whether or how to split up Taiwan and Republic of China, this or a similar article can be recreated. --MarkSweep 03:16, 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 w/o redirect. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan (country)

Also created by 160.39.195.88, essentially duplicating Taiwan. In addition to duplication, this article title is inherently POV, violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), and was created in a disruptive manner without community consensus. --MarkSweep 03:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this one and the one above it dealing with the ROC Before 1949. It feels like the user who made those pages put his/her POV in them, and I will not be surprised if more from this person comes out from the woodwork. Zscout370 04:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Haha, did you just call me a rodent/termite/ant? I do apologize for creating these articles. The idea was that no one would go to these articles except people that were interested in it and that they could be improved in a community way to the point that people could decide between the new article organization or the old one. I do not think people will be able to make an informed decision until they see what the new articles would look like. Is there a place to do this? I'm not suggesting a permanent state of dueling articles but a "farm" area. Also regarding POV of title--not true. I am using country to distinguish it as the land controlled by the ROC, which is the state, meaning government and political community. You must consider that the current status of the Taiwan article as Taiwan Island is a bit ridiculous as it matches no Chinese or English usage. There needs to be a place to talk about the lands/people/culture of the ROC. This is the motivation, not POV.

You might be thrown off because the de jure status of Taiwan as an independent state is questionable. But today it is independent. So I guess redirect for now until people understand this and there is consensus to improve the article.--160.39.195.88 02:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Taiwan. Jonathunder 04:11, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork, inherently POV article title. Do not redirect. —Korath (Talk) 04:18, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I understand your argument to not keep this as a separate article. What is your opposition to "redirect"? It seems to me that a redirect would discourage the recreation of future forks. No vote yet. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. Further, this article title won't be searched for or linked to, so a redirect is of little practical use. —Korath (Talk) 06:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Naming conventions apply to the main article title. Much looser standards are allowed for redirects. Redirect to discourage recreation. (No opinion on whether history should be preserved or deleted.) Rossami (talk) 00:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as duplicate article, contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- Curps 12:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Republic of China. Prefer redirect since i dont believe naming conventions apply to redirect, but also find just deleting acceptable--Jiang 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Republic of China. — Instantnood 16:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 11:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. No redirect. Megan1967 04:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Duplicate. A weak argument could be made for a redirect. But seriously, anyone likely to be looking up Taiwan (country) is going to figure out to search for Taiwan, and I think most people, regardless of their opinion on the political status of Taiwan, would search simply under Taiwan first. -- Glen Finney 20:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary POV fork. No redirect. Binadot 19:33, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adventure Quest RPG

Advertising, and not even very notable anyway, delete--Dmcdevit 04:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. Cacophony 04:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what they said. Speedy okay by me. -- Infrogmation 19:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • God what a bland name!. Grue 17:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, ad. Fawcett5 01:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Dsmdgold 18:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, it is kinda notable, and quite a good effort in the field of free videogames. A google search returns quite a big number of sites. As it stands, it is an ad, but if consensus is reached to keep it I will expand it. Sarg 22:19, 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.

LOL FAIL

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Membrane

Egregious vanity. See also Twotch and Riggensob, also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 04:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Same reasons as for VfD:Riggensob. android↔talk 04:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all related articles. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. JeremyA 05:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every group of friends who have assigned themselves a name, and perhaps have a personal Web site or blog, deserves an entry here; you'd have to show that they have some sort of more widespread fame, notoriety, or notability outside their own little group. -- Dan -- 16:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adding on a well-intentioned adage does not make a vanity page valid. I get the impression the creator of the page is not malicious--merely misguided as to the purpose of Wikipedia. If he's reading this, I'd encourage him to familiarize himself with the articles on Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not. --Jacobw 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic ramble about a website (I think, article doesn't even make clear that's what it is); no evidence of notability, no relevent links to article, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 7th grade vanity Fawcett5 01:56, 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 transwiki then redirect to The Waste Land. ugen64 02:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Burial of the Dead

This is the full text of a TS Eliot poem. I noticed neither wikiquote or wikisource has it, so it should be transwikied if there are no copyvios, then deleted as it's probably too small a topic to merit its own article.--Dmcdevit 04:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to The Waste Land as it is the first part of that larger work. Gamaliel 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki this, then add redirect to The Waste Land. Megan1967 04:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Madame Sosostris, Unreal City... I wonder if he played Curses. (no, i'm not that ignorant). Grue 17:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not the full text of a TS Eliot poem. This is a part of "The Wasteland". I like the poem being broken down like this. Even if the poem in its entirety can be found somewhere else, it's nice to be able to just see the individual segments. It is not too small a topic for discussion.

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) 00:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradick

Another vanity neologism from the creator of The Membrane. —Korath (Talk) 04:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete I am not the creator of this word. It has been used elsewhere. If you paid any attention whatsoever to pop culture, this is not considered neologism considering it is used! Stop making such judgments so quickly and accept that you're not always right.
  • Delete. Whether it is a neologism or not, it doesn't matter—Wikipedia is not a dictionary JeremyA 06:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there are plenty of sites out there for slang terms Feco 06:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 08:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a neologism. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this is an actual word, it should be moved to wiktionary. I can find no evidence that it is an actual word, and absent any such evidence, suggest it be deleted. --Jacobw 16:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, non-notable neologism, creator of article admits they made up the word. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 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 merge then redirect. ugen64 02:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wet willy

Another vanity neologism from the creator of The Membrane. —Korath (Talk) 04:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've heard of this. It's a common childhood prank, along the lines of a wedgie. DaveTheRed 04:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I like Radiant's suggestion. Merge. DaveTheRed 18:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs serious cleanup, but Delete; this is not a neologism; article pretty much nails down what a wet willy is. I don't blame you for assuming bad faith, though, given the author's other contributions, and the fact that Google returns... interesting results for "wet willy". android↔talk 05:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Urk. OK, I was a bit overhasty here; however, this is still a dictdef, and the salvageable parts are already at wikt:wet willy, so I still say delete on that basis, without prejudice toward a real article here. —Korath (Talk) 05:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hasty seems to be tonight's watchword. I didn't think to check Wiktionary. Since there is already a sufficient entry there, and this article can't really be expanded beyond a dicdef, I have changed my vote. android↔talk 05:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Radiant!'s merge proposal is entirely reasonable. —Korath (Talk) 22:35, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's already a wiktionary entry. Can't grow beyond that, but I'm willing to change my vote if proven wrong. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this and Wedgie and the like into an article called School pranks or something similar. There's probably half a dozen others that foreigners such as myself haven't heard of. Radiant_* 14:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Noogie could go there, and someone could dig swirly out of the deletion log. Kappa 17:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Radiant's excellent suggestion; otherwise, delete as redudant with wiktionary. --Jacobw 16:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Radiant, or Delete as redundant with Wiktionary. This doesn't stand as an article by itself. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I do like the idea of a school prank page, since these can easily fall under this one category. Zscout370 18:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge.. Indian rub! Pinkbelly! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of being bold, the School pranks page is now open for contributions. A nice touch might be to sketch a picture displaying some of them. Once this VfD closes, wet willy should redirect there. Radiant_* 22:09, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also the name of an amusement park ride in Carl Hiaasen's novel Native Tongue. Mightn't that, along with the prank, merit an article of its own? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, Mar 30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grail family

Pseudo-history which is already covered in the article on the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. There is no such thing as the "Grail family". / Uppland 04:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, POV essay. Megan1967 08:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Jayjg (talk) 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Although the article as it stands is obviously a POV essay, I believe the concept of a "Grail Family" - popularized by Dan Brown's recent best sellers - is not. Unlike The Da Vinci Code, Holy Blood, Holy Grail was never meant to be fiction: its theses have not found general acceptance, but they reflect nevertheless an opinion shared by many historians - unorthodox and controversial historians, true, but some of them notable. I think this qualifies the article as encyclopedic, though it needs serious cleanup. VladMV ٭ talk 21:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you give any examples of historians whose opinions are reflected by Holy Blood, Holy Grail? / Uppland 21:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note I'm neither a particular fan of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, nor an enthusiast of its theses. In fact, I personally believe them to be speculative and of no scientific value. I don't have the book anymore, but I've read it, and the authors do cite an array of historians. I'm not a historian myself, but if they did not invent the names they refer to - and I believe they didn't -, then their ideas are not original research, but existing (though controversial) theories. Hence, I don't see grounds for deletion. VladMV ٭ talk 13:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 02:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slac speak up! 05:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as this has already been proven as a con gone wrong. If you disagree you should have watched The Real Da Vinci Code on Channel 4. User: Kevino7

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. – ABCD 20:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Student exchange program

There a number of issues with this page. First, its in the wrong place, it is a description of a specific student exchange program, not such programs in general. Second, it is an ad for this specific program! Finally, I don't know how to judge if the specific program is encyclopedic. At the VERY least, I think this should be moved and have the biased content removed. I think probably worthy for delete. -Kzollman 04:39, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm calling it under copyvio, see it on WP:CP. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Never mind. Closer inspection reveals the site in question is a mirror of Wikipedia. This doesn't say anything for its credibility, though, that they have one external link to a mirror of the article... O_o Delete in any event. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone writes something about student exchange programs in general. (It is a notable topic, but as things are right now we're better off with a redlink.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename/cleanup as necessary. 8,000 students per year since 1929 is more notable than selling 5,000 books or CDs, or being a pokemon. Kappa 09:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As a newcomer one of the first things I've looked up was Student Exchange Programs. Because I was an exchange student and a Rotex, probably I'll write that article. Maybe rewriting and expanding is necessary. I'm still amazed why you have an article about some kind of pokemon, so why delete it? --Jack in the box 22:35, 8 Apr 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. ugen64 02:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petrocurrency

