Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 31

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 23:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Central California Women's Facility

Possibly one of the only articles I've ever seen that's vanity and nonsense and not notable, delete--Dmcdevit 00:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Apparently speedy deleted, so never mind.--Dmcdevit 00:46, 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. – ABCD 20:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strathroy saints

It's a high school basketball team; vanity and not notable: delete.--Dmcdevit 00:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, team vanity. Megan1967 03:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete In its present form it has virtually no informational content, no evidence of notability, little hope of being extended, appears to fall in the vanity category, and demonstrates POV bias. If the author would do an extensive edit and expansion, writing it in more neutral language, giving a lot more factual information, and most importantly demonstrating why it is notable, I would of course reconsider. But as is it is a strong delete from me. -- Glen Finney 16:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any high school basketball team is by definition linked entirely to the high school, so the only possibility for a separate article would be if one regularly created NBA stars and news articles for major high school championships (I'm assuming the US has some form of inter-state high school championships here) to the level where the high school article had more about the basketball team in it than anything else. This, on the other hand, is complete and utter POV drivel. Average Earthman 17:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity. Jonathunder 04:40, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. —Seselwa 10:12, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bakkerism and Bakkerist

Zero verifiable Google hits for either these terms or Nicolaas Baaker. RickK 00:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • del. Mikkalai
  • Delete both, not notable, vanity neologisms. Megan1967 03:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Has this ever been used to describe Jim Bakker or Tammy Faye? This could be a way to salvage maybe one of the articles, if it is a valid term and someone doesn't mind writing it from scratch. Mike H 04:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never heard these terms used that way, though that doesn't mean that they haven't. RickK 05:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I tried searching under Nicholaas Bakker on google as well, got a few hundred pages in Dutch, couldn't see any that were obviously applicable. Also searched with the name of the religion and the person and even in combination with several Dutch terms for religion; nothing. Nothing about this has been posted on the Dutch or Spanish versions of wikipedia either, which one might expect given the claims of its areas of activity. If the author wishes to keep these pages, he or she needs to better document the movement and give some tangible dates. Links to pages that can verify the page would help. However, as it stands now, this is a delete for me. -- Glen Finney 16:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations are provided, otherwise appears unverifiable. Average Earthman 18:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) (corrected Average Earthman 16:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete unverifiable. At least one factual error. —Seselwa 10:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some documentation is found that establishes notability Dsmdgold 13:20, 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 20:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Liestman

Seems like vanity to me. This guy doesn't sound notable, he doesn't appear to have released a record yet. RickK 00:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I've made an irrelevant page - I am new to wikipedia. Ryan Liestman has not yet publicly released a record. Is it required that he do so before he has a wikipedia entry?Anthony5429 02:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, believe me, Anthony, I feel your pain. I got dinged on one of my first submissions, too. Don't take it personally, you've done nothing wrong. Here is the link to the site that will give you some guidance on what the entry should have to be kept:Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines If Ryan Liestman doesn't meet these criteria yet, the page should probably be deleted, but if his prominance rises, you can always recreate the page once he meets criteria for inclusion. Good luck! -- Glen Finney 17:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well written and factual, but would need to actually demonstrate critical influence or commercial success to warrant an article. If the first public release is successful, I'd welcome this article being recreated, but if I could guarantee commercial success, I'd be in the music business. Average Earthman 18:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Artist does not meet Wikipedia's Notability and Music Guidelines (with pain in my heart, because the article is better than many substubs that are actually kept). VladMV ٭ talk 14:09, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sniff and growl

Originally was a speedy candidate, but user objected. Listing it here. Slac speak up! 01:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Slac speak up! 01:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Referenced on multiple occasions by comedian Jim Breuer, and by others, some sports figures. Is something my peers grew up with, probably regional to NYC metro area, but who knows? I would like to know the criterion for noteworthiness. It seems awfully subjective. (written by Sniffandgrowl, author of the article in dispute)
  • I think if it is notable, it's worthy of a dicdef on wiktionary only.--Dmcdevit 01:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't object to it being moved to wiktionary (written by Sniffandgrowl, author of the article in dispute)
    • I do. This isn't an idiom, and the article discusses the thing, not the words. Contrary to popular misconception "dictionary article" is not synonymous with "one or two sentences long". As to the thing, there are no sources cited in the article and a brief search turns up no independent verification that what is described actually exists. (There are a lot of pets sniffing and growling on the World Wide Web, though.) Delete. Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sounds notable from the above, but I can't find any evidence with google. When peope say "non-encyclopedic" they often mean "embarassing to talk about". Kappa 01:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note, both of the favorable comments above were written by Sniffandgrowl, the author of the article.--Dmcdevit 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you a mind reader, Kappa? You're speaking for me now? This has nothing to do with this nonsense being "embarassing", and all to do with this being nonsense. Unless you or the original poster can prove that this is used somewhere, it's not encyclopedia-worthy. RickK 07:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't speaking for you, you didn't even use the word "non-encyclopedic". However I note that sometimes people describe things as "incomprehensible" when in fact it is understandable, but "reflects badly on the encyclopedia". Kappa 11:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Something incomprehensible is very different from something non-notable. And something "reflecting badly on the encyclopedia" is different again. Who exactly do you think operates this way? I sympathise with RickK in that when you raise this matter in out of the blue the implication is that you're talking about the people voting here. Slac speak up! 12:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Well I said "often", this is my interpretation of a lot of "non-encyclopedic" votes around here. I'm try to help this outsider to understand the situation, and what they need to do/show to get this article kept. In my opinion it will be more difficult because the topic will sway people to vote "nonsense" or "non-encyclopedic". They need to know that when they are deciding how hard they should look for evidence. Kappa 13:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to find google references (is this the criterion) but I am wondering if it'stermed under something else as well. We call it "sniff and growl".

As for non-encyclopedic (e.g. "embarassing" topics) I give you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse by way of example. It's gross, but it's a cultural tome (and a wikipedia entry, not just a wiktionary entry) --(also Sniffandgrowl, please sign)

  • Even if it is true, in its current state, it is unencyclopedic, as any dictionary definition (if this is one) needs encyclopedic context to merit inclusion. Note: Goatse does seem to have sufficient context for a successful article.--Dmcdevit 01:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G's reasoning. android↔talk 05:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. RickK 07:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Android's reasoning. Radiant_* 14:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sniff and growl is something we used to do growing up playing street hockey. I grew up in Connecticut. GTSmelon
  • Keep This article is badly written but Ive heard of it. Have any of you ever played a team sport?
  • Keep geez, what's with you people? Sniff and Growl was used all the time by me and my friends on the HS Cross Country team in the mid 80's.
  • Comment: Last three unsigned comments were from anons 68.246.35.33 (GTSmelon), 193.201.68.111, and 65.119.192.130, respectively. Dissimilar IP addresses. Sock-puppets or grassroots response? Barno 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radiant's reasoning. Barno 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it normal here to post IP's on a public forum??? What are you thinking?
    • Yes, in fact, it is normal. It's the only way to identify anonymous users, such as yourself, User:65.119.192.130. Kindly click on the History tab you see above this page – you'll see that the IP addresses of anonymous users are recorded there, whether or not the associated edits are signed. Your hysteria is entirely misplaced – if you don't want your IP address displayed on a public form, then don't post there. android↔talk 17:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the previous deletes are per'ing the other's reason, which is that they can't seem to google it. Is Wikipedia just a googler's yellow pages as it were? I affirmed this because I've heard of it. But I wonder if this makes it hard for other instances whereby there isn't sufficient coverage on a topic due it's obscurity. If Jim Bruer makes reference to it, and he is a wiki article, then by extention, does this become encyclopedic because it's a theme on his show? Think before you just bandwagon! — This comment by User:68.246.35.33.
    • If there isn't sufficient coverage of a topic due to its obscurity, then it is either not notable or unverifiable (or both). android↔talk 17:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • What I'm hearing is that if it isn't googleable, it doesn't exist. Using your criterion, it's notable because Jim Breuer makes frequent reference to it, and verifiable by anybody who listens to his show. Should I write up a web page about this and wait a few weeks for the googleverse to spider the page so you'll be satisfied? -- GTSmelon
        • Comment: The top-level referent of the "per so-and-so's reasoning" (Uncle G's comment) doesn't mention Google. It mentions verifiability via cited sources. Plenty of sources not indexed by googlebots are considered authoritative primary sources. A reference to mentions on a regional radio show probably isn't. Presence of a Jim Breuer article in WP does NOT confer encyclopedicity on everything his show mentions. Barno 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Minor point: It's a national radio show. And it's not an offhand mention. Sniffandgrowl 00:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Minor counterpoint: It's a subscribers-only radio show on the Sirius network. android↔talk 06:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Just for you G. (signed by User:62.253.64.17)

Delete. This is just a quite obscure and regionalized topic. If we have to cover all the little regional things that happen to be covered in radio shows around the world, it would be madness. Not a very important thing to have in an encyclopedia, IMHO (just think of it this way: How many people are going to search for it?). Sarg 18:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • what Elitism! New York, NJ, and Connecticut (and who really knows if thats the extent) is hardly being provincial.That's like saying Taylor Ham isn't important since it's endemic to NJ. And to answer your question, everybody who may listen to some radio show one day and want to know what it's about! People don't turn to encyclopedia for known things, they turn to it for unknown things.

