Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 8

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canoga Park Bowl

More CAT:CSD cleanup. This article has had a {delete} tag for several days, but no one's found a case under which to delete it outright. No notability established. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Niteowlneils 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. JFW | T@lk 02:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. RickK 07:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. jni 09:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a criteria for deletion. The Recycling Troll 22:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So you're saying that all bowling alleys deserve articles? Wait...of course you do. Forgot who you were for a second, sorry. — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is a de facto criterium for deletion, since it has been in widespread use for a long time. Also 'WP is not the yellow pages' is policy. Radiant! 08:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A bowling alley is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 16:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is borderline BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a bowling alley. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--Eliezer 09:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not Encyclopedic. Subject is too ephemeral. Kim Bruning 23:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objective morality

This page was nominated for deletion in 2004, but appears to have slipped through the cracks until now. I'd close this as a decision to keep, except that a fair proportion of the votes are highly suspect. See the edit history of this discussion and the (lack of) contributions of some of the voters. So I'm re-listing this discussion for further input, and (I hope) closure this time around. This is not a vote. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Seems to be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though it may seem to be origional research, it is not. It is merely a definition followed by debate. I'm illustrating the opposing views of proponent's and detractor's, those who do or do not hold the concept to be the truth. - Warren Graham 4:40, 11.11.2004 (EST)

• Keep. Has no one else voted yet? Both these posts are old. The topic is a good topic for wiki to cover. Right now the article is short, but it seems to be mostly NPOV and will grow in time. millerc 00:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a little work, but keep. It's a valid article, and not original research(How could it be[it's not a new philosophy])Superm401 05:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs more content though. Hgebel 17:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Hgebal, it is good as far as it goes and the subject is discussed in a variety of philosophical books published in the UK. Omega5000 20:42 1/2/05 [GMT]
• Just rewrite completely because it is such a simplistic definition. I don't see these points going anywhere.
• Move. It is the opposite of moral relativism, so should be renamed moral objectivism. Expansion (and metaphysical/religious take) is warranted. JFW | T@lk 02:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and tag for expansion. -Sean Curtin 04:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems like a valid topic if a somewhat lacking article. Keep (including move/rename as above). A cleanup tag would be appropriate. Radiant! 10:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge and redirect to Moral realism -- objectivism is a subset of realism. let's move it there, eh? Ungtss 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently original research. What objectivity means in the context of morality is a subtopic of Moral philosophy, and it does not make sense to have a separate article on it. --BM 15:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to moral absolutism, which is the usual term for the opposite of moral relativism. — Gwalla | Talk 04:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to moral absolutism. Lacrimosus 07:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to moral absolutism. --Viriditas | Talk 04:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Objective morality is distinct from moral absolutism, yet the article lacks content and clarity. 3.22.2005 5:50 (EST)
• This is getting confusing, because someone has renamed it "moral objectivism." There's no such thing in philosophy as "objective morality," but there is a position called "moral objectivism." But it's not what this article says it is. Moral objectivism is roughly the view that morality is a product of our natures as rational beings who can empathize with other sentient beings. Therefore, I vote to delete the title "objective morality" but to keep the title "moral objectivism" so long as there's content change. SlimVirgin 23:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • And to clarify: "moral objectivism" is not the same position as "moral absolutism." SlimVirgin 23:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm ... i'm seeing that moral objectivism is the idea that at least some things are wrong according to some external standard, moral absolutism is the idea that some things are wrong regardless of context, and moral relativism is the idea that things are right and wrong according to one's culture, so that moral objectivism is opposed to moral relativism, but moral ABSOLUTISM can be either objective or relative? Is this getting closer? Ungtss 23:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Roughly, moral absolutism is the view that certain acts are right or wrong regardless of context and regardless of consequences: an absolutist would not hold that the truth of moral judgments varies across cultures (relativism). Moral relativism takes a number of forms, but is more or less the view that whether acts are regarded as right or wrong varies across societies, time, and even individual circumstances, and that moral judgments are not capable of being true or false: the relativist argues that moral judgments are invented, not discovered. Moral objectivism is a subset of moral realism, which I now see has its own page: moral realism holds that moral judgments are capable of being true or false; that moral values are discovered, not invented; and that their truth is not affected by what anyone thinks about them. Moral realism and moral absolutism are related, but are not the same: a moral realist would say of a "good" act that, if its consequences were likely to be dreadful, then it would no longer be the right thing to do. A moral absolutist, however, would argue that certain moral judgments ought to be acted upon regardless of consequences. However, both the absolutist and the realist/objectivist share the view that moral judgments are discovered, not invented by human beings. To make it even more confusing, I should add that these terms are not used in the same way by all philosophers, so they're actually not very helpful. As moral realism has its own page, it would make sense to delete the content of objective morality, or moral objectivism as it's now called, and redirect the title moral objectivism to moral realism, but delete the title objective morality. And leave moral absolutism as it is. You're probably wishing you hadn't asked.  ;-) SlimVirgin 00:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation:). I had always used objectivism and absolutism interchangeably, but i see now that there's an important distinction between the two:). I agree with your conclusion -- we can redirect to moral realism and develop the subset on the page for the full set, yes? Ungtss 01:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnophobia

This recently created page is a POV loudspeaker for a basically nonexistent condition which on first view is another form of xenophobia, but on closer reading is the exact opposite. In its present form, it is an unsustainable neologism. Hence: Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay. Tygar 06:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Xenophobia. My first impression of the name was that it was some type of fear of ethnic groups. The article content is of course the opposite however I think a redirect in this case to xenophobia would suffice. Original article looks like a POV essay. Megan1967 07:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and POV rant --Angr 08:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If you delete this article now, it shall just have to be rewritten in the near future, since the concept is spreading rapidly and through the force of it's popularity will soon warrant an explanation. I strongly disagree with JFW on the character of the point of view, so much so that I really have to doubt his or her sincerity of opinion. Any person of reasonable intelligence must see that the article is not written from a partisan point of view. It simply states what is objectively true about how the concept is used and understood by those who underwrite it. Thus: Keep it, User:Weowe 11:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If and when it warrants an explanation, we can have an article about it then. Right now there's no evidence that this concept is one actually used in the discourse, only evidence that someone ("those who underwrite it") thinks it should be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to xenophobia. If the concept really does have an explosion in popularity (dubious), then a separate article may be justified. But not right now. -- FP 11:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant. Android79 15:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently a POV rant. Even if that were cleaned up, it would still be a neologism. --BM 15:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gets fewer hits than "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" and most of those are using it as a synonym for "xenophobia." Meanwhile, I think this says a lot about whether the article was created to reflect the discourse or to try and steer it: "Ethnophobia so far is not a very well known term, though having been around for quite a while. However, to users of it this only confirms whe widespread nature of the phenomenon." Of course. And the existence of Feminazis is only confirmed by the fact that no one except Rush Limbaugh uses the term. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV!! --Neigel von Teighen 20:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Xenophobia. This goes somewhat past POV into extremist propaganda. Completely unsalvageable. Haikupoet 01:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A google search turned up enough serious uses in different venues to make me question whether this is still a neologism. Here, Jeffrey Hart of the National Review claims to have coined the word in 1987. However, there were only 108 unique hits so it's not yet in wide use. The definitions used in the articles I checked were serious but not consistent. None of the ones I checked exactly matched the definition presented in this article. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content but Keep term and write new article ... as the current article is a) factually wrong (see below) and b) in whole unsubstantiated by reference material (a definite requirement in this case I would suggest). However, the term is legitimate and its correct meaning a valid concept for Wikipedia; I don't think a redirect to Xenophobia is warranted as the concepts are not synonymous, Racism being a more closely related term. I agree with Rossami that it appears to have become a legitimate term and it is used to describe the several conflicts that occur within national boudaries between disparate ethnic groups. Many of the uses of the term are in the context of the Chenya-Russia conflict. In my brief searching of uses of the term in context I did not run across a specific definition, but the examples explored in which the term occurs contradict the Ethnophobia author's definition. The author states: "Usually, it is used to denote a perceived irrational fear by minority groups ... towards their host society." This is simply untrue and implies that there is such a thing as a "host society" and a guest minority" (my term, not from the article) which in turn implies one group present by right and the other by the forbearance of the "host", which is in itself inherently POV. As a disclaimer, this is all based on at-the-moment webresearch. I think a sociology &/or political science expert need to write the article. Oh, almost forgot, types of sources where the term is found include http://wwics.si.edu/ees/special/2001/msmirn.pdf, http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2001may/bernstein.html, http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF130/CF130ch3.pdf, http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=4ngvvgqhxh05lu7pnqt1&referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,11;journal,28,29;linkingpublicationresults,1:102902,1 , and http://www.osce.org/documents/sg/2003/06/270_en.pdf (I've tried to select things from non-fringe sources). Courtland 04:37, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • I think you may be reading too much into the usage of the term "host society", especially since you put "guest minority" in quotes as if it occurred in the article, which it doesn't. (I've clarified this in the commentary above Courtland 18:33, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)) There's nothing inherently POV about the suggestion that when friction exists between a minority within a society and the society at large, that some portion of that friction may originate in the attitudes of the minority towards the society, rather than just the attitudes of the society at large towards the minority. However, as you suggested, I think we need someone expert in the field to tell us whether there is a term that is consistently meant to indicate this concept -- "ethnophobia" is not that term, since uses of it to mean "xenophobia" seem to outnumber uses of it in the sense stated by the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (no merge) to xenophobia, since that's how the term is actually used by real people. — Gwalla | Talk 04:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Utterly worthless. Redirect to xenophobia to discourage recreation - David Gerard 00:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete this POV BS. Edeans 19:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh pages

• This page appears to be an uncompleted list, in a misguided manual attempt to create a Wikipedia category. As all the pages listed are already part of Category:Sikhism, the page is completely redundant. No potential to become encyclopedic. No-one has defended it on its talk page. I say delete. -- FP 02:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) Given DialUp's extensive expansion of the page, I no longer see a need to delete it. However a rename to list of Sikhism-related topics is still warranted. Thanks, DialUp! -- FP 08:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to list of Sikhism-related topics and keep. Lists of X-related topics are useful to editors familiar with the subject in question as they show which articles have yet to be written. -Sean Curtin 05:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I disagree. EVERY page on the list is in also in Category:Sikhism, and there are now no unwritten articles on the list. Hence, there is little rationale for the page to exist. -- FP 08:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant/duplicate page. Megan1967 07:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, completely unneccesary. Fawcett5 08:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as obsolete, according to Wikipedia:Lists a list should not be redundant with a category. Radiant! 13:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Sean Curtin. I took the liberty of adding several topics needing articles (With my limited knowledge of Sikhism I may not have quite the accepted spelling or description). It's good to see that Related changes for Category is finally working. DialUp 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Almost every Sikhism article has red-links that could be listed here—if this page survives vfd, I may copy them to this list. DialUp 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why wait to do something I'll forget? I've copied or linked to most of the red-links. DialUp 21:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with the sihkism category. DaveTheRed 20:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• An annotated list may be valuable and not redundant with the cat; this isn't really - David Gerard 00:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This list shouldn't be deleted. I've been working it—even creating Category:Sikhism-related stubs violating the 100 stub rule—but even when I get done there will be many items left. Whoever went through the list creating stubs out of the red-links did no service. There must be thousands of stubs in the Stub category. I can't believe anyone really thinks that categories can replace a list when organizing and editing articles across such a broad topic such as Sikhism. DialUp 07:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• if that is really the case, it should be reorganized as a WikiProject. Fawcett5 07:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Do you want to take it on? I'm out of my league with the little I know about Sikhism. DialUp 07:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Note to administrators: After quite a bit or work, in has become clear that this page should be kept, and removed from VFD. Trying to make categories take the place of this list has been an exercise in futility. Even by abusing the category system, categories can't replace a good list:

1. For the Recent changes function to work for a category as it does for a list, all the articles in the subcategories must also be categorized in the top category. Recent changes for Sikhism category does not return the same results as does recent changes for Sikh Pages. Checking the category only is a lot less useful for those needing (or wanting) to check all the related articles contained on the list.
2. A list can contain those pages of topical interest which should not be categorized in it; for instance, Punjabi language is of interest to those studying Sikhism but would not normally fall in a Sikhism category (and needs to be removed).
3. As is always mentioned, lists can contain comments.
4. As is always mentioned, needed articles (red-links) can only be on lists.
5. Also, this list is as valid and useful as any of the others in Category:Topic lists.
   

Too, the argument that the user should be able to determine which tool to use for navigation and editing seems to fall on deaf ears, but it's no less valid. —DialUp 21:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was I am declaring this vote void, the present article is not the one voted for deletion. Rje 21:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tipu's Tiger

Vegetarian resturant in Montana, I can't see any possibility of turning this into an encyclopedia article--nixie 04:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. RidG (talk) 05:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; as of now, looks like a vanity article. Tygar 06:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A vegetarian restaurant!? Delete with extreme prejudice. Because it's non-encyclopedic. -- FP 08:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete would set a truly horrible precedent if we kept it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are such things as famous or notable restaurants, but there is no evidence that this is such. -- Infrogmation 18:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. I'm just pointing out that long before the restaurant existed, Tipu's Tiger existed. It still exists (even if it has suffered sclerosis of the bellows). Short account of it here. http://mmd.foxtail.com/Archives/Digests/199912/1999.12.20.01.html if anyone wants to make an article on the original.
• Delete. --Eliezer 09:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep, I've made it into a stub on the automaton. dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article cannot be deleted due to block-compressed revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London Surrealist Group

Delete Non-Notable Vanity Page created by Anon user,68.18.254.141 as means for self-promotion. This is an unknown group with no website, besides the fact that there exists no literary reviews (or acknowledgement of their existence by literary critics, media, etc.) also lacking any credible reference sources on London Surrealist Group. Web promotion by anon. User:Classicjupiter2 21:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• What is your basis for saying that 68.18.254.141 is engaged in self-promotion? Why do groups have to have websites to be notable? What about the statement in the Declaration of 27 January "We have nothing to do with literature? Another VfD posting for Classicjupiter2's anti-surrealist vendetta. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Something went haywire with this VfD nomination and the surrounding entries; I think I've fixed it by restoring the above comments. No vote. Android79 05:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity. What is it with surrealists and VfD? Android79 06:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your basis for calling it "vanity" being...? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See vanity under the section Rationale shorthands at the Guide to VfD. Android79 21:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shows in Google on only in Wikipedia mirrors. -Hapsiainen 17:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when you're notable. Or not. Edeans 19:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baggy pantsing

Delete. Not notable, by the article's own admission: usage of this slang term is restricted to a particular University. Android79 04:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. RidG (talk) 05:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete those baggy pants. DaveTheRed 06:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 11:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Tygar 23:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jonathunder 00:48, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete. It does appear in the Jargon File. In fact, it seems to have been copied verbatim. The computer enthusiast in me wants to keep this article, but truthfully it's definitely non-notable. Binadot 03:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File. --130.126.161.205 03:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Just FYI: You have to be logged in to vote. Binadot 05:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 23:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureza

Delete. Dicdef. I'd say Transwiki, but this is a Japanese pronunciation of an English word with the same meaning. Android79 04:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that school uniforms are a huge fashion item in Japan... this should either be merged with any article that might exist on that subject, or expanded and renamed to cover this important aspect of Japanese fashion (which would make a reasonable-sized article, IMO). Grutness|^hello? 07:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Japanese school uniform, which already seems to have everything here except for the kana. It can live there until there's enough for a split. —Korath (Talk) 08:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Jackson

Vanity page. Lunchboxhero 05:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• By mainstream (any) standards of history, Ryan Jackson is not currently an historically important figure. Delete--nixie 05:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• These kids annoy me ever so much. Userfy, or failing that, delete this pompously pretentious drivel. RidG (talk) 05:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Android79 06:23, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. burnt in effigy 08:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable vanity. Don't forget to delete talk page as well. -- Infrogmation 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Bjimba 18:11, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 02:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Furthermore, delete - David Gerard 00:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthlink SIPshare

Delete. Substub about software of questionable notability; 610 hits on Google, which, for a P2P program, isn't a whole lot. Android79 05:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's valid information. Enochlau 07:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Earthlink--nixie 07:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 08:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Earthlink. Tygar 23:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant! 09:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above - David Gerard 00:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emblems in Star Wars

Delete. Original research. I know Lucas got inspiration for Star Wars from Kurosawa films, but some of the assertions here are a bit absurd, and aren't backed up at all. Android79 05:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikisource? (and delete) Tygar 06:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. DaveTheRed 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 07:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or. Edeans 19:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article cannot be delete due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Democrat celebrities of the past