Neologism. Google for the term gets 361 hits, and many of them seem to be wikipedia mirrors [74]. DaveTheRed 05:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Petrocurrency is a generalization of terms like petrodollar and petroeuro (which separately and together yield approximately 18000 Google searches). While this is probably a bit of a neologism, I think petrodollar, which is also a general term for petrocurrencies, merits an article (15200 Google hits, dates back to 1973), so I'll request one.NatusRoma 07:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • I have created a petrodollar stub - I hope someone with more knowledge of international politics and finance than me will add to it. Denni☯ 01:44, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Petrocurrency may appear to be a recent term, but (1) it clearly didn't originate with this article, (2) its use is widespread (google seems to throw up its use in many different countries), (3) it is already linked to extensively on WP and (4) it is a useful generalisation of petrodollar etc - many things that might be discussed in petrodollar belong more logically in petrocurrency. Quite apart from that, "The term was coined after the Arab countries quadrupled petroleum prices in 1973, thereby increasing the amount of petrocurrency so rapidly that it became a matter of great concern to international monetary experts" according to indiainfoline.com which is not a Wikipedia mirror, so I doubt it is a neologism. Further evidence for that claim is here — an academic is using the word "petrocurrency" in an article that appears to date from the late 1980s (and at any rate can not date to earlier than the abolition of the Deutschmark), unfortunately I can not find a date for said press release but the articles cited date to around 1987, and the language of "entering the EMS" belongs squarely in that era. In other words, this quotable reference appears to predate the article by around fifteen years, and another reference suggests the term originated thirty years before the article — neologism ought to be the least of our worries. More to the point might be that in its current stublike state, it is little more than a Wiktionary definition. However, since the economic characteristics and importance of petrocurrency are hardly touched on by this article, it is a ripe candidate for expansion (and certainly not deletion!). --VivaEmilyDavies 07:11, 1 Apr 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information Promotion

Originally Information Promotion (資訊立縣) (eek! Yes, the software messed that up, badly, in the title...) Topic seems ill-defined, content seems to be anecdotal, and looks generally iffy to me. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Lack of context and poor grammar makes this one nearly fall into the "nonsense" category. If anything, this might be condensed and put into Taiwan, but I doubt anything is salvagable. android↔talk 05:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:19, 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 redirect to Power Rangers. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power Rangers Generations

Not encyclopedic under the list of loosely associated items or the POV clauses. kelvSYC 05:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Power Rangers. Apparently "Power Rangers Generations" is a series of Power Rangers toys being sold by Disney. Zzyzx11 06:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic because it's a list of closely associated items, and NPOV because it's verifiable. Kappa 09:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    So, how exactly do we verify that this is indeed the "favorited" (sic) items? More importantly, how is that NPOV? Exactly whose "favorited" things are they? Chris 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, not as verifiable as I thought Kappa 06:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect since it is part of the never-ending Power Rangers series. Zscout370 17:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge onto Power Rangers. Radiant_* 08:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no merge since article is useless. However, possibly add info re: toy line into a bigger article. Chris 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Power Rangers, nothing here to merge. Megan1967 09:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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. ugen64 02:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JADE (computer game)

Article about a game that is under development. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DaveTheRed 05:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC).

  • Delete for now, or maybe merge to ADOM. This is fairly notable, as roguelikes go, though that's not saying much. —Korath (Talk) 06:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for now. Fascinating, really (I'm a big Angband fan myself, but I abhor the ADOM interface) but premature. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with ADOM until it actually exists. This will likely be a big hit in the Roguelike community, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Radiant_* 09:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into ADOM. Megan1967 04:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable game by notable author. Grue 17:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep JADE is going to be a notable game by notable author. Klonimus 09:54, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern_Lights(Band)

vanity page Feco 05:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I do not see how they pass the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 06:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "They crave to release one demo album"--I crave to delete. Meelar (talk) 09:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with all the above. Delete. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The flying cabbages

Gaming clan. Gets a lot of Google hits, but most appear to be from somebody's web forum signature. No evidence of notability provided, and gaming clans are a notorious vanity topic. Delete as vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Gaming clans aren't notable. Delete. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 17:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite vanity. A flying delete, and make this a valid speedy ASAP. Chris 19:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 21:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jox

obscure, barely registers on google, ext link is to 25-yr old news archive with two-word mention Feco 06:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge with Thom McAn Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, the company has no page either. - Marcika 16:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no vote. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craig_Sullivan

seems like a vanity page for a losing candidate; created before his party primary, which he lost. Updated once since. Per discussion on politician entries, this guy doesn't seem like he merits his own entry. Feco 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: "Craig Sullivan" gets 916 google web hits, but many seem not related to subject of article. "Craig Sullivan" Washington -Wikipedia gets 671 hits, most (but not all) of the top ones seem about article subject. Wikipedia article is an orphan. If he is a notable state political figure, the article needs to do a better job of explaining this. -- Infrogmation 19:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • considering his lost in his party primary, I don't think he qualifies... as near as I can tell, he's never held an elected office. Feco 22:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TSG

TSG is a very prestegious group of two guys -- plus occasional hangers-on, if I understand correctly -- who like to get drunk. Perhaps one of them wrote this. [Burp!] But hey, it's not patent nonsense and doesn't fall into any of the classes listed in Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, so we all get to spend our time considering and voting on it. No problem, as of course we have nothing better to do with our time. (I hope I didn't act too precipitously when I removed an earlier "cleanup" tag; I really don't think that this merits cleanup.) -- Hoary 06:32, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. DaveTheRed 06:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, thy name is TSG. Feco 08:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was I the only one who thought "TSG is a very prestegious group of two guys -- plus occasional hangers-on, if I understand correctly -- who like to get drunk" refered to The SCO Group (TSG) I quickly realised this was not the case as "it's not patent nonsense" and spouting nonsense about UNIX patents is of course the favourite pastime of TSG folk. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 16:47, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could be a redirect to The Smoking Gun, I suppose, or a disambig if people have other common uses for the acronym. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only is the TSG an actual group from British Columbia, Canada, but they are very well known throughout town. How do I know this ? Because I am a personnal friend of Tyler Lowey, the co-founder of the group.
  • Keep If you all can have you're own personnalized pages about yourselves, why can't they? ...Added anonymously at 05:04, 2005 Mar 27 by 24.71.179.65 (here).
  • KeepYou all do not know my group personnally, therefore you have no reason to delete the page. As someone stated above "If you all can have you're own personnalized pages about yourselves, why can't they?" All you're user pages are no less vain than my group page. Let me keep my link. - --Tlowey 05:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The history of this vote is a little bizarre. At 04:57, 2005 Mar 27, 24.71.179.65 who wrote the article, said (anonymously) that he was Lowey: (here). At 05:01, 2005 Mar 27, 24.71.179.65 said (anonymously) that he was "a personnal friend of Tyler Lowey" (here). Whereupon Tlowey (whose only contributions to WP so far have been to this project page) stepped in to claim authorship. Tlowey, first, when you say "someone", you mean yourself (or somebody who uses the same computer and who spells "personal" in the same idiosyncratic way). Secondly, you seem to be confusing (a) articles with (b) user pages. Your user page is here, and it's where you are free to write about yourself. -- Hoary 05:38, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 10:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone tell me a good reason why this sort of thing isn't yet a speedy? Chris 19:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: To the best of my understanding, it doesn't fall into any of the classes listed in Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. Perhaps those classes should be augmented with new classes, but when I last looked, attempts to augment them were not getting far. Arguments against: Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion, isn't paper, mustn't be elitist, mustn't scare away the newbies, etc etc etc. -- Hoary 01:41, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
      • I particularly meant more along the lines of why there isn't already a valid speedy case to cover this article, when there clearly should be. Chris 19:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this "very prestigious" vanity into oblivion. VladMV ٭ talk 21:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damani Harrison

Non-notable. Band has two independent album releases. SWAdair | Talk 07:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity Feco 08:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Delete less notable than Pokemon Klonimus 12:05, 1 Apr 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Percy Delarosa

Article reads in its entirety: Percy Delarosa is a made-up personality, who sends spam to Cricket Web e-mails. This doesn't seem to be patent nonsense, vanity, etc., so we must vote on its Wikiworthiness [yawn]. Perhaps this will thrill the author. Oh, before I forget: Delete, for reasons that I can't be bothered to give. (So flay me!) -- Hoary 08:36, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

PS at 03:00, 2005 Mar 27, 203.187.228.35, who wrote the original article (and whose pattern of edits elsewhere is somewhat, ah, idiosyncratic), deleted the text in the article. So if I remember the rules correctly, it now qualifies as a speedy. -- Hoary 03:54, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

  • Delete fictional spammers aren't notable. Especially if you don't tell who imagined them. Mgm|(talk) 09:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, orphan nn. -- Infrogmation 20:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy or otherwise. Chris 19:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sirkumsize 22:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, empty article. Megan1967 04:23, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muzaffar Ahmed

vanity page; note that google will return several people of the same name who are NOT this guy Feco 08:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: Please google again ... using this keyword. Dr. Ahmed is one of the most prominent economists in Bangladesh. --Ragib 17:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Cited in a couple of newspaper articles. Seems notable enough. - Marcika 16:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Freedman

This may or may not be an encyclopedic topic; but the current content is an anti-Semetic rant. This material is irredeemably POV; if someone wants to write an article, they're better off with a redlink than this. Meelar (talk) 09:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Anti-semitic vandalism. Phils 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic POV. Speedy delete is fine by me; isp's other edits today were clear vandalism or pranking. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from all the other issues, as far as I've been able to ascertain the subject of the article is fictional/hoax. Jayjg (talk) 10:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Histrion

Supposedly "A mythical particle that regulates the flow of time in the universe.". Unreferenced, and I couldn't find any google hits for this meaning. Kappa 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as pure fantasy, bordering on the speedy. Dbiv 11:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm a physicist and I've never heard of this, and neither has Google. AdamW 11:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A made-up particle seems more like it. Arkyan 12:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dic def of hoaxy (p)article, original research at best. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 14:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As you ought to know, this is the particle which mediates the histrionic personality disorder, an increasingly more prevalent affliction in these times. Just kidding, delete. Denni☯ 02:05, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fantasy. Binadot 19:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per comments above. Neutralitytalk 05:11, 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 redirect to Reinforcement. – ABCD 20:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Primary reinforcement

This has been TRANSWIKIed so don't vote Transwiki again, mmmkay?. I want to stop it from being deleted on the grounds because wikipedia needs it to explain Operant conditioning chambers and potentially other aspects of Behaviorism. I vote keep. Kappa 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S. Anyone else who votes "keep" or "merge" gets a cookie...