-- GTSmelon

    • First of all, yes, New York, NJ and Connecticut IS being provincial when compared with the rest of the world. Plus, this thing seems to be even less notable than Taylor Ham. Secondly, you seem to be overreacting. Sarg 18:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep User:24.105.128.226

      • It bears repeating: People turn to encyclopedias to study unknown things, not known things. As for the overreacting comment, lets not get into ad-hominem attacks. 68.246.35.33 19:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary seems like a reasonable move. The term can be looked up, but won't be an encyclopedia entry. -- Glen Finney 19:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable since this DOES exist, but apparently it isn't hoary enough for some people here. I will say this. Depending upon the outcome of this discussion, (so far six keeps and eight deletes) I propose that the winners line up to growl, and the losers have to line up to sniff. 68.246.35.33 19:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Will you stick by that idea when the admins discount "keep" votes from anons with little or no edit history? {violates etiquette by releasing flatulence} Barno 20:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep 65.119.245.254 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete. Move it to the Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary. FL
  • Do nothing of the sort. Too much talking hosiery=complete waste of electrons keeping the "article." Delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I remember using this in grade school. brings back... interesting...memories. Taylor Ham has an entry, so should this. Even the spiedie has an article and these are absolutely unique to the Southern Tier of New York State. Unsigned comment by: User:67.80.226.145.
  • KEEP This has saved my A** on more than once.... And I even teach this in my evening classes.... My students are always amazed... Unsigned comment by: User:24.3.176.155
  • Delete. I agree with Uncle G above. Zzyzx11 00:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Socks begone. --Plek 00:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. In fact, the comment above was added by an anon, and Sniffandgrowl changed the anon attribution to his current name. See also the personal attack made i the edit summary. RickK 00:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have the same IP as the creator of this article because it's ME. I went back and updated my sig. As for personal attacks, I never made any, I'm in fact arguing for more respect here. Point it out. Sniffandgrowl
        • Really? I quote the edit history you made: "Edit -- figure I'd register. Applying sig. Dipshits." Just thought I'd "point it out". --Dmcdevit 01:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That is not a personal attack, it is humor which I'd imply some of you lack if doing so wouldn't be a personal attack. Sniffandgrowl
            • If that's "humor," it must be yellow bile. Phlegmatic
  • Delete, puppetcruft. ComCat 02:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep No reason why really, it's funny as hell, and if it does exist, it belongs in an encyclopedia. --user:69.201.157.187
  • Invasion of the Sockpuppets! Coming soon to a theater near you! Radiant_* 09:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nonsense! This is clearly "Attack of the 50 feet Sockpuppet". You should know better. Sarg 13:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the situation is a bit different. This user recruited his friends to attest to the genuineness of the sniff and growl. That's not sock puppeting. If anything, it's verification. 68.246.35.33 15:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Delete


What smoke. Sniffandgrowl 12:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep What is the issue here? Is disk space at a premium or something? I did NOT know about sniff&growl before. Which means this was a USEFUL entry to me. Or is purity now a higher goal than usefulness? 66.238.210.208
  • Delete. Unencyclopeadic --Neigel von Teighen 21:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even in the NYC area, this is not a common usage. I live in NYC and never heard of it before today. JamesMLane 00:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence provided that this expression is in any significant common use. Only 89 Google hits and on careful inspection none of them seem to be references to the stated meaning. Compare 114000 for "dirty sanchez". Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My vote has nothing to do with provencialism, googlism, or what have you. It's thoroughly implausible that a group of modern sportsmen will sniff the winning team's asses while they growl as a rite of defeat in public. And the author provides no evidence that it exists. On the other hand the author, who says "he doesn't give a fart" about this entry, has spent far too much energy monitoring, editing, recruiting and arguing this entry. It doesn't add up. It could only be an April Fools practical joke. Dump it.
    • Comment by user 67.164.123.222 --InShaneee 06:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete When you sift through all the sockpuppets here, you'll see all this is is a throwaway joke by a notable comedian. Hardly notable. --InShaneee 06:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There isn't even an attribution to the comedian to verify even that much is accurate. --65.161.65.104 23:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Re-entered because the author Sniffandgrowl moved it. Please do not move it again. It belongs here. Thank you.

  • Side Notation A lot of comments were moved to the discussion page without notations. People might want to check that page out. --64.121.8.32 01:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Oh brother. Isn't there a policy that says if the original author wants something deleted then go ahead and delete it? I honestly didn't think this article would merit this much arguing and the attention of some psycho who gets his kicks putting anti-semitic and homophobic rants on people's pages. (moved to discussion)

I agree with you all. It's not worth it. Neither is half of the stuff that IS given a free pass here. You can't take yourself this seriously AND have a Klingon Wikipedia, ya dig?

For all of you that did vote keeps (and I know at least three of you are REAL) thanks fellas.

delete Sniffandgrowl 01:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: What anti-semtic and homophobic rants? I looked and the majority of the comments there are yours. --82.96.75.4 02:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sniffandgrowl 02:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • To be clear, above you said, "... I honestly didn't think this article would merit this much arguing and the attention of some psycho who gets his kicks putting anti-semitic and homophobic rants on people's pages. (moved to discussion)". There are NO such rants on the discussion page for this entry. And the link you provided is unrelated to my question. --82.96.75.4 02:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simply for all the sockpuppet nonsense alone, it's reason to delete, in my view. Jonathunder 04:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. VladMV ٭ talk 14:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impressive set of sockpuppets and drive-by voters, though. --Carnildo 23:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this one stays, I'm writing about the Two O' Clock Club, the Elephant Walk, and the Big Brother Hunt - all of which are best kept in the hearts of those who partake and NOT on Wikipedia. - Jeremiah Cook 02:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - please. The JPS 20:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Made after vote closed: Keep (your reason here) 194.29.199.175 20:05, 17 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. – ABCD 20:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maha Moda

Non notable designer--only one hit, on an 'add your site' web directory. Would be an orphan if the same contrib hadn't added the name to List of fashion designers around the same time. Niteowlneils 01:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to agree, that as written now this probably qualifies as a vanity page. If the author can edit to include information that would make the subject of the article notable, would reconsider. Failing that, if the author were the designer herself, she might want to consider starting a user page and writing the information there (I think that is valid, right?). Also, if the page is deleted, the designer's link should be removed from the list of designers. Of course, if there were later notoriety developed by the designer, the page could then be recreated and the name added back to the list -- Glen Finney 19:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. —Seselwa 10:15, 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 and recreate as redirect. —Korath (Talk) 05:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Flags

A list of countries whose flags are red. Another miscellaneous list of loosely-related items. Delete. FreplySpang (talk) 02:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Since nomination, the article has been speedied and replaced with a redirect (red-irect?) to Red flag, which is okay with me. Keep as it stands. FreplySpang (talk) 18:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, do any of you Wikipedians remember May 2004 when there was an article List of flags with red that was one of 8 articles that lists flags by color that all got merged later that month into one article called List of flags by color?? IMHO, this could equally re-direct to the same article. Georgia guy 02:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of flags by color. Megan1967 04:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Was this a redirect to red flag when it was put up for vote? Then I vote keep as that particular banner has historical significance. — RJH 17:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it was just a red swatch and an unformatted list of names of countries. No historical significance mentioned. FreplySpang (talk) 18:11, 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 merge and redirect to Jacobite Rising. – ABCD 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1745 jacobite

  • delete or redirect to existing article Jacobite Rising Rmhermen 19:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect as proposed above. Can we do this before the VfD vote is finished? Jdcooper
  • Redirect to Jacobitism. TAS 18:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename rename, "Jacobite Rebellion of 1745," or something similar. joan53
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jacobite Rising. Megan1967 04:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jacobite Rising, which btw needs clearer subheadings. --bainer 08:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a poorly named article about a clearly notable military campaign. Redirecting to Jacobite Rising would not be appropiate as that article is barely more than a stub and a significant amount of information would be lost. Keep and Rename Jacobite Rising of 1745. Failing that Merge with The Forty-Five section of Jacobism. Dsmdgold 14:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Jacobite Rising article looks quite thorough and distinctly non-stub like to me, but there is an awful lot of information duplicated in that article and the Jacobitism article (and now this one). This article should be merged into the Jacobite Rising article. Average Earthman 18:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh...oops, In my browser the first screen of Jacobite Rising only shows the first paragraph with quite of bit of white space beneath the text. I failed to notice the scroll bar and so never saw the remainder of the article, My apologies. However, I still think that the Rising of 45 is clearly notable, and that it could stand alone as an article, altgough it would need to be greatly expanded. Keep Dsmdgold 23:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Jacobite Rising It duplicates most of the information under The Forty-Five section as mentioned previously, but a few bits might add something. -- Glen Finney 20:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with redirect to Jacobite Rising, although I agree that the sub-headings in this article could be improved. If the 1745 rebellion does deserve an article in its own right, the section in Jacobite Rising would actually be a better starting point. PatGallacher 00:51, 2005 Apr 3 (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 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Soldiers War