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, extremely short and pointless list with a vague definition. How do we define Democrat, celebrity or past? Android79 05:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I am almost tempted to vote speedy, but it doesn't quite qualify. Strong delete will have to suffice - non-encyclopedic list that serves no purpose whatsoever. RidG (talk) 06:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely vague and not terribly usefull list. DaveTheRed 06:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that it is completely useless and unencyclopedic. Enochlau 07:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these type of lists have very little hope of becoming encyclopedic--nixie 10:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Idiosyncratic non-topic. By the way, the use of "Democrat" in the title as an adjective indicates that this article was created by some non-Democrat with an agenda. Real Democrats consider "Democrat" (instead of "Democratic") used as an adjective to be some kind of cheap Republican slur. --BM 12:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We do? I'll take your word for it. Anyway, delete this. Meelar (talk) 18:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What they said. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I nominated List of Republican celebrities of the past for deletion, but that one was kept a while back. If we're going to have one, we can't delete the other. If someone were to nominate the Republican list again, I'd change my vote here and axe them both. Tuf-Kat 23:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It'll probably be harder to get a delete consensus on that one, as it has a lot more meat than this list does. I agree that it's pretty silly, though. Android79 02:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with BM. "Democrat" as an adjective always grates on my ears. Jonathunder 00:46, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete - the Republican one should be deleted too. Lacrimosus 22:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 00:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Lugo

Vanity. RickK 06:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Amusing quote: "There is more information that has not been displayed for security purposes." Eh? RidG (talk) 08:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete entirely for security purposes. Not notable. Possibly vanity. --BM 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 02:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, possible prank. --Nicobn 03:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Felix is a known poet in his recent and his late teen years." However, he isn't yet notable enough. Jonathunder 21:06, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doom-Duke Nukem analogies

Nice, but original research and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have copied the content to the Doom Wiki article Duke Nukem 3D. - Fredrik | talk 06:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Isn't even a list of analogies as much as it is a list of correlations. Original research. DaveTheRed 06:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. What the ----? —RaD Man (talk) 07:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it appears that it's been copied into the Doom article. RidG (talk) 08:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to DOOM and merge to the The DOOM Wiki. SamuraiClinton. 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I'm tempted to vote keep and call Radman a sixth-grader deletionist. Rhobite 03:27, Mar 11, 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 or KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congolese Spotted Lion

According to every google hit I could find, only one of these has ever existed. Non-notable. RickK 06:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Lion. Yep they are real. Megan1967 07:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Evidence? Google doesn't confirm this. RickK 07:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Shuker, Dr. Karl P N (1989) Mystery Cats of the World. Robert Hale: London. ISBN 0-7090-3706-6 p. 173
      • • Again, that discusses the one, single, individual animal. Again, I assert that one hybrid cat is not notable. RickK 19:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Congolese Spotted Lion was a showman's name for a Lijagulep bred in Chicago. If a true Congolese Spotted Lion existed in Africa, it was a colour morph of African Lion not a hybrid.
      • The above remark by 20.133.0.11.
• Merge this, Jagulep, and Lepjag into one page, e.g. Hybrid big cats. None of them is notable enough to get an encyclopedia article on its own, but an article on all of them would be interesting. Especially if that article can be anything other than a summary of what's to be found at [2]. --Angr 08:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that I know about them, merge Liger and Tigon into the same page. --Angr 12:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooh! Kappa 12:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kappa, keep those as separate articles. RickK 19:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, might grow as big as a Liger. Kappa 10:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain how. RickK 19:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • It could have a picture, it could describe their behavior, it could describe its physical characterists and in what ways it resembles its parent species, it could describe how the parents were persuaded to mate, and any other attempts made to produce this hybrid. It could also discuss the life history of the particular individual. 02:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Ligers have an article, can't see how this one's any different. Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are more than one liger in the world and in history. RickK 19:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Is this for real? Wow, actually that's quite interesting. However, I would be in favor of merging Liger with Tigon, and Lepjag with Jagleop. But not all four together. Keep. Radiant! 13:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Have separate entries for the more common hybrids - Liger, Tigon and Leopon - but have a Big Cats Hybrids for the others as they are not often bred and there is insufficient information on them.
  • This remark by 20.133.0.11
• Keep. Real hybrids deserve entries, especially when bred for their skills in magic. Android79 15:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • In magic? Huh? Did I miss something? :) Radiant! 19:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also liger, Napoleon Dynamite. Android79 19:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the rush to keep this article. There was one. One. One hybrid cat is no more notable than one specific cat. My cat needs an article, then. He's at least as notable as this animal. RickK 19:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• One might argue that since there's only one, that only makes it more notable. Android79 20:37, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A unique animal? No reason to delete. The Recycling Troll 22:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Lion and Leopard (with a brief note about it on both pages). Not important enough for a page on its own. - MPF 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Uniqueness is particularly notable.--Gene_poole 01:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all variants of the leopard/jaguar and leopard/jaguar cross with a lion to one name, it makes it more informative and easier to read that way. Since there has only ever been a single report of the Congolese Spotted Lion, and that was in 1908, before anyone had the skills/technology to verify the genetics, this page is not verifiable nor does it really have much chance to grow--nixie 02:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per User:Angr. And if it's kept then move to lijagulep as it currently sounds like some dumb hoax (as opposed to being a dumb joke played with big cats. Poor thing. Sabine's Sunbird 05:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere and keep the redirect. If references and details accumulate, it can be made a separate article again. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Only one has ever existed? I recommend merging, but if someone can explain the story (why was there only one? how did it happen?), it should have its own article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Doesn't matter that there was only one, the novelty is in fact a significant factor in favour of retaining. Fawcett5 19:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not a member, but I say "Only one is ever PROVEN to exist. And although it's a hybrid of a hybrid and normally such a creature would be placed under the same article of the original hybrid (i.e. li-liger and ti-liger would be placed under an article for liger), the Congolese Spotted Lion has received enough public attention to merit its own article." 16:44, 11 March 2005 (EST)

• Merge and keep the redirect. One cat (in 1908?) may be interesting, but hardly enough for an article now unless there are more. Jonathunder 23:57, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expanse