    • Vote changed to redirect per Uncle G. Kappa 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though it is a dicdef, I know of a few places this could easily go. The page can be expanded too, so we can provide examples of primary reinforcement. Zscout370 13:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dele- oh, wait, a cookie? Oh wow, I love cookies! Merge somewhere into Behavioral psychology, as this term makes the most sense in a context of related terms. Radiant_* 14:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I love cookies too! I think there is a Wikicookie award given out a few times, I will try to locate it as soon as I can. Zscout370 16:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. Seems like a topic that could easily be encyclopedic. Mmmmm, cookies. DaveTheRed 18:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to get a cookie. The article as it stands fulfils CSD criterion #A1, since it is one sentence long and doesn't even provide the context of the discipline in which the term is used. Whilst it says that "a Primary Reinforcer is one" it doesn't explain one what. Someone who didn't already know what a primary reinforcer was would not be edified one whit by this article. This article appears to be entirely the result of a badly chosen hyperlink at operant conditioning chamber, which I've fixed. Redirect to reinforcement, where the expansion and context that you want already exists. Uncle G 21:44, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
    • I guess redirection is OK, at least it's not totally leaving the users without a clue the way a speedy delete would. In the interests of consensus, I'll change my vote to redirect, and I guess the other cookie-lovers won't mind too much if that happens. Kappa 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but with reservations. Article could do with some major expansion. A merge also wouldn't be out of the question. Megan1967 04:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to reinforcement. Nothing to merge. And my doctor won't let me eat cookies anymore anyway. :( —Korath (Talk) 00:56, 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. – ABCD 21:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camaroz28.com

This looks as if it's just an advert to me. AdamW 11:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Listed as 162,160 by Alexa ([75]) and I think fails any notability criterion. Smoddy (tgeck) 11:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association for Unbiased Prosecution

Yet another page springing up that's more interested in conducting campaigns against users that its members don't like rather than encouraging the writing of an encyclopaedia, Delete, jguk 11:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not fond of the idea of a prosecutor's office either, but I believe that if we are going to have one—and it's possible that it would serve the encyclopedia well—we ought to have one that at least tries to be fair and impartial, not subject to the whim of a self-proclaimed dictator and his hand-picked cronies. So keep as a necessary counterbalance to the other one. —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got no problem keeping it as long as the POV stuff about the Association of Member Investigations is removed. I can't see how it's needed though. Can't Mirv simply request to be admitted to the other Association instead of declaring them dictatorial? I think efforts should be concentrated as much as possible. Abstain for now. -- Mgm|(talk) 14:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Mirv does not want to work within an organization run by a dictator who flatly refuses to allow the organization's structure and methods to reflect any views but his own. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POINT. Note also that, largely on Mirv's objection, I have changed the position to "director" (I had ben going for humor with "dictator," but apparently it wasn't funny), stripped the director of veto power, demanded the director seek approval of the senior partners for a case, and noted that the directorship is not a permanant position. Snowspinner 16:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    . . .left yourself in charge, ensured that the only position you've granted significant power will be stacked with your cronies, ensured that those cronies will be the ones decided who deserves prosecution and who doesn't . . . you left that out. And note that "Wikipedia" and "Snowspinner's schemes" are not synonyms; disrupting the latter does not mean disrupting the former. So take your WP:POINT and shovarpen it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He started the thing, it's only fair he's got some kind of control. He still has to follow policy. Mgm|(talk) 20:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the other one; otherwise it's WP:POINT. Davenbelle 17:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The rewrite of the AMI's rules and regulations has made this page obsolete. I will merge and redirect it unless anyone has strong feelings otherwise. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and seriously consider arbitration against its creator. I'm sick of seeing this constant disrespect for basic civility. Ambi 23:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that such a case, regardless of its outcome, would be a perfect vindication of everything I've said all along. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I said the same about that other ridiculous canard. Seek arbitration against the creator of this only if the same is done against everybody who supports the other, too. Wally 01:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer the lot of them to the Association for Organisation Deletion. All of them. WP:AMI WP:AMA WP:DAO WP:SOI WP:AUP and probably a few more as well. Chris 19:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and similar pages. Wincoote 20:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And similar pages, as the editor above said. WP is not a micronation. Jonathunder 03:25, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Delete pages like that are not condusive to the spirit of Good Wikipedia conduct. Megan1967
  • Delete. Totally redundant as per the AMA. El_C 04:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and similar pages - in effect, a new version of cabal accusation - Skysmith 09:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I should probably point out that part of my reasoning for including WP:AMA in the list for deletion above is mostly in the interests of fairness. Neither side in a dispute should have access to any more or less than the other. Ultimately, if in a case of one user accusing another of wrongdoing, if the accused shall have the facility of public defence, the accuser should have the facility of public prosecution, rather like the Crown Prosecution Service. However, introducing an agency to prosecute people will only lead to witch hunts, and an agency to defend people without its opposite number can only lead to people getting away with murder on a technicality. Chris 19:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheema

Probably a personal joke (Cheema is a Punjabi family name). The meaning given is unverifiable. I propose delete. -- Picapica 12:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless reliable independant verification can be provided. Looks like a hoax/prank. Only google web hits for Cheema "invisible ape" are 3 Wikipedia mirrors. -- Infrogmation 20:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vicefield

Some anti-semitic garbage which has been here since December last year, lately added to by User:Dr. Robert Hedley (Bsc Msc Phd) contributions. He also added an image, Image:Litvinoff palace.jpg, with the comment: "Litvinoff Palace, Khatanga, North Siberia, Russia Home of the Litvinoffs since 1653". I don't think any Jews lived in palaces in North Sibiria in 1653... / Uppland 12:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable, unless it can be independently verified (and even then would need a major rewrite). The only Google web hit for Vicefield Russia is a Wikipedia mirror. -- Infrogmation 20:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ajit Agarkar Appreciation Society

Ajit Agarkar-cruft, what is the world coming to? Seriously, definitely not encyclopedic. For those who don't know (and you wouldn't guess from the article) Ajut Agarkar is a very average Indian cricketer. Not notable, not encyclopedic, vanity. Delete. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Give us a chance. Not many recognize the achievements of AAAS. We do. AAAS

Unsigned comment by 203.187.228.35 (talk · contributions)

Delete Nichalp 20:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnotable, vanity, webpage advertisement. --Kitch 12:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This from the talk page:

Dont delete the page. AAAS is a widely love Ajit Agarkar fan group.


How anyone can consider deleting such a renowned group as the AAAS I'll never know.


I vote for the AAAS to STAY

Message from AAAS

We plan on updating this page to be an in-depth info not only about our society, but also Ajit Agarkar.

A lot of people don't recognize the wonder-boy's achievements, which is exactly why we want to bring awareness about it.

AA might not have many fans, but we'd be obliged if we're given a chance.

I suggest the info about Agarkar you want to submit goes to Ajit Agarkar. As for the society, come back when (if) you are notable. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm sorry but your group is simply not promenient enough to be included in an encyclopedia. However, Ajit Agarkar is! Have you considered devoting your time to improving his article? Maybe even work it up to a featured status? What better way could you show your appreciation to Mr. Agakar than by taking the time and effort to improve his article to featured status and giving it the opportunity to be featured on the main page and seen by thousands of people arounf the world? -JCarriker 14:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with JCarriker. —Markaci 2005-03-26 T 16:16 Z

I'd heard of Agit Agarkar, but I never really knew about his acheivments until the AAAS enlightened me, without them my life would feel empty, they definately deserve to be in the encyclopedia. - Dave

Comment by 81.153.128.202 (talk · contributions)
  • Delete. Mr. Agakar is notable. His fan club is not. DaveTheRed 18:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information on an Ajit Agarkar fan club belongs in the Ajit Agarkar article until such time that the fan club can show independent notability. --Allen3 19:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


  • Okay, I say we work on the Ajit Agarkar page, and then keep a small section for AAAS on that. Still, not fair to delete the supporting statements on this page, but yes, I think well first work on the Agarkar page, get huge, and then come back. Popasud
    Comment by 203.187.228.35 (talk · contributions)
  • Delete fan clubs are not notable Dsmdgold 19:39, 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 Speedy delete, implicit request by creator by blanking it. Thue | talk 09:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aldex