Delete. This is never going to take off as an article. It's only acting as a placeholder for information that will eventually be on the BF1942 page anyway. It's serving no useful purpose to keep it. --Randolph 18:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad in the making. (PS: I bolded your vote, Randolph.) --Kitch 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo/non-notable. —Seselwa 10:16, 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 merge and redirect to Atmel AVR. – ABCD 02:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AVR orthogonality

Hooperbloob marked this vfd on March 27. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 02:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Since the user that created the article no longer exists, and cannot defend it, then trash it. An article allready exists for Orthogonality. Paradiso 08:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Atmel AVR, which is where it belongs. The orthogonality article only addresses the computer science concept in the braodest terms. Charles Matthews 11:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to Merge into Atmel AVR, in agreement with Charles Matthews -- Paradiso 15:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Atmel AVR, as above. -- The Anome 15:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Dsmdgold 17:33, 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. – ABCD 20:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absent

Candidate for deletion under the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary criterion. A Wiktionary entry already exists: Wiktionary:Absent. Courtland 02:16, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as already transwikied. Radiant_* 10:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dsmdgold 17:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - will never be more than a dicdef. -- 8^D gab 22:01, 2005 Apr 5 (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 clear consensus (3K 2D (including Xpendersx) 1Move 1Merge) so keep. Sjakkalle 11:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Galambos

Xpendersx marked this vfd on December 19. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 02:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, book ad. Megan1967 04:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The guy behind Galambosianism. Move that article here. Raven42 12:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The man was notable, the article was an ad. I added content and got rid of the ad. -- Glen Finney 20:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Galabosianism. Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- no merger, because the person and the doctrine are two separate things. JamesMLane 01:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 00:56, Apr 3, 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. jni 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio Restuccia

Delete There is no info on this entry in publicly verifiable sources. CoolGuy 21:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. I Chiotto indeed Klonimus 05:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm guessing this was posted by someone new, and that he is Antorest (check out the edit history of the page). I suggest the author move the information to his user page and then this article be deleted. This qualifies as a vanity page. -- Glen Finney 20:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Dsmdgold 00:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promo. —Seselwa 10:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there's a duplicate of this article at Antonio restuccia. Bryan 07:58, 6 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. – ABCD 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic Emirati Tahiat Alalam

Delete - This should be in Wikisource or where-ever but not on Wikipedia. Refdoc 13:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree, for arabic-related matters it seems very difficult to find much information in the internet. I do not know what are the policies in the English wikipedia, but for the German entry (article does not contain more information as the Englisch one does) it is fine. -ThorstenS 12:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would be fine if improved - i.e poet/composer, year of introduction etc, but as it stands it is the text and nothing else. And I think Wikisource is the right place under these circumstances. Refdoc 13:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 04:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has articles on every other country's national anthem. RickK 07:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with RickK. --bainer 08:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep national anthems. Radiant_* 10:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. National anthem of the United Arab Emirates. Capitalistroadster 13:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, national anthems are inherently worthy of note. --GRider\talk 18:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs some background, but definitely keep. Chris 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand Note-worthy, there is information out there to expand it. I was in the process of doing it myself, but the computer had a fit so that's gone. I will have to leave it to others. -- 159.178.91.253 21:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to a correct title. - Mustafaa 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep important and notable. —Seselwa 10:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm confused as to why this was listed. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:39, 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 20:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athlone opening times

Delete. - It's just...probably a speedy delete too gren 02:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Average Earthman 18:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For once, something less useful than an article on a trivial Pokemon character. Chris 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, utter trivia Dsmdgold 22:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete useless. —Seselwa 10:18, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snafu Media

Non-notable website; the sixish Google results are message board postings. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete FreplySpang (talk) 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This website happens to be highly informative. Keep
  • I saw it on slashdot once. KEEP. Plus, anyone that is anti-McDonald's Is a friend of mine.
  • Delete, non-notable. ignore sockpuppets. RickK 07:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as yet another website. Radiant_* 10:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If the sock puppets want to keep it, it's got to go! P Ingerson 13:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Grue 14:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Because my site is awesome. Thanks to whomever added it to WikiPedia (My favourite website) --Snafuu 19:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If it's on slashdot, it's probably not worth mentioning here. Chris 20:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would you say such a thing, even in jest? Nearly anything technology related is mentioned on Slashdot. --GRider\talk 21:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, ad. VladMV ٭ talk 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Recently linked on Cockeyed. KEEP --Snafuu 18:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User already voted above. —Korath (Talk) 05:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - But expand, and cite sources. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:46, 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 20:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kooleinstein

Probably a vanity page. "Karen Zhou" gets 126 Google hits, "Kooleinstein" doesn't get any. I don't see any reason this would be encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 04:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Add Likes: long walks in the moonlight; Dislikes: mean people and you have a personals ad. android↔talk 05:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and its not notable. Add Likes: Health science; Dislikes: Stevns and you have a very strange personals ad. Klonimus 05:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 10:20, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QuantumX Eng 100 Secion 300 Project

Non encyclopedic and not notable. I would say merge to University of Michigan but there is no information here; I would say redirect, but the name name is not notable and has nowhere to redirect (and there seems to be a misspelling anyway). Delete.--Dmcdevit 04:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Huh? Delete most university projects (I mean, come on, every student has at least one of those). Radiant_* 10:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:20, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Elia tirade

I added a wikiquote:Lee Elia page and linked it to the Lee Elia page. Lee Elia tirade is no longer needed.

'(unsigned by User:Rogerd) Slac speak up! 05:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • Thanks for that. Now that it's transwiki'd, the page can be deleted. Slac speak up! 05:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, POV f*ckin' tirade. Let it rip. Megan1967 08:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete junk. —Seselwa 10:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oh my --Irishpunktom\talk 10:51, 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 20:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Time

Page author plugging own website. With a bit of cleverness, but still, delete. FreplySpang (talk) 04:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pure vanity Klonimus 05:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The site is legitimate, unlike this "request for deletion." If Fark, Somethingawful, Google.com, etc. get sites then so should this. This vote by 210.168.185.69 (talk · contribs), who has nine edits.
  • Don't Delete This site is hysterical. The site gets updated everyday, with actual content. Other sites and blog sites don't have half the content that this site does. This vote by Chaimtime (talk · contribs), who has four edits.
  • Delete, this request for deletion is legitimate, unlike this "site". The VfD section gets updated everyday (sic) with actual content. Other sites and blog sites don't delete half the content that this section does. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:28, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • The request for deletion is perfectly legitimate. People submit articles every day; some of them are inevitably inappropriate. Is this website, just by virtue of being "hysterical", as notable as Google.com, the largest search engine on the Net? no. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. You would never find this in an encyclopedia. There is no reason to have this page on Wikipedia. --Rentastrawberry 21:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Chaimtime brags about vandalizing wikipediaKlonimus 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 10:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg (talk) 14:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete I have been getting yelled at for putting a site on vanity, or it "littering" wikipedia. Why is this littering? The idea behind wikipedia that it is an open source enyclopedia bringing articles that wouldn't be anywhere else. The policy is so ambigious, as it should be, to only define legitamate articles for deletion. This entry does not violate any of them. This isn't vandalism, for I am providing a biography. There is no policy on what defines someone as important enough to have their article here. The website has copywrited information, so officially it has some sort of publishable content that people might want to search. Why is Ozzy Osbourne featured? What about Paris Hilton? She doesn't do anything but cause her family bad publicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers has no content except to say that it is the second album by Iron Maiden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%21 Why is E! entertainment channel listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo She was a poor women that the media used for their political gain. A family affair, that should receive no publicity. I can keep going, but I hope this will convince some people that you can't go after everything that is "outside the box."
    • Comment by sock Chaim Time. --InShaneee 14:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Deleting this article is the equivalent of ideological barbarism and is a perfect example of the "might makes right" fascism that is rampant at this so-called "open source" project. The sheer hypocrisy here is mind boggling.
    • Comment by user 220.37.154.26. --InShaneee 14:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing like a little self-rightous VfD ranting to wake you up in the morning. That aside, non-notable blogger, obvious vanity. --InShaneee 14:44, 6 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 merge with Homestar Runner. ugen64 20:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missy Palmer

Procedural nomination--Vfd tag added March 19, and this subpage created, but not put on main Vfd page. Apparently provides the voice of a Homestar runner character. No vote. Niteowlneils 04:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is rubbish. A.K.A.47 14:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Homestar Runner. android↔talk 05:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Policy consensus dictates that this should be merged and redirected. --GRider\talk 21:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge but do not redirect. There are other real-life and fictional Missy Palmers, including one that served the basis for the soap opera Somerset, which I may want to write an article on later. Mike H 04:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- she could be merged but the main issue is that this article should be "Melissa Palmer" with "Missy Palmer" as a redirect.
  • Merge with Homestar Runner, as per Android79. There is some interesting information there, but not enough for an individual entry. DS 00:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a nice page to have. --Trogga 20:12, 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 merge and redirect to Tsushima Islands. – ABCD 02:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean view on Tsushima