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--burnt in effigy 07:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition and not a very good one at that. Megan1967 08:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- drivel. Deb 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation 18:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary, else Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it's not really formatted for Wiktionary yet, but they don't have a defintion for "expanse" yet. It would be a better start than nothing. Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• well guys and fellows, no offense intended wikipedians!, if there is such attentions I am please ! Thanks for attention. But really someone should re-write the article and expand it. Mine would be deleted by my personal choice but... After all, there is such an English word, isn't it? Have fun! 165.21.154.116 04:55, 2005 Mar 10 (according to history Uncle G 21:59, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC))
• Good riddence, can you delete an old word from the Bible? Let it be! Try improving! 165.21.154.113 14:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Stay on < not good enough for delete! Norman Oh 15:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nuetrality of this word in question ? or whatever is the problem, Users as *Effigy|burnt in effigy ? Please explain. What about Dubya ? Try deleting the whole article on the most important man in the world? Norey 15:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary has Wiktionary:expanse, no thanks to this rubbish. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 21:59, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• unfair to delete. it is a dictionary word found in the wiktionary:expanse after

last modified 21:44, 11 Mar 2005. Just like letting an usurper [[3]] to reign!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SuperSlow

Advertising. RickK 07:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ick, this article sweats of vanity too. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 07:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --burnt in effigy 08:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Yuk, delete. -- FP 11:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia. --SPUI (talk) 19:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, advertising. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another ad. Tygar 23:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. But ya gotta love the frequent use of "its'" -- someone has learned that "it's" is wrong as a possessive pronoun, but still can't quite break the apostrophe habit. --Angr 23:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeps, instead of misspelling its as it's, they're misspelling it as its', which is not even a real word. Anyway, delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 14:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn spamcruft. ComCat 02:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insomaniac

The person who wrote this is not Insomaniac herself, but me, Cochese, look me up on http://fotoboek.fok.nl/user.fok?id=98841

Either way, we have more than a million users in our community, Insomaniac was voted most popular moderator recently, hence she is an icon to us and deserves an entry at wikipedia.

I can see where the "vanity" assumption comes from, but considering the fact that she didn't write it herself, it doesn't make sense.

Check this URL http://forum.fok.nl//fok/search_lite?q=Insomaniac&member=&order=relevance for an index of some of te more recent topics pertaining to Insomaniac and please be done with the "vanity" accusation.

Other than that, I love wiki, I come here at least five times a day.

Cochese, Amsterdam

At best unencyclopaedic - at worst, the old Ecclesiastes 1:2 ("Vanity of vanities").The word "Insomaniac" turns up a reasonably large number of google hits (about 9000), but the first one to mention the person the article is about is not in the top 20 hits, so I doubt that too many of those 9000 are about her. Grutness|^hello? 07:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- vanity, non-notable burnt in effigy 08:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - bad vanity and a pathetic attempt at self-affirmation. RidG (talk) 08:23, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or, suggest redirect to Insomniac (album)). -- FP 11:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. Replace it with a disambiguation page with links to Insomnia, Insomniac (album), Insomniac with Dave Attell, etc. -- Plutor 14:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh, didn't notice that this is spelled differently. Just delete. -- Plutor 14:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Savignano

vanity, not notable--Milyle 09:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 09:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 11:58, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhett Whitlow

non notable --Melaen 09:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 09:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. He is a gay activist- Expand. --Fatigue League 09:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is above user's fourth edit in Wikipedia and he seems to be impersonating User:Davidcannon. jni 10:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the only person by this name on google is an amateur football player from Arkansas. May be a peronal attack I guess. --nixie 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this sub-sandwich gourmand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, useless. Edeans 20:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] C the band

Failed the Google test, I see no notability here. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Garage band cruft. jni 09:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• C the band. C the band run. Run band, run. C the band deleted for lack of notability. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed that play on words. It still doesn't help them. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • C the band wishes it could B the band. Unfortunately C the band B deleted for lack of notability. Tygar 04:17, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I no C the band. I no want I C the band. D-Leet band I no can C. B gone, C! - Lucky 6.9 17:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Great A, little a, bouncing B / C the band / On VfD. (With apologies to Mother Goose.) 82.92.119.11 17:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting. How many other ways can we ridicule the band before we delete it? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I dunno. Let's C! Who B next? - Lucky 6.9 03:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I. No evidence of meeting a single one of the WikiProject Music criteria. Delete. Uncle G 22:06, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this is bandcruft, a hoax, or libel. Each is a good reason to D-leet, so it doesn't matter. Edeans 20:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 22:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerplunks

Britannica doesn't know it. Dictionary.com says it's something else. Suspected hoax. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Probably more of a personal or local slang neologism than a hoax per se, but definitely delete. Bearcat 16:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kerplunk. Grue 16:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kerplunk is okay; simple Delete of this juvenile sillyness is fine by me too. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, likely hoax. Edeans 20:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Willis

Clear vanity. Delete. --Plutor 14:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete using superb Java programming, --Demi 20:08, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • (cleaned up messed up vote format. Demi is not a superb wiki coder and didn't do that great in high school either) Demi 20:10, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• unlink('Sean Willis');...err.. Delete (vanity). Tygar 23:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, could be speedied as user test or for little or no content without context. Wyss 01:40, 9 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Train the Trainer

Er, what? Self-promoting nonsense, bordering on patent. Delete. -- Plutor 14:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup it's a term used for courses and such designed for training persons who will eventually be teachers of some sort, particularly in corporate training programs and the like. It isn't self-promotion or nonsense. I find it hard to keep such an oddly-worded substub, but with 979,000 Google hits (exact phrase) I can't easily vote to delete it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup/request for expansion. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, as noted above. Barno 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ok, the phrase exists, but there's no article here except fork fodder. Wyss 01:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as circular definition. Radiant! 09:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Dicdef. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• The phrase certainly exists and is in active use. There might be something useful to say about the strengths and weaknesses of this particularly long-running management fad. The current content, however, is a mere dicdef. Keep for now but transwiki if not significantly expanded in a reasonable time. If kept, move to the correct capitalization - train the trainer. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rossami. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that Wiktionary would want it. Things that aren't single parts of speech are dodgy. Uncle G 22:10, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep, real term - David Gerard 00:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. Edeans 20:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Wayne's World 2. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waynestock