Neologism, dicdef, vanity, not notable. However you want it, delete it. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - huh? CDC (talk) 17:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Cdc. Thue | talk 23:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe speedy. It was blanked (except for the VfD notice) by the creator. --Carnildo 04:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket Web

Not notable (45,473 on Alexa [76]). It doesn't seem an extraordinary website, nor particularly encyclopedic. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3000+ forum members. We've more discussion that what takes place on Cricinfo, which is considered the God of cricket websites. You're welcome to verify that. We also have a very popular Fantasy Cricket tourney. Popasud

Cricket web is an excellent site on cricket. Its apalling how it an be considered for deletion. Pratyush

Comment by 61.3.124.73 (talk · contributions)
  • Websites are not inherently encyclopedic, not even forums with 3000+ members. If it is an excellent source of information for the game of cricket, then add it as an external link in the article about the sport. Delete the entry about the website itself. Arkyan 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, delete. Radiant_* 08:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's informative, so stick it in the cricket article. Unfortunately, the evidence others have provided here, leads me to believe the site itself isn't significant enough for inclusion. Mgm|(talk) 12:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep This sort of argument shows a failure to grasp the category system. The cricket article is a general intro. As I know the game inside out, and the article looks pretty good already, I haven't bothered to read it yet. I will categorise the article. Wincoote 20:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have not the first idea about the relevance of the category system. We are debating deleting an article about a website which is not notable or significant. Could you explain the above comment? I haven't bothered to read it yet? Smoddy (tgeck) 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I mean I haven't bothered to read the general cricket article. We shouldn't try to dump all sorts of info in a general article when the category system provides a better organisation method. Wincoote 01:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 05:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a cricket fan myself, but I leaning towards delete as it is not that notable as say cricinfo or stickcricket. Squash 08:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete : The web site covers cricket very comprehensively having reports of every test and one day international match, ground, player information and country sections. It has select audiences which go on the web site for cricket related news. Its far more in depth than some other cricket related web sites apart from cricinfo user:pratyush

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. – ABCD 00:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation anthropology

Total votes are 17 for delete and 2 for keep giving 89% delete.

Page is an example of a POV fork and is non-notable. While there are many things wrong with this page, primarily it isn't a real topic. While I recognize that creationists have their own forrays relating to, for example, creation science or creation geology, can anybody find a work that's actually devoted to so-called "creation anthropology"? Google gives a paltry 200 and some hits for the term, and none of them appear to be about the subject. The page is a basic rehashing of creationist POV on what possibly occurred in the past history of humanity. It is not an actual statement on an actual subject. Joshuaschroeder 14:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. schroeder's argument for deletion is that the topic doesn't exist. there are 7 cited and linked articles at the end, and a cited summary from an article on the topic at the very beginning. now consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder. Then consider that physical anthropology discusses the origins of humanity, which this article does from a creationist perspective in terms of genesis. Then cultural anthropology, which considers the origin and nature of morality, which this article does from a creationist perspective, in terms of Genesis. Then linguistic anthropology, which this article considers from a creationist perspective, in terms of the tower of babel. Then ask yourself, "what HARM is the article doing?" Then please, vote keep. Ungtss 14:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please note that Ungtss did not respond to any of the above critiques of the page, instead admits that this is a POV-fork for creationists to dissiminate their ideas and also makese an unrelated ad hominem about myself. The merits of the case stand. Joshuaschroeder 15:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please note that:
1) i discussed the relevence of this page above, in terms of three branches of anthropology
2) none of schroeder's comments have any relation to wikipedia policy, simply reflecting your opinion
3) since it is composed entirely of your opinion, the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing is relevent to the credibility of your opinion.
4) i discussed this issue with two mysterious sockpuppets a mere 12 hours before schroeder put this up for vfd, right here.
5) If you do a google search with "creationist," or without quotes, you'll find a number of hits, including this one and this one, to start it off. Anyways, i'm resigned. Even when he loses one of his vfd's, schroeder deletes the page anyway. how many vfd's are we up to, mr. schroeder? and sometimes twice in a week!
1) i discussed the relevence of this page above, in terms of three branches of anthropology
Just because you think it is a valid POV doesn't make it relevent. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I never said it was valid. i said that it IS a pov -- a very widespread one, and as such it should be described. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Creationism is a topic that is rightfully included in Wikipedia. Creation anthropology does not fit the criteria used for inclusion of this. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
and why not, other than your own opinion on the matter? Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not a real topic. It is a topic about what you think about creationism's implication for anthropology. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2) none of schroeder's comments have any relation to wikipedia policy, simply reflecting your opinion
Non-notable POV-forks are explicitly against Wikipedia policy. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
please show me this policy, and explain how, exactly, this is a "pov fork," rather than an article describing a particular pov. Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This POV-fork, which you can look up for yourself, is stating that the article's idealization is to push a POV about the subject of anthropology. You aren't describing an actual discipline, an active area of research, or anything more than a mishmash of opinions of people who don't like anthropology because they think it contradicts creationism. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Notability is NOT a grounds for VfD. There is no official policy on notability at wikipedia. it has been proposed, but not adopted.
This does not diminish the fact that it is a POV-fork. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
what exactly is a pov-fork, schroeder? Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Figure it out for yourself. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3) since it is composed entirely of your opinion, the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing is relevent to the credibility of your opinion.
The fact is that is courtesy of your own action. I wouldn't call the existence of an opinion on someone else's opinion a fact worthy of consideration. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The fact is, your argument is based on your opinion of what is notable -- the vfd is relevent in considering how objective your opinion is in determining that. the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing against creationism is revelent. courtesy? VfD policy requires that you discuss the vfd on the talkpage before deleting it. where's the discussion? Just another suckerpunch vfd, in direct violation of policy. Well done. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought you said that it didn't matter whether it was notable or not? By the way, the discussion is on the talkpage. Anybody can read it. You make a poor case, the page is now up for deletion. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the sockpuppets gave up the discussion, either because they realized they had no argument, or because the one with a user name (e.g. you) decided to vfd.
User:THOTH is not me, but besides that, the discussion has landed us here on the vfd where the discussion is lively and seems to be indicating that there is an argument to be made for deletion of the page. Joshuaschroeder 00:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4) i discussed this issue with two mysterious sockpuppets a mere 12 hours before schroeder put this up for vfd, right here.
Partially why this VfD is up here. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppets should show their faces. I have absolutely no reason to believe it wasn't you -- i'd appreciate an ip stamp from you to confirm you're not from just outside fairfax, va. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here you go: 140.180.132.151 15:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. still leaves open the question of the one with a username, tho.Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5) If you do a google search with "creationist," or without quotes, you'll find a number of hits, including this one and this one, to start it off. Anyways, i'm resigned. Even when he loses one of his vfd's, schroeder deletes the page anyway. how many vfd's are we up to, mr. schroeder? and sometimes twice in a week!
This is not an article on "creationist", it is an article on "creation anthroplogy". Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was named to parallel the other pages on the topic. it is about creationist views of anthropology. your search, limited to a single two-word phrase designed uniquely for an encyclopedia has no relevence. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was a page that was invented by you to maintain some of the other pages which have been subsequently deleted. Creationists may have views on all sorts of things from magic to baked beans. That does not mean we should include them in an encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
right. we should just cut out their cited and summarized views entirely, or replace them with "what schroeder thinks other people think." excellent. Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Funny that this is your retort considering that the page is basically "what Ungtss thinks other people think." excellent. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search shows that the term "creation anthropology" appears to be found only in mirrors of Wikipedia. Delete as original research. -- The Anome 14:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --G Rutter 15:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Should be titled "Ungtss' anthropology". Bensaccount 18:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. - SimonP 19:01, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
please point to a single statement on this page that fits the above definition before justifying your vote with "original research." i think you'll find there aren't any. i think you'll find that the article is composed entirely of cited quotes and statements from the bible and christian writers. everything on this page is "published or available elsewhere." therefore it is absolutely, unequivally not original research. what it is is offensive to your religion. so please, when you vote delete, just back it with "heritical and must be suppressed." thank you. that is all. Ungtss 23:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". --> This is exactly what this page is. It is a synthesis by yourself and a few likeminded creationists into a new article that is about a topic that doesn't actually exist. You have recombined a lot of opinions that were written elsewhere into a totally new endeavor. Joshuaschroeder 00:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