Nothing links to this page and it doesn't contain any significant information that can't be merged into some other article (probably one of the ones at Tsushima, although I know not which one), nor does it appear likely that it will be expanded into an encyclopedic article any time soon. Kelly Martin 05:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Tsushima Islands under the section 'Territorial Claims' Paradiso 08:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Paradiso's idea. --Kitch 12:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have merged the content to Tsushima islands. Delete this page. Tan 20:31, 7 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. – ABCD 20:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felicity Thomas

Vanity. A quick check of Google does not produce any notable results. Zzyzx11 05:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete . notability, promo. Mikkalai 06:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 10:23, 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 delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 21:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Barg

I created this article, I thought she was notable, but I was mistaken. She's an unknown, unelected Alberta politician, and barely one at that. Delete. --Spinboy 04:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep very notable and famous -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What fame is this? --Spinboy 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See the article on Shirley Barg for more information -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, according to that, she's non-notable. --Spinboy 05:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote as of yet, though I wonder if her career in theatre would raise her above the bar of notability. CJCurrie 05:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It might, but that would need to be expanded then. --Spinboy 05:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable failed candidate. Gamaliel 07:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. RickK 08:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Many people have careers in theatre, not so many have careers worth recording. --bainer 08:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Radiant_* 10:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep almost entirely on the grounds that she was Chair of the Alberta Council of University Students, representing 80 000 students. I'm not seeing evidence of her work in theatre besides as a fundraising/administrative volunteer. Her campaign biography. (The "television show" she hosted and co-produced turns out to have been Eye on Prince Albert, Wednesdays at noon on Shaw Cable 10... so that doesn't push her over the bar.) Samaritan 17:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Buh? if it doesn't "push her over the bar", why did you vote keep? --Calton | Talk 03:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "On the grounds that she was Chair of the Alberta Council of University Students" Kappa 13:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, is your name Samaritan? And what part of "that doesn't push her over the bar" was unclear to you, Mr. non-Samaritan? --Calton | Talk 01:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If her notability is entirely due to being chair of the Alberta Council of University Students (and by definition they'll be a student in charge of that) then all she merits is a mention in the Council of Alberta University Students, which she already has. Otherwise, she has to actually win an election rather than just contest one. Average Earthman 18:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with Samaritan's thinking. Kappa 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a provincial student group chair isn't that striking an accomplishment. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another failed candidate. -R. fiend 05:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please try again later. —RaD Man (talk) 00:42, 5 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 (8 times). —Korath (Talk) 05:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cmu.misc.market

  • Apparently a university student discussion board. No notability established. Slac speak up! 06:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Was speedied, never mind. Slac speak up! 06:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And came back. Chris 20:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Twice. RickK 00:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. [1] —Korath (Talk) 05:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natch

  • Neologism used on one on-line forum. Delete. Slac speak up! 06:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a neologism, but a real word [2] that should be in Wiktionary. -- Decumanus
  • Comment - the article gives a different definition. That'll have to be changed in transwiki'ing. Slac speak up! 06:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Although the article has now been speedily deleted, I'd like to make a point: Please check Wiktionary before blithely throwing things into the transwiki queue. Wiktionary has had Wiktionary:Natch since 2004-09-03. Decumanus could even have interwiki linked directly to it to make xyr point above, instead of linking to Random House. ☺ Uncle G 14:13, 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. – ABCD 02:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timo Ewalds

There does not seems to be enough notable information to warrant having a separate article for the creator of Nexopia. I cannot find anything notable in Google. Zzyzx11 06:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Nexopia. Radiant_* 10:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Zzyzx11. Interesting that the VfD page is the first page listed on my Google search. --Bookandcoffee 02:44, 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 copyvio. —Korath (Talk) 05:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplex (company)

Currently reads like an ad. Zzyzx11 07:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Walks, talks and quacks like one, too. Duck! Here comes a delete unless the weasel words go away, it meets styling conventions and notability is verified and supported. - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As poor condition as the article is, the company is quite a significant one down here in Australia. --bainer 09:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable company but the article is a copyvio of article on company's website. [3] Nominating it as such. Capitalistroadster 13:18, 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. (blk-cmp error) – ABCD 20:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somish

Nom & vote Del on this conlang w/ "74 of about 173" Google hits, and link only from its creator's (red-lk) entry on LoPbN. --Jerzy (t) 07:24, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonnotable. It can come back if and when books are published in it. --Angr 08:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete r3m0t talk 08:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:26, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scythian art

This article is basically nothing more than a definition of what Scythia is plus several external links. Dictdef + link farm, two offenses. I saw this last night, and waited 24 hours to see if it got expanded, but nothing more was done to it. RickK 07:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- While that may be so at the moment I feel that there is an article in there waiting to be written. However I take your point about dictdef etc, so for the moment the article should be redirected to Scythia which actually has more on Scythian art than this article does. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to Scythia. If that page gets so long it needs to be broken up, then Scythian art can be reinstated as a separate article. --Angr 08:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)Keep in light of the rewrite and the fact that RickK has withdrawn his nomination. --Angr/(comhrá) 21:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- It has great potential. I do not mind seeing Scythia broken up with some of its contents placed in the new article Paradiso 08:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree entirely with Paradiso. Kappa 09:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Angr. Radiant_* 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep per Paradiso. P Ingerson 12:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, there is frankly nothing here. A quick google search shows there are books on Scythian art, and the Russians have a rather large amount, but we have much more on Scythian art in the Scythia article. If someone expands on this article before the VfD periods expires, then good, because an article on this topic is clearly possible, but right now I'd say merge and redirect. Average Earthman 15:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Good expansion has been performed, strong keep. Average Earthman 16:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Appreciate the nominator giving this subject an initial 24 hours to expand, but apparently it needs more time. --GRider\talk 21:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and expand. Eminently notable article subject.--Gene_poole 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Someone tell me where the Scythians were, so that I can go explore their art. Right. Well, when this fabled people is so hard to pin down that we don't even know for sure where they were, I don't really see a major "art" article needing to be splintered off. Geogre 03:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded the article greatly. Encyclopædia Britannica (our new owners:>)) consider Scythian art to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. [4] The Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg has an extensive collection. There have been a number of significant archaelogical discoveries in recent years shedding new light on Scythian art. There was a major exhibition of Scythian jewellery called Scythian Gold from Ukrainian museums that toured North America in the past few years and a quick search shows that there have been a number of books written by reputable scholars on Scythian artwork in recent years. I believe that an encyclopedia aiming to be a comprehensive work should offer articles on the art of all significant cultures throughout history including the Scythians. Capitalistroadster 11:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP - excellent expansion. -- 8^D gab 14:49, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite. I withdraw the nom. Please note that my nomination was not based on some feeling that the subject was not notable, but merely that the article was not the article that the subject deserved. RickK 21:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes and you deserve credit for doing so. It is far better to have these articles fixed than to have substubs on notable subjects sticking around on the system for months. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Seselwa 10:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article as revised is encyclopedic and the topic definitely worthy. --Onlyemarie 21:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Excellent rewrite, its a shame it had to be threatened with deletion to improve. —RaD Man (talk) 00:44, 5 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. – ABCD 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lil Hommie

allmusic.com has never heard of Lil Hommie or Lil Homie. RickK 08:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Kappa 09:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - but try again once you make that money Lil Hommie - I belieeeeeve in you, man. -- 8^D gab 12:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even 10 years old. Wikipedia is not New Faces. Chris 20:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. —Seselwa 10:27, 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 keep all. ugen64 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walkers-ABB Electric Multiple Unit,
Walkers-AdTranz Suburban Multiple Unit,
Walkers-AdTranz Interurban Multiple Unit,
Walkers-ABB Intercity Express

Not notable. r3m0t talk 08:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep These are electric multiple units for the CityTrain system, the electric passenger railway network for South-East Queensland, Australia, based around Brisbane. It could be Merged to form a single article about CityTrain's rolling stock. Klonimus 08:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a single article about all aspects of CityTrain rolling stock. -- Karada 08:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a picture - ABB Electric Multiple Unit (NB: Note that this image is actually of Intercity Express 154 in front, mated with EM36 behind) : Sorry my vote got split up. Clearly CityTrain rolling stock would be a good WP Article. Maybe someone can make a stub? Klonimus 08:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Whether a picture exists is irrelevant. We do not need the exact specifications of any particular train system. r3m0t talk 09:44, Mar 31, 2005
    • I think the rolling stock of a major metropolitan RR is notable. There are millions of passenger miles logged on these trains Klonimus
  • Merge and redirect to CityTrain. It'd probably be worth creating redirects from ABB Electric Multiple Unit, etc without the "Walkers-", as I imagine more people will type that in if they're searching for this sort of info. --G Rutter 09:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of them. Radiant_* 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. These things are as notable as any car model which we always keep. Sjakkalle 10:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And may I add that we have articles on most of the British Rail rolling stock? Sjakkalle 11:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to CityTrain for now, there'll probably be enough material for an article devoted exclusively to rolling stock soon enough. Slac speak up! 11:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. P Ingerson 13:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if someone can get enough basic information in to make decent stubs of them all, merge otherwise. Chris 20:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all. N-Man 00:40, 3 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. – ABCD 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon Cohen