Non-encyclopedic

• Merge and redirect to Waynes World 2. Binadot 15:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. "Merge and delete" is an invalid vote, or at least a controversial one. See Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete. Kappa 16:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote. Binadot 19:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Wyss 01:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, Waynescruft. Megan1967 02:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, crufty, but widely known. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fund for Tsunami Victims of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Not an encyclopedia article. Also possible scam. DJ Clayworth 16:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Huge unwikified text dump that's not encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising for a good cause is still advertising. Might be a scam anyway. Android79 16:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete smells like a scam, no verification or references offered (not even a website). Should really be speedied or STRONGLY rewritten until verification is made. Wikipedia could easily get itself into legal trouble if found to host international fraudulent materials. At an absolute minimum, all contact information should be removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed the contact info, but it's still in the history, of course. Android79 17:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete if not speedy, possible fraud / scam. Would hate to see this remain up long. RidG (talk) 17:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete spam, possible fraud. -- Infrogmation 17:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks like a scam to me. DaveTheRed 20:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad, could be speedied as vandalism (possible fraud, scam). Wyss 01:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, possible fraud. Megan1967 02:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as fraud and possible "Nigerian scam." - Lucky 6.9 17:14, 9 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 move to user space and delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2104 (book)

Gets no google hits. Belongs in User:Martinultima's user space. Xezbeth 16:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete. "The book is currently unfinished as of the time of writing; however, with any luck, it should be published soon." RidG (talk) 17:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as above. Might warrant an article when it finally gets published though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 01:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book promo. Megan1967 02:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as above. Alphax ^τεχ 08:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as above. Bart133 (t) 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What about moving it to my space and then making the original article a redirect? Despite popular belief, the article was not written by me. I'm not sure who did it, but someone used my account to create this article without my permission. What puzzles me is that all the details currently released are correct... at any rate, I'm moving the article for now. multima 22:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep if it gets published. It seems like it would be notable (and a good read). nanaszczebrzeszyn (anonymous vote struck out by ugen64)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polite fiction

Sorry, but it simply made no sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Please note: This was the state of the article at time of nomination. It has been expanded since then.

• Weak dicdef, otherwise delete. RidG (talk) 18:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• cleanup seems to be a real concept. Lame example though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and then re-evaluate. Like Andrew said, real concept but lame example. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As the nominator says: it has no sense to me. --Neigel von Teighen 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Antaeus Feldspar. —Korath (Talk) 22:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, personal rant about a trivial word construction. Unhelpful. Wyss 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Trivial word construction? I guess you're right; it's such a trivial, obvious construction that everyone would obviously know what it means from the words themselves and no explanation at all would be necessary. Oh wait. Next time you do cleanup and be sure to let me know so that I can tear it down as "original research" and "personal rant". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I do think it's a trivial word construction, dicdef, and I'm not sure why "cleanup" is mentioned since the article still contains a first-person rant. Wyss 06:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 02:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You forgot to call it something-"cruft". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've certainly heard this phrase before, and Google turns up many examples. Not original research as rewritten. At least give it a chance to become encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep current version. It's still a mere dicdef but it might be able to grow. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin
• Keep as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• The original made sense to me. But I can see how it could be not understood. The rewrite is much better. Keep. Uncle G 22:24, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep. I've not heard the term before, but the concept is clearly real, and not too badly explained. - RedWordSmith 00:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciara Vance

Vanity article. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Article doesn't even try to establish notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless these equestrian events are on higher than a local level. If she were a national champion, or competing at a similarly high level, then she would be notable. Average Earthman 19:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not noteworthy person. Deadcorpse 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, could be speedied as a user test. Wyss 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Bastard's Day

Non-notable holiday which doesn't pass the Google test; though the author claims that it's just little-known, even a little-known holiday would earn some mention somewhere. - jredmond 18:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nothing on Google after trying several variations, non-notable, delete. RidG (talk) 18:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This guy seems problematic. See his edits on Illegitimacy, Holiday, Legislature, etc. RidG (talk) 18:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete holiday equivalent of a neologism. They all have to start somewhere, I guess, but it should come back when it's better-known. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the neologism. Sorry, I don't mean to spite all the international bastards out there. DaveTheRed 20:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity holiday, could be speedied as vandalism. Wyss 01:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity neologism. Megan1967 02:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity neologism. Language "is a little known holiday" strongly suggests hoax or prank. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to ninja. --Deathphoenix 00:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja in western fiction

Unreferenced original research, or encyclopedic information? Which is it? --GRider\^talk 18:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and merge to Ninja (see Ninja in Fiction) section, then redirect. RidG (talk) 18:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and encyclopedic. I suppose one might argue that it could stand some cleanup, but then I haven't met any articles yet that couldn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• This could be merged into ninja, or it could remain where it is. Meelar (talk) 18:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could be merged, but I see no overriding reason to. Is "ninja-cruft" really a phenomenon? Demi 20:11, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Merge with ninja. No redirect necessary. DaveTheRed 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I guess, otherwise it will fork. No re-direct, please. Wyss 01:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete- do not redirect. ComCat 02:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay, ninjacruft. Megan1967 02:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant! 09:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• If there is anything worth merging (and most seem to agree that there is), redirects are cheap. "Merge and delete" makes it much harder to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL. No compelling reason has yet been presented for why we should do all the extra work necessary to avoid redirecting. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the "Ninja in fiction" section of ninja. -Sean Curtin 02:58, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• merge' with ninja. Yuckfoo 00:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This needs clean-up but it's important to allow this sort of page to sort out real history and recent westernization
  • Thia vote by 140.237.60.5 (talk • contribs) Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 16:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 01:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Ninja Comics