i note that you failed to point to a SINGLE statement of "original research" on the page. a topic that doesn't actually exist? the genesis account of the origin of man does not actually exist? lewis's abolition of man does not actual exist? the story of the tower of babel does not actually exist? the views on this page are cited quotes and summaries of creationist views on all the topics in anthropology. there is not an "original thought" in the project. anyways. systemic bias makes the death of this page inevitable. have fun at the witchburning. Ungtss 00:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I suppose this is meant to be metaphorical, eh? Otherwise, who would the literal witch we would be burning? Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree completely with bensaccount. unencyclopedic and useless.--Deglr6328 23:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete PatGallacher 01:41, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Different chunks of the content could be placed in other, relevant articles. But the entire collection has some NPOV problems. Feco 05:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I note again, in passing, that the above votes do not make any pretense to any policy justification for deletion. why? because there are none. there is absolutely no policy justification for this vfd, period. We just delete things we don't like here at wikipedia. it's fun. Ungtss 05:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/FACTS, here we go again. Delete as POV-pushing fork. And I would really appreciate it if this vote didn't turn into a shouting match. Radiant_* 08:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • That vfd you link to is a vfd of a sandbox. is there a wikipedia policy allowing for the vfding of sandboxes? nah. but we don't need policy to delete things. just numbers. Ungtss 18:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact there is, "inappropriate user page" is a VfD criterion. Radiant_* 19:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Sandboxes are explicitly contemplated as an appropriate use for user pages, particularly in the case of pov conflicts. inappropriate uses include offensive content, or things unrelated to the wiki project. FACTS is neither of those. FACTS is not an inappropriate use of a user page by any stretch of the imagination. it is only offensive to the sensibilities of those who fear creationism. Ungtss 20:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's right. The reason anybody could possibly object to an invention of Ungtss is because they're afraid of it. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork, no potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 10:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork, non-encyclopedic the page is a mess, and I will refrain from stating my opinion on the topic in order to avoid offending someone. Martg76 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Would one of the above voters care to point out the wikipedia policy definition of a pov fork, explain how this page fits that definition, and show where wikipedia policy provides that they are prohibited, in order to justify their votes? Ungtss 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • allow me to help: ""POV fork" is a shorthand for "This article was created primarily to present the subject of an existing article from a different point of view".
      • I'm curious. what other article covers the topic of creationist views on physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and linguistic anthropology? Are they documented anywhere on wikipedia? Perhaps we should vfd Christianity because it is simply a pov fork of religion. yes. that would be nice. Ungtss 18:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the article right now there are things on the Tower of Babel, Genesis, Christianity, creationism and many other topics. The views on those parts of anthropology are all derived from them. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I originally tried to bring some reality into this page but I couldn't cope with Ungtss complete takeover in pushing his creationist beliefs in a subject where creationism has very little bearing. There is almost no serious anthropology content from any perspective in this article, just a rehashing of Genesis beliefs. Is there anything mentioned by Ungtss in here that is reflected in mainstream literature? Its all from the Bible. He also deleted the original "pseudo-science" comment in the first paragraph. Dabbler 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
would you care to back up some of the above accusations with some diffs? i wonder, creation has very little bearing in physical anthropology, that is, the origin of mankind, and the tower of babel as very little bearing in linguistic anthropology, that is, the origin of languages? Ungtss 20:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, checking the history, I see that the pseudoscience comment was removed by an anonymous editor whose only contribution to Wikipedia is that single edit. Now who was it who was complaining about sockpuppets earlier? You may read Talk:Creation anthropology and some posts on User talk:Ungtss/crazyeddie part 1 for my other comments.Dabbler 20:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
are you insinuating that i am the sockpuppet? the sockpuppet in question was 66.81.131.50, corresponding to an address in sacramento ca. my ip is 65.15.95.34 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC), corresponding to an address in athens, ga, which you can verify here. i think if you review the history further, you'll discover that i left the bulk of your edits untouched, and CERTAINLY not affecting the content of any of them. if you had a problem with the article, you might have said something in the past month, during which the page went untouched before being suckerpunched vfded. oh well. no surprise. thanks for everything. 65.15.95.34 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At this point i'm withdrawing from the discussion. policy is irrelevent on this topic. the witch must be burned, and she will. have fun. Ungtss 20:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ironic that you should use the term "witchhunt". Theres still some wood left from those sacriligious "evolutionists". Bensaccount 22:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For further edge-of-your-seat banter between bensaccount and ungtss, click here.
merge into what? Ungtss 04:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research, fork. Megan1967 05:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, before voting delete, read the seven cited and linked articles at the end of the page about creation anthropology, and this diff, the proposed intro from an article about creation anthropology, deleted by the proponent of this vfd. Thank you. that is all. Ungtss 22:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I might point out that this supposed "source" is about a creationist POV of anthropology and Hamartiology rather than some made-up subject of "creation anthropology". I removed it because long quotes like that are to be eschewed in Wikipedia. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a quotemine. Joshuaschroeder 07:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Ungtss, didn't you say you were going to stop editting articles about creationism or religion? I guess that moratorium has ended? Joshuaschroeder 07:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
you put it up for vfd without discussion, claiming the topic didn't exist. in order to prove that the topic exists, i provided 7 links and quoted an article. you did not summarize or adjust the summary. you deleted it. find me the wikipedia policy saying that "long quotes are to be deleted wholesale on wikipedia" in order to justify your edit. my decision to boycott creationism pages is a result of your penchant for deleting everything that frightens you on these pages. I added reference to a cited scholarly article in the hope that you might begin to behave rationally. i was disappointed, but not surprised.
Note that the idea of deleted the page was discussed on talkpage, whether Ungtss liked the discussion or not. The seven links are a nice addition but don't respond to the major point that the article is simply POV-forking, similar to having a page on Evolutionary racism talking about how evolution is inherently racist. I'm glad you've figured out my motivations for edits well-enough to basically tell the world what they are and accusing me of bad-faith edits. Fine, that's typical of your style. Moreover, your addition was typically subpar with respect to what should be included in an encyclopedia. If any part of this travesty is to survive, the paraphrase now included is better than what you added. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please, before voting delete, read the seven cited and linked articles at the end of the page about creation anthropology, and this diff, the proposed intro from an article about creation anthropology, deleted by the proponent of this vfd. Thank you. that is all.
Note that the "intro" was basically a long quotemine, now paraphrased for the sake of editorial good-taste. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or, at the very least, merge with Creationism. The article currently has a strong pro-Creationist bias, but that calls for a POV cleanup, not a deletion. The links it provides clearly demonstrate that there has been serious thought given by Creationists to the anthopological implications of their beliefs, and I see no reason why that thought shouldn't be catalogued in an encyclopedia. Yes, this article reports on original research, but it is no more original research than (say) an article on the Big Bang Theory would be. As a Darwinist myself, I obviously don't think Wikipedia should be used to advocate Creationist viewpoints, but those viewpoints are held by more than enough people to make them notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in neutral, verifiable articles. --Jacobw 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I tried that when Ungtss first put up this page, read the history. However, there is only so much you can do against a determined POV merchant like Ungtss. I didn't have time to argue with him all the time about his POV. I have more constructive things I prefer to do than argue with an individual who is determined to push his POV here. Find one single example of real anthropology in this article. Dabbler 16:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The edit history does not support your accusations. your opinion of what is "real anthropology" is ill-defined and irrelevent to an article about "creation anthropology." in short, your arguments give no justification for your vote. Ungtss 17:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely the problem. Ungtss defines the term and has his own opinion and if you don't agree with him with what "creation anthropology" is and how it relates to "real anthropology" then your opinion is valueless. Hence the whole article is, by his own admission, POV and not encyclopedic. Dabbler 17:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is neither my opinion nor yours that matters, but the writers of the cited articles you're pretending don't exist, all of which describe a creationist anthropology, which is accurately reflected on the page in the form of cited quotes and summaries. Point out some pov for me on the page, please. Ungtss 17:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I quote "From the creationist point of view, when human societies deviate far from God's law, we decay. When we enact and practice God's law, we thrive." Dabbler 18:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is not pov. that is an attributed viewpoint. it is npov to say, "atheists think there is no god." it is pov to say "there is no god." If "atheists think there is no god" is pov, then we better vfd atheism. This statement says, "from a creationist point of view ...." and then accurately states the point of view. it's npov: an attributed viewpoint. try again. Ungtss 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Simply attributing a viewpoint does not make inclusion of the viewpoint NPOV. A viewpoint needs to be reported about because, there are compelling interests for describing its existence. A detail creationist diatribe against anthropology made by means of quoting the Bible and whining about evolution is not reporting a viewpoint in an encyclopedic fashion. Indeed, the "viewpoint" doesn't actually exist in an encyclopedic sense. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Codes of morality and immorality