Four unique Google hits. RickK 08:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. r3m0t talk 08:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the 6000+ people at Victoria University would know who he is - he is not much less notable than Critical Critic. I think I know who wrote it and it wasn't him. At worst, perhaps could be merged with Salient (magazine) ?
  • Delete. Too localized. Not notable to the average encyclopedia reader. – flamurai (t) 10:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Radiant_* 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh, and make that three unique Google hits. One of them doesn't even refer to this person. Chris 20:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Suzanne takes you down/ to her place near the river/ you can hear the boats go by/ as we delete this crap forever... -R. fiend 03:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two-sentence article about a college student columnist who has been at the job, evidently, for about a year. Not notable, probably vanity. Jonathunder 05:03, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. So long, Lemon. VladMV ٭ talk 14:31, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agartha

Not notable. r3m0t talk 08:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gets lots of Google hits. Needs expansion and cleanup. RickK 08:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic, also different spellings possible Lectonar 09:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after adding various stub and expand tags. Radiant_* 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Subjects like this will keep developing so long as List of Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum stays up. Conspirators want it dead.
      • The above allegation by User:24.215.185.52
  • Keep. Seems like real, if odd, "theory". Dsmdgold 19:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Agartha is occult symbol of enlightenment or something like that. The article of that particular subject could be relevant but not necessarily in this format. No vote- Skysmith 09:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Umberto Eco did not invent this, the "theory" of Agartha is commonsense (if such a thing is possible) amongst ocultists. Encyclopedic topic, though in serious need of expansion. VladMV ٭ talk 14:35, 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 DELETE. (Already processed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bob Sipe) jni 13:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob sipe

According to the article, " has not spent his time writing books and getting published, he should be considered one of the greatest thinkers of our time." I can't find any papers by him mentioned on Google, either. Seems to me he fails the "Average Professor Test". --Carnildo 08:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless more to say. Charles Matthews 11:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established. P Ingerson 13:32, 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 merge. ugen64 22:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salient (magazine)

It's a student newspaper, of the sort every university has at least one of. Not particularly notable. Radiant_* 11:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability can be established. P Ingerson 13:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Notability is subjective and not a requirement for inclusion. --GRider\talk 18:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's patently false, and you know it. Articles which are both long and of good quality get the thumbs up from me, but this is neither. No evidence of historical significance on anything more than students' union scale (there - is that less subjective enough for you?). Merge summary of useful information (not editors - this change is too frequent) and redirect to Victoria University of Wellington. Chris 20:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, as above. Kappa 19:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, university newspapers are not that inherently noteworthy. Megan1967 00:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the University article. RickK 00:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the general info into Victoria University of Wellington, delete the gossipy personnel stuff. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the information inspecific to time into the Victoria University of Wellington article. Delete the references to current contributors and the like. If it's even worth mentioning at all it's because it's been around since 1941, which is a respectable age for a student publication, not because of its current staff, insignificant information that will date quickly. -R. fiend 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge agree with R. fiend. – flamurai (t) 19:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Salient is a notable student magazine. it has been nominated for the Qantas media awards which are usually reserved for mainstream media. It has been an influntial magazine throughout its history. The article on Critical Critic should go (and as the person who created it, I think I talk with some authority). Prehaps creating a new article for VUWSA (Victoria University of Wellington Students Association) with a section on Salient would be a smart move. VUWSA funds Salient and is its main base. VUWSA is also highly influential and has a proud history (they even nought a tank for the Viet Cong, so they might technically be a terrorist organisation). So keep it, or merge into a VUWSA article. --Gregstephens 04:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A very weak keep. This should be honed down to the basics, plus a link. Possibly move to Salient (periodical) and mention other periodicals called "The Salient", such as The Harvard Salient. --Woggly 07:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Half keep, I believe they say. May be persuaded to upgrade this to a three quarters keep. —RaD Man (talk) 00:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've mentioned some reasons above. But Salient is the longest serving student magazine in New Zealand, it is the most known, it has regularly broken news items which other news sources have had to feed from, it has been nominated for mainstream awards and constantly clears out the ASPA awards (Aotearoa Student Press Association). It has press gallery reporters for the New Zealand House of Representatives. In all, it is actually a reasonably important journal. I should add I have a bias towards it as a columnist (From the Left). The best solution in my mind would be to create a Victoria University of Wellington Students Association article and to put the info into that/ --Gregstephens 08:55, 5 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 redirect to Paganism. – ABCD 21:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Belife

I'm not sure if this counts as "original research" or "completely idiosyncratic non-topic". I can't find any reference for this. I think someone just made it up. —Ashley Y 11:11, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

  • Delete. The spelling is Old Belief, and at best, it would be a redirect to Paganism, but this misspelling doesn't need to be redirected. RickK 00:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's necessarily a misspelling of Old Belief, rather it's an embellished way of saying it. It's something that pops up in Germanic/Norse Heathenry. Megan1967 00:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Paganism. It's a single sentence dictdef that says it can mean several of the things that paganism does mean. Jonathunder 05:08, 2005 Apr 4 (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 BJAODN and delete. – ABCD 21:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas Shrugged/Section181

All detailed Atlas Shrugged material was transwikied to Wikibooks, but I'm not even sure this is genuine - it bears little resemblance to the transwikied synopsis. Actually, it looks like complete bollocks. Delete either way. sjorford →•← 11:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The contents of this "article" are a figment of the contributor's imagination. Delete. Raven42 12:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I laughed. I cried. I contemplated voting Keep as a little way to brighten the life of anyone who's ever been forced to slog their way through the original, vastly inferior, text. But ultimately I decided that A is still A and that this should be deleted, albeit preserved on a special section of BJAODN for anti-Objectivists. :) Slac speak up! 12:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. I'm sure Karl would approve. -- 8^D gab 12:44, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, in addition to Delete and BJAODN, I propose calling Page 23 of BJAODN BJAODN Shrugged: Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --Kitch 12:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • What about Jimbo Shrugged? Slac speak up! 02:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like generated by a random story generator :) Agree with the above, bjaodn. Radiant_* 14:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Priceless! Delete and BJAODN and name the next page after it as suggested. Too pretty a face to mess up! - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete nonsense. I don't this is even worthy of BJAODN and that's saying something. Megan1967 00:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ooh, definitely BJAODN material. Clap, clap. Is there a Good jokes and other deleted material?  :) RickK 00:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to BJAODN. Gazpacho 00:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost patent nonsense. Prank/hoax if the reader is intended to believe that this actually describes part of Ayn Rand's novel, personal essay/original creative burlesque if not. It didn't make me laugh. The language of the first line, "Dagny Taggart is getting really pissed off at Rearden," is anachronistic for the time the book was published, and doesn't sound like Ayn Rand's style. And that's just the first sentence. I don't think it's worthy of BJAODN. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, send to BJAODN. Yes, it's anachronistic, but that's part of the humor. JamesMLane 01:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I clearly remember this scene, it's followed by Frodo... oh wait that was someting else, never mind. Delete Dsmdgold 22:43, Apr 2, 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) 05:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slam fm

Looks like advertising for a new radio station. Sjakkalle 11:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems rather local, so weak delete. Their website is currently down; I might change my mind after reading that. Radiant_* 14:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They seem to broadcast all over the country [5], if it looks like advertising make it a proper article/stub if possible, i tried. bbx 15:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and allow for organic growth. All radio stations are inherently worthy of note. --GRider\talk 18:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article can be expanded to match the sort of detail in Swansea Sound (an example of a good radio station stub) by the close of this VfD (which I make to be about 12pm on 5 March), then keep. Otherwise, a tentative delete. If this station really deserves an article, this isn't it. Chris 20:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, promo, stationcruft. Megan1967 00:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that the article has been rewritten and it is no longer blatant advertising. I am a bit uncertain as to whether or not this article really establishes notability so I will not withdraw my nomination. Sjakkalle 06:57, 5 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. – ABCD 20:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Random Joe

Vanity, not notable; several hits on Google for a phrase with the same wording, only one for this company itself that I can see. Delete. Davelong 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad. P Ingerson 13:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with redirect to Joe Average? Radiant_* 14:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see what relevance the Joe Average article has; John Q. Public might be a better choice? Davelong 14:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 00:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen this before. It came up for VfD and was deleted. Well then, delete a second time. -- Hoary 03:42, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:30, 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 redirect to Cheeses...(of Nazareth). – ABCD 02:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheeses�

This article is a duplicate of Cheeses�(of_Nazereth), which has been recently voted for keeping here on VfD. However, this one is an orphan, and contains less info than the other one. For these two reasons, I suggest a delete. Sarg 12:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirects are cheap, so merge and redirect Davelong 13:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say Redirect but, unless I'm much mistaken, using the elipsis character in the title makes it impossible to search for. Typing "Cheeses..." in the search box currently gets you nowhere, so there's no point in making this a redirect. I say Delete, and am personally creating the article Cheeses... (that's with three dots) and redirecting it to Cheeses�(of_Nazereth). — Asbestos | Talk 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... How bizzare. I had trouble turning Cheeses... into a redirect for Cheeses�(of_Nazereth), using special characters or no, and now Cheeses... itself has dissapeared, deleted all of a sudden by User:Ahoerstemeier, who apparently didn't realize I was still editing it... I've got to go, so wash my hands of this. Sorry. — Asbestos | Talk 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, now I fixed it. Redirects with URL-encoded stuff like %85 don't work, and apparently the article title was also misspelled as it showed as a red link for me. andy 14:59, 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 21:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korektphool