Is this ninja-cruft or web-comic vanity? Or an encyclopedically noteworthy subject? 451 google hits [5] --GRider\^talk 18:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose This is hardly less worthy than Achewood or Men in Hats. There's even a Webcomics category. I see no reason whatsoever to delete this article.siafu 19:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you siafu for your comments. Please note that Achewood returns 109,000 googles. Or in other words, White Ninja Comics is less than one-half percent (~0.41%) as notable as Achewood. Does the "google test" not apply in this instance? --GRider\^talk 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only would you have to demonstrate that the "google test" has any merit when it comes to deleting wikipedia articles at all, but that it actually means something in this case. Searching for "white ninja" yields "about 2,940,000" results [6], and searching for "Achewood Comics" yields "about 67,800" [7]. The only reason its called "White Ninja Comics" instead of simply "White Ninja" is because www.whiteninja.com was taken.siafu 23:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that this deserves an article as much as any other. Is it really any worse than having individual Homestar Runner character biographies? I think not. .FartInAirConditioner 17:33, 8 Mar 2005
• Delete individual webcomics would need to be very, very, very famous before they need articles in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Space is not a concernsiafu 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose White Ninja is already fairly famous. I agree with the comment about each Homestar Runner character getting an individual bio page. User:Red Dwarf 23:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this one's below the horizon, never mind others on WP which would be viable VfD candidates as well. Wyss 01:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, comicruft. Megan1967 02:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a fairly well known webcomic. burnt in effigy 05:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable webcomic (and there are far too many of those) Radiant! 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an amazing web-comic which creates a character that blurs the lines of good and evil, making it hilarious! --AllenPoe 19:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I find this webcomic annoying at best (and I would generally rather it didn't have an article), but it has a fairly decent Alexa rank for a webcomic (60,825). -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn ninjacruft. ComCat 02:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. A notable enough webcomic. --Matteh (talk) 20:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for sure! Write something a little more 'interesting' about it and it's good, IMO - this comic is quite famous and refered to - not to mention it being amazingly funny, really. JeroenStout 00:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (cleanup needed, however). It's not my cuppa, really, but White Ninja is quite well-known in the webcomic community, and easily clears the WikiProject Webcomics alternate inclusion guidelines hurdle. Toss this, and you might as well toss 3/4 of the webcomic articles out there (and yes, I know that there are some folks who would like to do just that). --Ray Radlein 10:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, but add more information and clean up - While WHITE NINJA is not really my favoite webcomic, it is however pretty well known in the internet comics, and pretty famous. I'd say keep it. unsigned vote by 220.107.83.86 (talk • contribs)

Its printed in a newspaper... it's more then a webcomic.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. The article cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craven Destiny

• Delete Non-notable Article is in violation of Vanity page and it is intended to use Wikipedia as means for promotion of their statement. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There exists nothing credible in any reference sources or media, newspapers, etc, noting the existence of this statement. Classicjupiter2 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I really have no idea if this is notable or not; it does look like self-promotion, especially if you look at the article's talk page. These surrealists give me a headache. Classicjupiter2, this and your other VfD nomination are a little messed up format-wise. I think you need to put your signature (~~~~) inside the vfd line, like this: {{subst:vfd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason ~~~~}} Also, do not put brackets around the page's name. If you're already doing that way, something else must be goofy... :o) Android79 18:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Android79. I did follow all the edit instructions for creating VfD nominations and I am still having problems formatting the addition properly, even when I follow the instructions exact, I even have them printed out. I will take your advice on future VfD nominations. I see that you have a, "headache" over the "surrealists".Classicjupiter2 18:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 57 Google hits, borderline advertising, non-notable, delete. RidG (talk) 18:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even that modest number of Google hits are mostly Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic infighting among artsy pseudointellectuals. Comment: Looks like they have a foe in the VfD nominator. Comment: Even if this article is kept, the advertising and external link in the last sentence should be deleted. Barno 18:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, publicity, stealth ad. Wyss 01:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn adcruft. ComCat 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 02:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unless evidence to the contrary is presented. 28 google hits for "Craven Destiny" without the word "Wikipedia", and many of those hits have nothing to do with the subject of the article. -- Infrogmation 21:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 09:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Number Shitting Bear