Originally in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent; they had no knowledge of good or evil; they were naked, and were not ashamed. They were vegetarians. They did not labor. God's only command was that they not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it would result in their death, which they violated.

Adam and Eve violated God's command, and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Instantly, they experienced shame for the first time -- they realized they were naked and covered themselves to hide it. They also hid from God. As a result, God removed them from the garden, and cursed them. Specifically, Adam was forced to work to provide for himself and his family, and Eve was given pain in childbirth.

Within a single generation, humanity degenerated from life in Eden to envy and murder. Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, killed his brother Abel." Please explain where this is an attributed viewpoint and not presented as a factual account, based literally on Genesis. Dabbler 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thank you for pointing that out. i just fixed it. i also fixed an instance of mainstream pov that was in the same section -- text i believe you added and i didn't change a whit, if i'm not mistaken. Is there anything i can do to bring the page up to snuff for you, or are you set on deleting it regardless? Ungtss 20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the following sections "Noahic covenant", "Law of Moses". Dabbler 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Attributed. How's that? Please feel free to edit the page in the name of npov as much as you like. i have no monopoly on editing here. i only object to the deletion or caricaturing of creationist views, or the failure to attribute views critical of them. as long as we follow the rules of npov, there is no conflict. i appreciate your insight. Is there anything else I can do? Ungtss 04:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to previous work with Ungtss, any description of creationists that is not glowing is likely to be called a caricature. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, also, the main objection seems to be that the phrase "creation anthropology" is not in common use. It's a very reasonable objection, but it could be dealt with simply by renaming the page "creationist anthropology". Wikipedia articles must deal with pre-existing phenomena, but not necessarily with pre-existing titles for those phenomena. For example: there is no field called List of Jewish Superheroes but there is a phenomena of Jewish superheroes, and it is worthy of discussion in Wikipedia. --Jacobw 14:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much that there isn't a phrase available but that the topic itself is simply a POV fork. One could conceive of creationists publishing articles on any subject they desire. Allowing this article, what's to prevent creation horticulture, creation engineering, creation physics, or creation mathematics? These are non-topics, just like the so-called "creation anthropology". Everything contained in the article can be and is explained elsewhere. Joshuaschroeder 18:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
you're mixing up two definitions. a pov fork is a page addressing ideas addressed elsewhere from a different perspective. redundancy is when everything contained in an article can be and is explained elsewhere.
Pov fork: This is not a pov fork any more than moral relativism, moral absolutism, moral realism and moral objectivism are pov forks of ethics. this page describes a particular point of view in particularity. further, if it is a pov fork, then it should be incorporated into the topic from which it forks. perhaps you would be willing to help me integrate these views into anthropology?
Redundancy: where are the contents of the many cited and linked articles on creationist anthropology covered? Bits and pieces are covered in many different places, but where are the specific issues covered on this page covered elsewhere?
I pause to point out, schroeder, that you might have discussed these things on the talkpage before vfding out of the blue. but i know that tactically, it's easier to get things deleted when you can change your arguments every 10 minutes and collect votes based on an inferior, earlier version of the page. So i would expect no better of you. Ungtss 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
cited and linked articles on creationist anthropology covered? Bits and pieces are covered in many different places, but where are the specific issues covered on this page covered elsewhere? --> The substantive stuff in the article isn't all that new: the myths from Genesis, Christian doctrine of the soul, the tower of Babel, etc. are all things found elsewhere. The only novel idea is that this page is a POV-essay for creationists and by creationists to present the ideas as somehow associated with scientific anthropology. This is an inappropriate POV inclusion to the encyclopedia. We don't need to have a manufactured "creationist anthropology" page for creationists to wax eloquently about what part of the Christian canon they want to see included in anthropology. They have the pages on the Christian canon to do that. That's what is the POV-fork. Joshuaschroeder 22:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your words demonstrably hold no link to reality. there are seven links at the bottom of the page documenting the existence of "creationist" and "christian" anthropology, that have absolutely nothing to do with me or my "manufacturings." your "pov fork" argument would vfd thomism because it is a pov within philosophy. a pov fork would be "arguments that bush is a good president" and "arguments that bush is a bad president." NOT "republican party platform" and "democratic party platform." your sole and very obvious intent here is to delete views you wish creationists would stop "waxing eloquent" about so you can wax eloquent about your religion without any competition from reason. Ungtss 03:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I can find any number of links for "Nation of Islam anthropology", "Jainist anthropology", "Zoroastrian anthropology". None of these articles are encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. This article is a rehashing of arguments, it is not a description of a unified or codified platform that anybody holds too, except for Ungtss.
Claiming that someone else is going to wax eloquent about their religion is not an excuse for doing so. If you have evidence that I'm waxing eloquent about my religion, please indicate it. It's interesting that Ungtss thinks he knows what religion I am and that obviously must influence my edits. The Ungtss doth protest too much. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Creation anthropology is basically a page stating what parts of Christianity are "supposed" to be included in anthropology according to the opinion of Ungtss and his chosen group of references. It is fascinating that someone who is so obsessed with "reason" cannot admit that the title of the page and the contents he created was manufactured out of his own mind and not subject to anything other than his own opinion about the topic of anthropology. Joshuaschroeder 00:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Btw, when I said merge, I meant delete. Unscientific, and even preposterous, positions can be accepted of course in WP when enough people hold them, so there is no reason that they should not be known. But when the tactic, as seen in Ungtss arguments, is clearly to organize an invasion of just one idea by multiplying the approaches of it, articles after articles (I suppose the next article will be creation cooking recipes I see it as abusive and as an obvious npov propaganda. WP is not a place for proselytism. The line has to be drawn --Pgreenfinch 07:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I repeat that this article is a collection of cited summaries of articles by creationists on the unique topic of creation anthropology. This covers ideas and a point of view covered nowhere else -- it is neither a tactic nor proselytization, but an npov description of a point of view you find distasteful. it starts off with an article about "christian anthropology." The topic exists. It is widespread. The information is covered nowhere else. The article is written in npov style. your slippery slope argument is baseless -- this article is NOT entitled creation cooking recipes -- it is entitled creation anthropology, and is based on a number of articles discussing the topic. as such, there is nothing in wikipedia policy to justify your vote but your distaste for this point of view. Ungtss 13:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking for the right term, you are right, qualifying this article as a slippery slope article would be perfect, thanks. --Pgreenfinch 08:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies where there is no causal link between the page in question (creation anthropology -- which exists) -- and your parade of horribles -- creation cooking recipies. your argument is a logical fallacy. Ungtss 13:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You will never win here, I can find scores of cognitive and emotional biases which are at the base of your theories. Do we start with anchoring and framing? But the question is not here, you are entitled to fish for whatever explanation of the world, reason and facts are optional, it is about your tactic of accumulation to push it down people's throat. --Pgreenfinch 15:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reason i will never win here is because people like you refuse to acknowledge your biases, confuse them with reality, and delete all pov's that do not coincide with your particular dogma. this page doesn't force anything down anybody's throat. it documents a widespread pov. you're the doing the forcing. you're deleting without the slightest pretense to policy justification. Ungtss 16:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good show of rhetorics, except that you are dodging the accumulation tactic bit ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 16:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that argument defeated itself. your fear of "accumulation" is another way of saying, "we don't want your ideas around here. If people read them, they might feel forced to believe them." that's an argument for mere censorship, and it certainly sells the reader's critical faculties short. The page merely documents the salient points of a relevent pov. noone has to read them if they don't want to. you're simply depriving them of the opportunity to read a cited summary of a relevant pov. I'm afraid you're dodging the rest of my argument by labeling it mere "rhetoric." Ungtss 16:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I love your circumvolated interpretations, Thinking about it, it is difficult to say if they are more accumulative than rhetorical, or the other way round. But you might be a bit overconfident in thinking that they would make the article valuable for the critical reader, seeing what 15 of them already stated ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The majority is not always right. the test is policy and reason. your arguments so far have been slippery slope, parade of horribles, proof by majority, and ad hominem. all fallacies. those above yours are no better, insofar as they blatantly misapply policy. the majority is absolutely wrong in this case. Ungtss 21:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line, Ungtss, is that you don't get a page dedicated to your personal take on anthropology (and no the citations don't mean anything -- I could cite any number of unworthy topics). Bensaccount 22:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line is that this isn't my take on anything. This is a summary of cited views on a topic. There's not an original thought in the piece. it's all essays, books, and bible stories. Ungtss 22:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You chose them didn't you? Bensaccount 22:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
that doesn't make it "my take." it makes it a report of other people's takes. Ungtss 13:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It makes it a synthesis which is defined in the POV-fork as problematic when it is basically manufactured, as you have done. It is "your take" because the references are made as someone might reference a personal essay on how, say, Boston Red Sox fans should approach eating a hotdog. It might be easy to find seven references on the subject, but that doesn't make the topic any less POV-pushing because the person would have to be pushing their own agenda in that regard. Joshuaschroeder 15:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are talking nonsense. A synthesis is not a pov-fork is not basically manufactured. all wikipedia articles are syntheses -- they are only personal research if they are a novel synthesis -- which is page is not. it is not a pov fork, because it does not treat an issue covered elsewhere in a different way -- it treats the issue of "creation anthropology" in an npov way, in the only place it is treated at all. it is not manufactured. it is cited and sourced. your false analogy regarding hot dogs requires no response. it speaks for itself. stick with your telescopes, please, schroeder. Ungtss 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, personal research: "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This qualifies. Joshuaschroeder 17:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
to justify your conclusion, please point to one "novel narrative or historical interpretation" on this page. I think you'll just find a description of a widespread point of view, cited, and summarized, with not a WHIT of unique or creative thought in the entire piece. Ungtss 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is novel narrative to assert that the topic "creation anthropology" exists. Joshuaschroeder 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Any topic on which articles can be cited from a number of sources existed before i had anything to say about it. Ungtss 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By your own admission, the articles cited were from sources that contained the words "Christian", "creation", and "anthropology". Hardly evidence that the articles were written on the topic. Joshuaschroeder 20:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From that search, I selected a number of articles explicitly on the topic of anthropology grounded in genesis, as evidenced on the page. Ungtss 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, you selected commentary on anthropological ideas from a creationist perspective. That's a POV-fork pipedream. Joshuaschroeder 22:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a summary of 7 online sources, all repeating each other does not meet the requirements for and encyclopeida article. This isn't repoted anywhere of note because it isn't a recognised field within theology or religious studies.--nixie 13:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • One of the links is a course outline on the subject. Another is a list of books on anthropology as a subset of theology. Ungtss 14:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Course outline from the Assembly of God seminary? The list of books is hardly about the subject as outlined on the page. So I remain convinced that this is a total manufacture of your own whimsy. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see that the subjects of courses taught at seminary are to be excluded from wikipedia, and that because such topics are taught there, the reporting of what they teach is merely a "manufacture of my own whimsy." thank you again for demonstrating such fantastic reasoning, schroeder. the fact that you despise christianity does not justify its exclusion from wikipedia. Ungtss 13:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want to report what they teach at the Assembly of God seminary, why not report it on the Assembly of God page? They have classes there in everything from parenting to dealing with addiction. Are you going to start pages on creation parenting and creation drug counseling with those as resources? The point is, the seminary course is designed to be a perspective of a denomination on an issue. This article is proporting to be about a unified idealization of the way creationism should act with respect to anthropology. The views of a teacher at an Assembly of God seminary would be relevent in an article about the Assembly of God, but they do not represent a basis for this manufacture of yours. Joshuaschroeder 15:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
AG is a subset of creationism. naturally creation anthropology with reference AG. that doesn't mean that creationism can only be described on AG pages. Many others besides the AG ascribe to creation anthropology, as indicated by the references, including Bible.org. It is a unique issue best described in its own article. Ungtss 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
AG is a subset of creationism. --> Are you claiming that this denomination is a subset of creationism? A denomination that defines itself based on Pentacostalism that is totally independent of the definitions of creationism? I think it reasonable that the things described in the Assembly of God's seminary are POV of the Assembly of God and belong in an article discussing the beliefs of the Assembly of God. It's nice that you have created a subject to which a large number of groups are automatic subscribers, even without vetting your personal research essay on the topic, but this idea that it is a "unique" argument just won't cut it. It's as unique as any POV-pushing argument ever made. Joshuaschroeder 17:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am claiming, schroeder, that to reference AG on the issue of creation anthropology in the context of other non-ag writers on creation anthropology does not make this an AG issue -- it makes AG one of the groups who holds VIEWS on this particular issue, and are therefore useful in describing it. The rest of your paragraph is mere proof by assertion, so i'll let it go. Ungtss 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Assembly of God holds positions on many issues, but that does not make a personal research essay such as this legitimate. The point is that this is a view of the Assembly of God about anthropology. It is not anything more than that. The creation anthropology article is simply a sidetrack. Joshuaschroeder 19:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
More proof by assertion. this is not personal research (as it is cited, not original and widely held), nor is it solely the view of AG (as many of the other linked articles are not AG), nor is a sidetrack from anything but what it describes, objectively, in npov style. Ungtss 19:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The point is that this reference could be used to support an article on AG's view of anthropology. However, creation anthropology is your coined-term and idea that cherry-picks citation that agree with your opinion about the existence of the manufactured topic. Joshuaschroeder 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All i did was Google "Creation & Christian & Anthropology." What you see is what I got. I cherrypicked nothing. i did no original research. i summarized a widely held opinion on the origin of man. you're vfding it. Ungtss 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All three of those terms you Googled belong in Wikipedia. Any "widely held opinion" on the origin of man belongs in the article first man or woman. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. as do widely held views on the main topics in anthropology grounded in the biblical account of creation -- which describes the content of this article. Ungtss 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To be perfectly redundant, the points of the biblical account of creation are supposed to be in creationism. They can have implications for all sorts of disciplines. They shouldn't be in an invented new article. Joshuaschroeder 22:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful content with Creationism. Sjakkalle 11:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research and POV fork. Jonathunder 15:39, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is absurd. BJAODN, anyone? — Davenbelle 07:09, Apr 5, 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. – ABCD 00:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Jia Sheng