Not notable, possible vanity. Delete. Davelong 13:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, as said in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, lack of wide fame is no reason for deletion. This can hardly be called vanity, and is very unlikely that this 'Korektphool' wrote it himself as it is not very flattering. 12:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Dpherson
    • Unsigned comment by User:138.130.160.24. The Dpherson signature was probably typed by hand, not through ~~~~. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I do apologise it logged me out. I've never done this before, so forgive me. Dpherson 13:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in all honesty there is absolutly no reason for the deletion of this article. I believe everyone has the right to write about what they want as long as it does not insult, degrade, or offend another person or organisation. Personal opinions are alson not to be disregarded. Hence i believe that there must be a balance between free speech and offence to another. This article has minimal offence to "Korektphool" while informing the responder of this young rapers beginings. As the only reason i can see for deleting any article is offencive language, and this article certainly contains none, i must conclude that there is no reason to delete this article. 11:18, 1 Apr 2005 DGayed
    • Comment: To put it bluntly, no one here cares if you see or don't see any reasons besides from "offensive language". We have guidelines. Take a look at them. Sarg 13:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: And by those guidelines, what is the reason for deletion? The two reasons given have been 'vanity' and 'not notable'. It is a stretch to call it 'vanity' as the article does not glorify the artist, and his music is available outside the 'playground' via the WWW. And to quote Wikipedia:Vanity page, "lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." Dpherson 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: You almost caught me there :) But I think the concepts of fame and notability are not exactly the same. This subject is non-notable because no one is going to look at WP searching for it (except for Korektphool and his college budies). This makes the article practically useless. If WP had to have an article for every teenager who had a music group, it would be a failure as an Encyclopedia. Sarg 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: I do agree lol. Dpherson 11:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Calling him a "young raper" (rather than "rapper"), as DGayed did above, might be considered offensive. VfD isn't about free speech issues, it's about meeting guidelines including established significance. Somebody who's talented but so fresh they haven't signed a recording deal, completed a national tour, or garnered reviews in major publications is not yet WP-worthy. Resubmit the article when Korektphool gets his own TV series. Weak delete pending evidence of noteworthiness beyond his high-school buddies. Barno 14:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If this is vanity, why is it negative?
    • Another unsigned comment by by User:138.130.160.24. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I just read that you are only supposed to write once. Sorry Dpherson 13:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Music is available internationally, through internet, Here, not personally authored. And 'vanity' is very doubtful considering the article is largely critical of the artist.
    • Yet another unsigned comment by by User:138.130.160.24. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the article, Korektphool is 15 or 16 years old. "Limited audiences, mainly classmates" indicates that he is not really a rapper, he just wants to become one. Schoolboy vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sentence: "The world trembles in anticipation for Korektphool's next release" should be enough. Sarg 16:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I Think this has been misinterpreted, this was surely a negative slur againts the artist.
      • Unsigned comment by 211.31.46.110. That is beside the point. When people call the article "vanity" here, they mean that it was probably written by Korektphool himself, or a personal acquitance of his. This implies that you would have to know Korektphool personally to even have heard of him or his rapper career. He is not objectively notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. The Wikipedian term "vanity" is not limited to putting in a good light, critical or insulting pages count as vanity as well. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. At least he's honest enough to admit he is "minor" in the opening sentence. Megan1967 00:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, It seems to me this guy has some talent, perhaps people should listen to his music before calling him vain! In adding to this comment I made before, I must also respond to others which have said that this artist does not have a record deal. In regard to commercial success, there are many reason why this cannot be obtained, clearly talent is not the largest factor in it! There is also how the artist is appealing to people (that is, how they look) and sadly it is a fact of life that people of other nationalities may not be as recognised as 'majority' races; this guy is just honestly trying to get a break in life. I’m, of course, not blaming anyone for this, its just how the life works. And I’m sure people don’t need to be reminded of the likes of Ashlee Simpson to question if she should be called vain.
    • Unsigned comment by User:211.31.46.110. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. -- Dcfleck 17:31, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. I manually restored Davelong's original nomination at the top. VladMV ٭ talk 14:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, sock supported. --InShaneee 14:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines --Carnildo 23:33, 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 delete. – ABCD 20:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Brooks

Article makes no claim of notability. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 13:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — Should be on a personal web site instead. — RJH 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This guy's pretty similar to me, similar interests, achievements, even down to being about a month older than I. I am not worthy of gracing the article namespace, therefore delete. Chris 20:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN K1Bond007 08:32, Apr 2, 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. --Eleassar777 12:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic

In my opinion, this article should be deleted, as it does not hold any significant information. Also the name of the article is not appropriate. Probably it should be Systematic (music group) or something similar. --Eleassar777 13:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This page suggests the band was quite notable: they made two albums on Lars Ulrich's label. However they were quite shortlived. The article as it stands is quite useless, but it could be improved. Grue 14:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Proper stub now, keep. Grue 12:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • One only needs do that if there are other things called Systematic with their own individual articles. See Wikipedia:naming conventions (precision). The article fails to provide evidence that the subject meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. That would be a Delete. But I have a feeling that a Capitalistroadster expansion may be just around the corner, so I'll wait a while ... Uncle G 14:36, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • It turned out to be a Grue expansion. Evidence supplied. Criteria met. Keep. Uncle G 17:43, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand using the link provided by User:Grue above. Agree with UncleG's assesment about the title. Mgm|(talk) 21:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and add redirect to Systematics. Article itself fails to establish notability. As the band no longer exists, I don't think much else can be added in regards to notability. The solution here would probably be to make it a redirect to the biological classification. Megan1967 00:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no intention of working on this article or any others due to time constraints resulting from house renovations and work until Thursday of next week. I have worked on the Scythian art article and have got nothing to add to this band. They have an Allmusic guide article which says that they toured as part of Ozzfest in 2001. Somewhere in Between their first album was reached #143 on the Billboard 200 album chart. They meet the Wikimusic criteria regarding tours so they should have an article if it can be rewritten. [6] contains useful information if anyone feels inclined to rewrite this. Capitalistroadster 11:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Systematic (band) and then redirect systematic to systematics. -Sean Curtin 05:53, Apr 2, 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 21:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rance

Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Non-notable anonymous blogger. The previous VfD ended up with 5 deletes and one keep, yet the admin decided to keep it, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance. It's too bad this article would have to wait another week for its deserved deletion. Delete. Grue 14:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - I kept this because there was last minute information introduced by Lee Hunter that was never rebutted and seemed to cast severe doubt on whether this page should be deleted. Hunter argued that "He's definitely notable. There are 38,000 hits on Google for "Rance blog". Here's a Reuters news story on him [7]." - SimonP 14:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn't decide before and I can't decide now. No vote. The fact that the article gives a proposed identity makes me lean in favor. The fact that the article helps publicize a blogger whose main interest is his supposed, and probably false identity as a famous actor makes mean lean against. The main reason I'm making this comment is just to emphasize that I didn't overlook the nomination. Google News search on "Blogger Rance" yields this single hit. I think his fifteen minutes of fame are over, but he did have his fifteen minutes. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Puzzling, is this the first time an article has been kept when there was a strong consensus to delete? Excluding the nominator (myself), an overwhelming 83% of the votes last round were to delete. --GRider\talk 16:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not the first time an article has been kept when a count of the explicit votes showed a 2/3 majority to delete. So? SimonP obviously judged that in this case 5:1 was not a "rough consensus to delete," and has given what seem to me to be well articulated reasons. VfD is not based on a mechanical vote count. It is based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators, which is very good reading BTW. I notice that it currently does not even mention the fraction "two-thirds," which was never more than a rough guideline. It does say "when in doubt, don't delete." Anyway this is VfD, not RfC, and I think we should discussing the article, not a sysop's decision. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is nothing but one fact + speculation. As we all know, 1 fact + speculation < encyclopaedia article. Since there's a distinct possibility still that this is a hoax, I'm not certain that an article with 1 fact, 1 bit of speculation and 6 external links is worth keeping. On the other hand, the previous VfD does seem strange - plenty of delete votes, one keep, and "the result of the debate was - kept". Last vote on VfD timed at 5 days before this one tabled, so suggest that nominator waits a few weeks before trying again, to allow things to settle. Chris 20:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support Simon's idea to keep in this case. The late addition of info needed to be assessed. No vote yet this time. Mgm|(talk) 22:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article consists mostly of speculation on who this blogger is. I don't believe it is up to the standard required for an encyclopaedia article given that Wikipedia is not a rumour mill nor a fortune teller. Megan1967 00:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn blogcruft. ComCat 02:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are very many cases of fake or suspected celeb blogs. Maybe someone could write an article about them in general, but one specific case (of potentially thousands in the future) is not relevant, even if it is mentioned in the Museum of the Hoaxes.- Skysmith 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreeing with Skysmith's reasoning, and the article has nothing with both significance and verifiability. Previous non-deletion was reasonable given the added info, but after review, I don't think anything has shown need to keep the article. Barno 14:28, 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. – ABCD 13:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Frampton