Either vanity (unlikely) or a dig at someone else (more likely) this has got to go. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably his schoolmate wrote it. And to think that it is someone from a top and prestigious college in Singapore. *shurgs* Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, prank. Megan1967 05:19, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • 23:19, Mar 26, 2005 Jpgordon deleted Louis Loh (libel)

[edit] Louis Loh

Cute vanity. Smoddy (tgeck) 15:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely not cute for me. I expected Hwa Chong Institution students to be more mature that this. Delete - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While technically not a speedy, I wouldn't mind too much if it was speedied; neither would the original creator I think, cause he tried blanking it. Thue | talk 23:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed Exponential Timeline

This page was moved from Logarithmic timeline, but appears to be original research- there doesn't seem to have ever been any explanation as to how this has been used by anyone (unlike the logarithmic timeline). Furthermore, it should deal with current events, but has not been regularly updated. --G Rutter 16:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's see, arbitrary list, self-outdating, fork of a better written and more general article... delete please. Radiant_* 08:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words containing the prefix, iso-

This is a list of words with no analysis. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lists of English words of Greek and Latin origin have recently been deleted or radically reworked to remove the 'list' aspect. What's more, this list is apparently not even human-generated: it is a list of words beginning with 'iso-', some of which are not related to the Greek prefix 'iso-' (e.g. Wiktionary:isolate < Latin insula). --Macrakis 16:39, 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrities with illicit drug history

I vote to delete this article. It is superfluous, does not distinguish between addiction and substantial abuse on one hand and experimentation and occasional use on the other, and serves no real purpose. notime4U

    • Improperly signed, page history says: 209.179.128.200 00:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This nomination wasn't completely submitted. I'm finishing the process, and I vote Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-26 T 16:59 Z
  • Keep, I find this article very interesting. I never knew that there was that many celebs who did drugs. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I say keep it too: if you feel the need to distinguish between addiction and experimentation, then that can be done in the full articles. As a list it's interesting. -- Andi.j.thomas 12.38, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
    • (This is this user's 2nd edit) DaveTheRed 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...this page is a nice index of "Addiction and it's influence on the arts"
    • Unsigned, page history says: Pants7 1:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • (This is this users 5th edit) DaveTheRed 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ugh. This list is difficult to maintain and possibly libelous, despite the disclaimer at the top. DaveTheRed 18:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How many of these names have been verified? A possible legal nightmare, hard to maintain and verify, potentially infinite. Gamaliel 19:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't have much potential to become 'encyclopedic' (ie, useful). Possibly libelous to boot. Feco 22:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on basis of potential libel. The article's very title is problematic in this respect. 23skidoo 00:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it may be cute, but I challenge you to provide a use for it. Also, it's a legal nightmare, and poorly organized. Assuming I want to look up Marion Barry's drug history, I'll look on his page. BigFatDave 00:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term "illicit drug" is too culturally relative to have any real encyclopedic value as a criterion for list membership. There are hardcore Mormon areas in Utah where most people would consider coffee an "illicit drug"; should we list every coffee-drinking celebrity? Should we list people who drank alcohol during Prohibition? More to the point, a lot of people would object to people who use "soft" drugs, such as marijuana, being included on this list, which labels them "druggies" by implication. Whatever your views on drug use might be, most of us agree there's a huge, huge difference between marijuana use and, say, heroin addiction, so it's pretty much useless to group them together in a list like this. Lists of notable people who use(d) a specific substance, such as List of famous opiate addicts, are much more useful and encyclopedic. /sɪzlæk˺/ 07:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to be too pedantic, but "illicit" means "illegal", which is an obvious bright line (coffee is not illegal in Utah, last time I looked). --Calton | Talk 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another problematic, sockpuppet supported list. Jayjg (talk) 10:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've implicitly expressed my opinion by editing the page so that is now a "list of famous people whose drug use has been discussed in public, together with the source citation for that discussion." Since currently none of them are sourced, I've removed every name from the page (and placed them on the talk page for the article). Interested editors can move them back when and as proper source citations are found. To keep the list from being utterly empty, I've added one name to the list, Jack London, whose hashish party while cruising in the Solomon islands is attested to by one biographer and by a photograph] from a university site captioned "Group photo from the 'Hasheesh Party' in the Solomon Islands, during the voyage of the Snark." I think the page can be kept as long as proper sources are provided for every entry. If, after a reasonable period of time, there are only a handful of such well-sourced entries, then the page should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not very useful, un-encyclopaedic, potentially libelous. Megan1967 05:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with this list so long as those on it have either been arrested for posession or publicly acknowledged a prior addiction.--Centauri 06:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per, um, /sɪzlæk˺/ . FreplySpang 16:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too long and too broad if were to be actually comprehensive, and a NPOV nightmare, to boot.--Calton | Talk 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - How many of those entries are/were based on tabloid claims or rumor mills? How many celebrities we want to sue WP for defamation? Even if the list is purged, it is potential vandal magnet or godsend for POV pushers (POV being "all celebs are narcs" and there are those who think so in this world). Possible drug use of someone famous should be handled in individual articles (in case the celeb in question has admitted the use or been sentenced for it) or possibly in the article about drug abuse or something similar - Skysmith 09:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could be libel, but if they publically admit to using drugs or having used drugs in the past, there is nothing that could be done. Keep a list of sources as recommended, and delete if nothing is done to positivly change this page. --Aika 16:13, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If they publically admit to using drugs or having tried them, we have the right to the information. Its an excelent resource. I just used it for an English Speech discussing Marijuana. I stongly suggest keeping it as long as people site their sources.--Andrew 11:09, APL 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but institute a strict rule of requiring a source Tuf-Kat 04:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This information is duplicated in other Wikipedia articles, the article carries a potential for libel, and the category is too broad and undefined.
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 --Carnildo 04:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob chen

Pure vanity that begins with "The Bob Chen is an endangered species. There is only one true Bob Chen left in the world, residing in Westlake California." . Zzyzx11 17:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted as silly test or joke. -- Infrogmation 21:32, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kelsey savage

Vanity + advertising. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity, advertisement. — JIP | Talk 18:20, 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. – ABCD 21:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Kwong

Vanity. We don't need an biographical article for every PhD holder. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems average professor to me. jni 13:13, 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. – ABCD 00:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Bliss

Sorry, but I think it's possibly vanity. "Pastor Don Bliss" only returned 4 results. Not sure if it's copyvio, also see [77]. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Infrogmation 20:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:23, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chan Pak Chuen

An attempt in having a go aganist someone else. Libellous comments. - Mailer Diablo 19:27, 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. – ABCD 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untriquadium