Questioning whether subject is notable enough Joe D (t) 14:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. Martg76 16:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — insufficient information and notability, unless the boy's school is famous for something. — RJH 16:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • All the information that is known about this man is not worth keeping in an encyclopaedia. Delete Chris 20:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 00:24, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabs and anti-Semitism

This page is mostly original research. Although it contains some references it fails to explain why a separate article is needed for this from the main antisemitism article. Also it does not contain any counter-claims despite the fact that it is highly contested and marked with the NPOV tag. Delete. Sirkumsize 16:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Valid topic, well cited. Main Anti-semitism article is already well over the recommended article size, this is a spinoff of a sub-topic. Sour grapes nomination because editor wasn't successful in inserting his own uncited POV into the article. Jayjg (talk) 16:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Jayjg is being bitter. The fact that I did or did not try to inser "POV" into the article is an irrelevant consideration. This article has been listed as disputed POV for over a year with no consensus. It does not have any place in an encyclopia. Sirkumsize 16:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a lot of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and it fuels the Arab-Israeli conflict, so this is an important topic, and the article is well-referenced. Sirkumsize put the page up for deletion on the same day this [8] badly written, uncited edit of his was deleted. Counterclaims are good but they should be referenced and written properly. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spite nomination. Keep. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — main article is already very large, and this is a significant sub-topic. — RJH 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abuse. VfD is not an instrument of revenge. Chris 19:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You are correct and that is not the reason that this article is listed. It is listed because it is not NPOV and because there is no reason for the article. Does there have to be a separate article for blacks and anti-semitism or chinese and anti-semitism? It also ignores more or less that the arab nations have a legitimate political conflict with a mostly jewish state. Should this not be merged with another article or be made more neutral? It has been listed with template:npov for over a year! Sirkumsize 20:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's strange, because it bears all the hallmarks of someone nominating an article for deletion simply because someone can't have their own way with it. Chris 20:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • When a wikipedia user creates a highly charged (and let's not minced words here - I pissed someone off) article about anti-semitism that he is forever banned from nominating a deserving article on the same subject for deletion? C'mon Chris, be reasonable. Sirkumsize 20:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Please ignore User:Chriscf, he has been trolling VfD for weeks now making personal attacks and spamming nominations for deletion. Assuming good faith, I am sure you meant no ill will by this listing. --GRider\talk 21:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and improvement. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\talk 21:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Its difficult for an article to grow at all in an environment where reactionary reversion happens with impunity. Not every shred of information in the encyclopia has a reference attached to it, certainly not the in the case of what has already been accepted into this encyclopia. I think this article is at the point where anything to improve point of view should be welcome regardless of how well supported it is. This article has been marked NPOV for too long. Either it needs to be cleaned up or it needs to die. Sirkumsize 21:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Frequently articles are created for subtopics when those subtopics may contain too much information for the main article or don't fit well with the main article. Antisemitism in the arab world today is different than, say, historical antisemitism. It requires us to think about different sorts of questions, such as when does criticism of Israel constitute anti-semitism and these questions should prompt a longer discussion in the article. As for your complaints about the content of the article, feel free to add to the article so long as your additions aren't original research or POV as your changes of yesterday were. Furthermore, I don't see how a general "counterclaim" section is particularly encyclopedic. Certainly, specific claims of antisemitism in the Arab world may be "exagerated or manufactured" as you say, but it seems to make more sense to challenge those specific claims rather than the existence of antisemitism in the first place. I would suggest including a discussion of when criticism of Israel constitutes antisemitism (Sharansky laid out a test for this that I think is somewhere on wikipedia) GabrielF 23:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Eliezer 00:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still needs work, but definitely belongs as a separate article. JimCollaborator «talk» 01:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A major issue of our day, actually. Fire Star 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth Klonimus 04:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article and keep the POV out. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There has been an upsurge in antisemitism in Arabs especially in Europe. Moteworthy article. Capitalistroadster 11:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly noteworthy topic, although the article needs work. Dsmdgold 00:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep major issue. —Seselwa 06:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and remove the bias POV, however, definite need for a seperate article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite entirely: current article is the tailings heap of a quotation mine but the topic is valid. I'll see what I can do for it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:40, 5 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. – ABCD 13:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Blade

Non-notable vanity article which is taking up the page that could be utilized for Metal Blade Records. plattopus (talk) 17:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Formed in 2004, and nobody's heard of them. Definitely band vanity. Delete Chris 19:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity band. Can't even spell "rhythm" correctly. —Wahoofive | Talk 20:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Comment: I think Metal Blade Records is a better place for the record label Plattopus wanted an article about. :) Mgm|(talk) 22:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, but my first port of call when looking for the label was Metal Blade, so it could be a redirect at least. plattopus (talk) 05:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 00:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 02:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Metal Blade Records unless band is in compliance with Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 11:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and give redirection the Medal Blade Records article. Phobophile 22:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 14:52, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery from Cults

Not a notable book. As an indication, this book has only three reviews by customers on Amazon USA. Andries 17:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all non-vanity-press books, and any moderately successful vanity press books too. Kappa 22:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete the mind boggles at regarding all such books as inherently notable. PatGallacher 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

    • I didn't say anything about notability. Kappa 01:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If that is Kappa's argument, that this is not a test of notability, I think this confirms the case for deletion. PatGallacher 22:26, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
        • What is the purpose of a 'notability' criterion? Kappa 00:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I think the concept of notability is basic to the Wikipedia project. See the FAQ and some other places on Wikipedia. This confirms my support for deletion. PatGallacher 07:48, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
            • Well the Wikipedia:FAQ doesn't mention it, and WP is quite big so I'm not going to look through the whole thing for evidence that it's "basic to the wikipedia project". I know that some people think that, but if no explanation is provided, I can't challenge that assertion. Kappa 09:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this just passes the notability test for me. Expand. Megan1967 00:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask what constitutes your test? The author and publisher are redlinks is a redlink (it does have what I believe is a prominent publisher, W. W. Norton), and there is no assertion that the book has been a commercial or critical success (or failure), or that it is at all controversial or significant. It'd be nice to see a reason to keep this, other than that it was published. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Amazon sales rank under 250,000. Megan1967 07:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As near as anyone can figure, a book with an Amazon sales rank around 200,000 is selling ~2 copies per week from Amazon. If it were a new book, this would be dismal, but for a book that is 10 years old, it's not that bad. This book appears to possess at least minimal notability. Shimmin 00:49, 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. Carbonite | Talk 02:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DEUD

I can't find any evidence that the fiction summarized here is published anywhere, let alone in a real book, which to me would be a reasonable notability level to require here. So this is non-encyclopedic, and smacks of vanity. See also David Eckert. CDC (talk) 17:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If this article, with its deep background, useful information and generally high quality were about a school, I'd probably wouldn't object to keeping this. But it isn't, so I do. Delete. Chris 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A revealing question on User_talk:Cdc#Just_wanted_to_ask_a_question from User:DVDGuy--Henrygb 21:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    Hello, this is the author of the DEUD article, which was recently put on the consideration for deletion list. I have a few questions.
    Is it against Wikipedia policy to report for informational purposes stories that have been written by authors if they have not as yet been published?
    If so, should the story be submitted to Wikibooks, so that it can be considered published material on the Web?
  • Delete not yet published. To answer the questions: Wikis are not a vehicle for self-promotion. Mgm|(talk) 22:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe wikisource would take it, but that wouldn't be enough to get it covered in wikipedia. Kappa 22:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and David Eckert, too. Vanity. And I don't think Wikisource takes fiction. I'm not sure about Wikibooks, but I don't think they do, either. RickK 00:22, 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 13:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Eckert

Looks like vanity - no evidence that he's an actual published author. CDC (talk) 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • At a mere 18 years old, smells like vanity too. Delete and for goodness' sake someone certify patent vanity as a valid speedy case. Chris 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and DEUD, too. Vanity. RickK 00:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 02:31, 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. – ABCD 21:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q60 Bus Route

Wikipedia is not a transportation listing. Delete. FreplySpang (talk) 18:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Would vote "merge" if there were anything here worth merging into an article on transport in New York. Delete. Chris 19:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there SOME FRIGGIN WAY I can create a Transit-Wiki SO I AVOID ALL THIS?

Just Asking.

  • Maybe make MTA New York City Transit bus routes and have a listing of all of them. --SPUI (talk) 12:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Try Wikitravel. Oh and btw delete this bus route. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete like the article on M4 Bus Route (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/M4 Bus Route). Individual bus routes are not encyclopedic and this one is not even on Manhattan. I could support an article of all New York's busses but I doubt that the title is worthy of even a redirect. Sjakkalle 06:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll go with SPUI's idea. Deletionists, fire away at will.