One more time... another element stub created just today. It's not speediable because this particular one was not ever created (to my knowledge). This was listed on Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool, and somebody clicked through and made it. Reasons for deletion are detailed in the earlier debates. (Binilnilium, Element extrapolation, and Death by element stubs). Eric119 19:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete is okay by me; alternatively, redirect to Systematic element name or something else appropriate if there's a chance this might be recreated by someone else. -- Infrogmation 20:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as suggested. Nothing useful known of this element. Dbiv 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to prevent recreation (maybe mass-redirect the lot of them since the joke is starting to fall flat by now) Radiant_* 22:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like element stubs, but I don't know about this particular one - number 134 hasn't been discovered yet. Redirect. NazismIsntCool 06:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. articles on the higher transuranics, ie past about 120, are sort of pointless. ping 08:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, no, delete and don't redirect! Then recreate as the millionth article so I win the pool with this smart-ass entry. Grue 16:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the delete again when it is recreated. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we don't need articles on every element which might theoretically exist but hasn't been created yet. (Maybe for a few which are likely to be created in the next few years). If this isn't deleted as an article, it becomes invalid for the millionth article pool, and should be deleted there.-gadfium 09:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't redirect, for the same reasons I gave previously. sjorford →•← 11:43, 4 Apr 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 --Carnildo 04:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blauwe vinvis

A short article in Dutch about Blue whales. Redundant, in my opinion. Sietse 20:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comments copied from pages needing translation (not votes)
    • Dutch. RickK 08:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, about Blue whales. I'd say this can be VfD'ed. Quick translation: the blue whale is the biggest animal that has ever [lived] on earth. It's bigger than the biggest dinosaur. It weighs more than 30 elephants and only eats kril [?] and plankton. Plankton is a microscopically small animal.. Sietse 09:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with user:Sietse. This article should be deleted. All information is already included in Blue Whale. JoJan 17:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant -- Infrogmation 20:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm Dutch and I can confirm this didn't contain any new info, so I speedied it. Mgm|(talk) 22:42, 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 no vote. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchical relationship

This page seems to be some prose providing nothing useful. I think it needs to be deleted. Some people on its talk page agree. Oleg Alexandrov 20:48, 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.

See a;lso Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECritters/old

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 (advert, just one-liner with external link). jni 13:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECritters

Reads as advertising. Content is: "eCritters is a virtual pet site, started by Leif K-Brooks in 2001." JeremyA 21:13, 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

[edit] Bagiye

A poor puzzling substub since 1 March. I web searched for info with the intention of expanding this at least into a decent stub, but had trouble finding any info. I found only one non-Wikipedia mirror site which implies confirmation that this is the name of a dance ([78]). If we can't get at least one good full sentence of verified information to say about this, delete. -- Infrogmation 21:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • .del'. unconfirmed. Mikkalai 18:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Refdoc 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

  • Delete This is a) simply source, b) a potential copyvio and c) if re-publishable, then it should be in Wikisource Refdoc 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no copyright violation. Copyright was granted by the quality newspaper De Standaard, see discussion side at Flemish Interest. The problem was rather technical. I was not able to make a direct link at “Flemish Interest”, because the original article was in Dutch and not translated. So I placed it there at full length. But another user, for whatever reasons, had objections. So my idea was simply to make a new item, to which I could link. For the case Wikipedia doesn’t grant this new article, I suppose the solution will be that I simply replace the full text at the original site at Flemish Interest. I don’t think anybody will ever republish it, at least not in English, except perhaps for the case someone wants to write a book about the plight of neo cons abroad.--Jvb March 10, 2005
  • Delete (maybe I come too late...) this is (a) simply source and (c) as such, at best should go to Wikisource. (d) This article inherently expresses a point of view. The presentation paragraph clearly shows the article is part of an ongoing discussion, in which it represents a particular point of view. Wikipedia is not the place for opinion articles. (e) the very existence of this article is part of the general behaviour of Jvb who is pushing his own point of view on Wikipedia, ignoring and frequently dismissing in his contributions any point of view other than his. This is not Wikipedian. --FvdP 20:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KeepYou contend that I want to push my own point of view, but nevertheless this text is the TRANSLATION (copyright granted) of a text written by a professor in history, namely Mr. Eric Defoort [79].This is simply academic, not my point of view. BTW, I could contend the same about your own article about Flemish Interest on the French-speaking Wikipedia. Do you have better sources? --Jvb – March 28, 2005
It might make sense to restrict your votes to a single one.Refdoc 13:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(e) is not my central argument. (a) and (d) are. --FvdP 17:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concerning a) and d): the basic text could possibly be interpreted as satiric, but nevertheless the content is academic. The explaining comments are the reworked information such as found in: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-124213-7311r.htm BTW articles with similar content exist in Dutch. So the result is fit for an encyclopaedia. --Jvb – March 30, 2005
What NL does proves nothing. And perhaps it's time someone files a vote for deletion on NL, that might succeed ;-) BTW you're talking of contents, but form is important as well; and regarding contents, balance matters. So these "similar" articles on NL may turn out not to be similar enough to support your argumentation. --FvdP 18:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Similar writings? I fear you didn’t understand very well what I meant. First of all, it reminds me of the columns of Derk Jan Eppink in the De Standaard newspaper. Eppink is a Dutchman, and thus an observer from abroad, who previously worked at EU commissar Bolkenstein’s cabinet. Is he neutral? Prime-minister Verhofstadt already telephoned the De Standaard redaction in an attempt to remove him, so I think Verhofstadt is not pleased about what Eppink writes… --Jvb – April 1, 2005
But did you only read, grasp what I wrote ? Apart of your first two words, I see no deep correlation between your answer and my remark (and that's how discussion so often goes with you: in circles that go astray. Stopping it here for now). --FvdP 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Edcolins 21:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have listed this under today's date, as it apparently was never placed on the main VfD page. —Korath (Talk) 22:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Edcolins 08:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki. Not encyclopedic. Jonathunder 02:39, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki. Source material. -- The Anome 13:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki. If there is no copyright problem, move this to Wikisource, since its non-neutral POV makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia; otherwise, delete it.(left unsigned by User:Jacobw) - Refdoc
This is NO personal opinion. Compare with: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-124213-7311r.htm --Jvb – March 29, 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 copyvio. – ABCD 15:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lazaretto

A dictionary definition TigerShark 22:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • There's an encyclopaedia article to be had here, but a self-avowed copyright violation of the Oxford English Dictionary isn't it. Copyvio. Uncle G 03:32, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition, copyright violation. Megan1967 05:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ne0

Some player in a Diablo II clan. Non notable, delete. Mgm|(talk) 22:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 22:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. -Deadcorpse 00:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. See also Dusk Catharsis. RickK 01:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • God what a bland name. Grue 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Del33t. Radiant_* 09:10, Mar 29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al wahila war

The war gets no google hits, nor do the two participants, and what little I've been able to dig up on the history of Dubai mentions no war in the given time period. Delete as unverifiable and possible hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. The creator, Jelfar99, has created a string of one-line articles, most of them with poorly formed titles and fractured English, and a couple apart from this one apparently about fictions (I've tagged those as speedy deletes). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the information can be verified. Thue | talk 22:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • either verify or delete If verification is impossible (as it seems to be) the second option should be taken. Grutness|hello? 04:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 05:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a hoax and not even a marginally funny one Sarg 16:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Absent supporting information Delete. Dsmdgold 22:07, 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. (both) - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-feminism and Chris Choat2003 endnotes

I am not sure what this is, but it isn't encyclopedic articles. The two articles are created by the same author and sharing some traits, so I joined the vfd requests. Thue | talk 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Quoi? Hmm, seems to be a POV rant. breaking the contract indeed. Delete. Sabine's Sunbird 23:01, 26 Mar

2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. Original research. TigerShark 23:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is clearly labeled POV and extensively supported. Admin didn't read to find out what it is. Sunbird's impression that this is a rant proves to be wrong on inspection, as this is a properly and constructively made arguement. Thue separated the body from its research / support, which was scrambled bythe wiki text editor. It's not easy to see what that part is in it's current presentation as it needs to be extensively reformatted and completed. I believe the works conforms to regs and policy, but could have missed something. Please cite / reference any specific policies violated.
    Unsigned comment by Zdcma16 (talk · contributions)
    • Delete. Violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox, specifically items 4 and 5. android↔talk 00:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please cite / reference any specific policies violated Aside from the self-admitted POV? I sympathise with the endnote issues, mind, it is a wretched programme. Sabine's Sunbird 01:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be original research, posing as some sort of movement. Dysprosia 00:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. DaveTheRed 00:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is clearly labeled POV. Really? Then check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view." Delete.--Calton | Talk 01:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-feminism appears to be the same text as Anti-Feminism (note different capitalization) which I marked (yesterday) as a copyvio. Google turned up the text in a couple of other places on the web: [80] and [81]. FreplySpang 02:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. mat334 | talk 02:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, original research, nonsense, gobbledygook. Any and all of them. RickK 06:06, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original POV nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 10:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Kaprun. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pillar of third section of Gletscherbahn Kaprun

Non-notable TigerShark 23:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to aerial tramway. FreplySpang 03:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, merge, and IMHO a redirect from here would be rather pointless given the lengthy and somewhat obscure title. Radiant_* 08:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kaprun where I have already merged it. -- RHaworth 16:10, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has been merged into Kaprun. Nothing links to it (bar this). Title is obscure. -- RHaworth 09:30, 2005 Mar 31 (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment 644

Experiment 644 simply doesn't exist. All experiment listings were supposed to merged on to one page as well. Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch). Not sure why, but User:24.60.128.48 seems to keep adding unverified, probably made up things to that article. *shrugs* Delete. See http://www.tvtome.com/LiloandStitch/guide.html for a complete list of experiments from this show. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fictional experment that does not exist. User:24.60.128.48 has repeatedly tried to remove the vdf tag from the page. DaveTheRed 00:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smile Lee

Delete. A character from a video game that doesn't exist yet. Non-encyclopedic. Joyous 23:36, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed - delete. DS 00:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable (yet), gamecruft. Megan1967 05:36, 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.