I suggest you raise the subject on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City. It will be more efficient to take account of objections and suggestions before you create a whole bunch of articles. JamesMLane 01:21, 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 delete. – ABCD 21:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EKASPER

Wikipedia is not a news mirror. --Woohookitty 19:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • the newspaper takes news articles (just as the dictionary takes articles about words). Why are people's aims so poor that they keep missing both of those and hitting the encyclopaedia instead? WikiNews doesn't take news this old, nor does it publish press releases. Delete. Uncle G 19:24, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Rewrite and transwiki if other sources (besides this press release) can confirm the information, otherwise delete. Mgm|(talk) 22:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of political parties in Honduras

Delete This subject is treated at Politics of Honduras and is a duplicate of what is there, --SqueakBox 19:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • No need for a VfD, redirect. --cesarb 22:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge red links if correct and redirect. Mgm|(talk) 22:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I will do that right now, can an admin take it off the list and aechive this, --SqueakBox 22:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) It is now a redirect and I have merged all the relevant info from it --SqueakBox 22:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Instead of replacing the Vfd on this page to reopen discussion about the redirection, which he clearly disagrees with User:Electionworld Electionworld unilaterally reverted back to the current version in complete disregard for deletion process: This discussion needs to be reopened. My vote stands,--SqueakBox 01:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. We have similar articles for many countries. I think this is perfectly appropriate breakout. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • As a relative newbie, I have a question about this "process," which SqueakBox is so concerned with protecting. The VFD tag says "Please do not remove or deface this notice or blank, merge, or move this article while the discussion is in progress. " Wasn't turning it into a redirect during the discussion itself a violation of process? The Deletion Policy page says
You must not blank the article, turn it into a redirect, or merge it into another article.
(It seems to happen with some regularity, however.) (BTW, I have nothing to do with this Honduras page and couldn't care less whether it's deleted.) —Wahoofive | Talk 01:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised Guide to Votes for Deletion says that. Redirect during VfD process is not that uncommon, but usually only after a strong consensus has developed, which cannot happen in 3 hours from 3 people. Similarly, moves also sometimes happen by strong consensus. Merging is almost always a bad idea while discussion is still in progress (because it's hard to undo), and blanking is just disruptive. Genuine editorial efforts to improve the article are fine, though. Plenty of articles are salvaged that way during the VfD process -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW there is a much fuller list of parties at Politics of Honduras which no-one has bothered to update. So this is an out of date duplication of Politics in Honduras. I think Cesar and I acted in good faith, where i think Electionworld did not. All he needed to do was restore the Vfd. instead of which he ignored the fact that there was a 3 majority against him and reverts to his version,--SqueakBox 01:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Whether this was up to date has nothing to do with whether the breakout is a good idea. & I don't really care why Electionworld did what he did. This was newly placed again on VfD, I didn't notice it last time, and I'm voting on the merits of such an article existing, not on an issue of its current text, which is not generally a VfD matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe I acted wrongly to revert the merger, but one cannot say that there is a consensus when only 3 hours of discussion were allowed. I argued my reason in the summary when I reverted: (RV. The debate on the delete page was only open for some hours. This page is part of an extensive series on parties by country, so do not delete it.). Sorry, I thought that that would be enough. It might have been better when I would have restored the VfD template. Whe had this discussion on several pages about political parties in xxx. There was never a majority for deleting of these kind of pages. There is a List of political parties that directs to pages on political parties in every country around the world. Where the Politics of xxx pages are generally meant to provide informtion about politics in a country, the political parties are meant to lead to a more comprehensive information about parties in a country. When I started editing in Wikipedia, these pages were already existings (Honduras was already existing in 2003). Deleting this page would damage a complete and balanced information system on political parties in Wikipedia. Gangulf 06:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (but update with the more complete info on "politics"). Valid member of a series. –Hajor 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Soman 15:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Gorrister 17:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every country has a separate article listing political parties. —Seselwa 19:31, 6 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 deleted by Mgm --cesarb 00:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Security situation in Honduras

The text from this article, created by me, has been moved to Politics of Honduras --SqueakBox 19:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: User:Squiquifox redirects to User:SqueakBox. You can submit articles you created and only you edited for speedy deletion. Mgm|(talk) 22:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need for a VfD, redirect. --cesarb 22:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, --SqueakBox 22:40, 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. – ABCD 13:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Satow

Vanity. Inter\Echo 19:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, 0 google hits for "Fancy Sneak Entertainment". Kappa 19:49, 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 13:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe peeps

Nominated for speedy deletion, but didn't fit the criteria, so I moved it here. Googling "Joe peeps" +pizza gets about 1000 hits, including many restaurant guides praising the place. No vote from me. Meelar (talk) 20:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable violet/riga (t) 22:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's kept it needs renaming. What band was inspired by this restaurant? Mgm|(talk) 22:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Blue Collar Special, it seems. [9] Kappa 22:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability, reads like a promo. Megan1967 00:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:32, 2005 Apr 2 (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 13:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facewound

Advertising for a computer game which has not been released, seems to be in early alpha, minimal information on site (except some screenshots) [10], minimal hits [11] (209 reduced to 22 by Google). Delete as not-notable. --Henrygb 21:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This game doesn't seem to be notable, at least yet. Sarg 21:25, 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 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Altman 172

A badly made page claiming to be the wiki for this school.

  • delete BigFatDave 22:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it is a wiki for a school, then I think its a really cool idea. Is WP the right venue for such a project? Or should they set up somewhere else? Paradiso 00:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • They should really set it up on a userpage rather than having it as an article. Megan1967 00:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Does the school not have its own web site, or computers of its own that it can run the MediaWiki software on? Uncle G 00:48, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • Comment: The school does has its own student-run website --BaronLarf 02:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • comment I have looked at the student-run site, and it does not say good things about the skill or reliability of said students. Months out-of-date, frontpage plauged by broken links, that site needs help. The group of students in question should make their own site respectable before spawning something on WP. BigFatDave 21:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not userfy, per WP:WIN. Suggest someone explain this to the article's author if possible. Probably kids created the page without understanding policy, and should not be bitten. Barno 14:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, but don't ban them.
    • No one is suggesting to ban them! They can put all the stuff about themselves on their Userpage, if they decide to create one. Paradiso 14:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Honestly, look at it! Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I've re-started the article as a proper stub. It has encyclopedic potential. --BaronLarf 02:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity. Not notable, so no possibility to become encyclopedic. Jonathunder 03:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a middle school. It's in New York City. What more is there to say about it without descending to the level of trivia like the current "statistics" section? --Carnildo 03:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic vanity. --Angr/(comhrá) 08:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As with all schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A not-particularly notable Lawnguyland middle school. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Dan100 20:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are noteworthy. --Zantastik 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two sentences about a middle school and a plethora of external links don't even merit a merge. If there's anything worth saying about this school, this won't help. —Korath (Talk) 08:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless as hell. Grue 09:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written it is a directory entry, not an encyclopedia entry. WP is not a directory of schools or anything else. Gamaliel 14:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this pls Yuckfoo 17:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Every school is notable, each and everyone. Klonimus 20:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's frustrating that keep-every-school supporters are reduced to Duckspeak instead of judging each article individually. -- Dcfleck 03:33, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand this school article. Notability is subjective. I don't think the wiki is harmed by having an article about every verifiable small school that someone wants to write an article about. If a person from Irwin Altman Middle School 172 finds this poorly written stub, maybe they'll expand it. If the article is deleted, that won't happen. I don't see any reason this should be deleted beyond "because it's a school". ~leif ☺ HELO 19:12, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no reason why a minor middle school should be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for personal school pages, nor is it a directory for schools. NeevaN 19:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with NeevaN. The JPS 10:52, 17 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 merge and redirect to mutation. – ABCD 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mutation and disease

This page rehashes information found all over Wikipedia under a less than logical title. Information can be merged into genetic disorder and mutation without compromising its encyclopedicity. Hence merge and delete. JFW | T@lk 11:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: If there is content you consider worth merging, why not be bold and merge and redirect? It preserves the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and does not require a VfD vote. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 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. – ABCD 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Rosenfelder

This individual is not a fictional Pokémon character. Nor is he from any one of the make-believe universes of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, or Stargate SG-1. Is he "notable enough" for inclusion on Wikipedia? Why, or why not? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 23:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: GRider, within 24 hours you will be banned from editing deletion related pages [12]. I strongly urge you to reconsider your practice of making socratic nominations if you want to validly participate in the VfD process. calS !pu kaeps 01:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Rosenfelder has been interviewed by Le Monde, among others, and his Language Construction Kit has been referenced in numerous printed sources. The related article, Zompist.com appeared on VfD last May [13], where the consensus was to keep. I've participated on various forums related to his website. Abstain from voting for the present. calS !pu kaeps 01:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is clearly a nomination made in bad faith, as if that was a surprise anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, without regard to the controversy over GRider's nominating pattern. Conlangers usually strike me as hobbyists whose efforts are no more significant than my own hobbies such as play-by-mail strategy games, but the article indicates this person is among the most influential in his field. I'm trying not to make fun of that field by writing "And I invented Pokeyish, Trekkoid, Middle-earthian, GRidernominese, and Conlangiana, so put me in the encyclopedia!" Barno 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this nomination is correctly formed, so I won't vote. Hedley 18:29, 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.