Is this web animation about a defecating bear somehow encyclopedically relevant? If the answer to this question is "yes", please cite at least one example of an encyclopaedia which does include this (or similar) information. 422 google hits. --GRider\^talk 18:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable website. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You're comparing wikipedia to other encyclopedias? Xezbeth 19:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In answer to your question: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes this and similar information. sjorford →•← 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you sjorford for your comments. Is it then fair to construe that Wikipedia is systematically biased towards internet memes? Could it be considered circular reasoning to refer back to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia which includes content such as this? In what way, for example, is this subject more notable than a local politician, educational institution, or adult film star? --GRider\^talk 19:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm on the fence on this one. I don't want to use the 'I've seen it before, so keep it' argument, but this might be a notable-enough Internet meme for inclusion. On the other hand, it's only 8% as notable as the I KISS YOU!!! guy, using the Google test. Looks like we're going to need a policy talk page for this, no? Android79 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Hm... for a web phenomenon, it doesn't really score a lot of googles. There are tons 'n tons of web animations, and for comparison, 'badger badger badger' scores 30000 googles. As such, delete as non-notable. Btw I'm all in favor of comparing WP to other encyclopedias, as long as the comparison makes clear that WP is the bestclopedia. Radiant! 19:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mildly amusing, but nothing that needs an encyclopedia article. Not even a widespread or famous meme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it appears to be not sufficiently noteable. Martg76 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. kaal 21:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• With most google searches, the hits are a small reflection of the total scope of any subject, but with an internet phenomenon the results reflect the subject in its entirety. That said, 2,650 hits (the number "prime number shitting bear" got me) is quite small for an intenet phenomenon. Unless this critter goes by other names, I'm calling this not notable enough, and voting to delete. I admit I'm not a good judge of these things (Wikipedia is the closest I ever come to a chat room or anything), and the fact I have never heard of this is insignificant, so I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect to internet phenomenon either, if the voting is close. -R. fiend 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 2,650 hits indicate that plenty of people would be interested in reading about it or looking it up in an encyclopedia. Kappa 00:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's rather past its, uh, prime, but I remember it being a big deal when it made the rounds.Badlydrawnjeff 01:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of those way rare examples of scat humour that I actually think is cute, but hardly encyclopedic. The web is awash with prime calculators/spewers. Wyss 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn memecruft. ComCat 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, I think I requested this article somewhere long ago, and then Oliver Pereira created it, kind of as a joke. So take that as you will. Adam Bishop 06:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Grider should be glad there's no article about the Prime Number Shitting Goatse man. Yet... Rhobite 06:37, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly amusing, but the subject is rather vapid. There really isn't much that can be written about it. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, the Prime Number Shitting Bear is a famous Flash animation, but that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 08:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It's in JavaScript, not flash. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:42, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • And that somehow makes it more notable? — JIP | Talk 05:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but I thought I'd correct that misunderstanding since I was writing something here anyway. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:58, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just a web animation, people. -Sean Curtin 03:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No one would consult an encyclopedia about this topic. There's really no story or facts here, unlike other internet fads, such as Star Wars Kid or Numa numa, that have actually garnered media attention. - NormanEinstein 16:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable web-animation. -- The Anome 16:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is nowhere near being an "Internet phenomenon". Rossami (talk) 16:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's not that big an Internet sensation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I agree with NormanEinstein and Sean Curtin on this one. It's just a web animation and has nowhere near enough notoriety to be in an encyclopedia. Treborbassett 15:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Google test is strongly biased in favour of ephemeral internet memes that have little real notability, and Prime Number Shitting Bear doesn't even score particularly well on that. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, factual, popular. No sensible reason to delete - David Gerard 00:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How silly! Merge somewhere, though probably not at prime number. BTW, this is on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. --FOo 23:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:21 Z
• Keep decent article. Grue 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this important meme! KingTT 06:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Internet phenomenon. Neutrality^talk 06:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Gmaxwell 06:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conlang club

This appears to be an unexceptional club at a highschool. I can't find any mention of it on the internet, and it's an orphan here. Consequently I believe it falls below the notability threshhold for inclusion in wikipedia. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, unverifiable, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 19:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any and all high-school clubs unless they somehow recieve considerable media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very, very, very few high school clubs are of sufficient widespread interest to warrant an article, and to be sure the article will be edited regularly rather than abandoned. Average Earthman 20:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unnotable vanity. DaveTheRed 20:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. The author 156.1.60.60 is also responsible for blanking the iPod article, as well as engaging in various acts of vandalism (see the history on Bridge and Neanderthal, for example). Disciplinary action? RidG (talk) 21:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:47, 9 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. Rje 21:44, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weeee! (Gonads and Strife)

Is Wikipedia a web directory of flash animations, or is this internet meme encyclopedically notable? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 18:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Unless there is something more to be said for this animation it does not warrant an article. Internet memes are not inherently encyclopedic. Extremely widespread memes, ones that spawn a number of copycat memes, or ones that may be some important reflection on a broader concept may be worth mentioning, and while I have seen this particular animation, it's not the sort we need to be writing descriptions about on Wikipedia. Arkyan 19:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't clear from the above, my vote is delete. Arkyan 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just another one of hundreds or thousands of silly Flash movies. It might not be the least-known Flash out there, but it certainly isn't one of the best-known, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it amounts to an ad. Wyss 01:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article; but, for some reason this article title makes me laugh every time I read it. BJAODN the title? Tygar 04:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete because I absolutely love this stupid flash. Kazaa and the like had a bunch of users sharing the music a couple of years ago. I still have the one I downloaded (blush). - Lucky 6.9 08:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on Internet memes. This one is fairly notable and there are a number of articles on other memes (i.e. All your base are belong to us). 23skidoo 16:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I like it. Changing my vote to merge. - Lucky 6.9 00:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 21:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toejam Jawallaby

With just 26 google hits, what makes this meme worthy of inclusion? Initiated on Usenet in 1985, is Tojam Jawallaby an exception to "the test"? Is this article and others like it a valuable contribution to Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 18:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Please refer to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Toejam_Jawallaby for the original VfD discussion on this subject. --GRider\^talk 19:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Anything created on usenet would have to be very famous to warrant its own article. The Google score is limp, which suggests that this never got much further than Usenet. Even a Google Groups usenet search brings a weak 66 results, mostly from the same small handful of people, which shows that even on usenet this didn't get particularly far. Cruft of the absolute worst kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I remember this VFD the last time it was nominated. The consensus was obviously not clear, so hopefully this time there will be a stronger consensus to delete. That's my vote. Mike H 20:07, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I recall this from rec.music.bluenote c. 1994. I'd argue that some Usenet memes did achivie notability, but I don't see don't see much evidence that references to Toejam Jawallaby ever spread much beyond one newsgroup and the posts and website of the person who concoted him. Unless some evidence is presented otherwise, it seems just an in-joke from within a small audience. Delete -- Infrogmation 20:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, USENET nanocruft. Wyss 01:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Delete for reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 08:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I thought it had been deleted already; I guess it wasn't. Non-notable hoax. Antandrus 04:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shark and Helicopter

This subject returns 42 hits on google. Is this internet meme stub fit for inclusion in any encyclopedia? Why or why not? Please explain your vote. --GRider\^talk 19:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is probably more notable than the average internet meme, since it was debunked by National Geographic (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0815_020815_photooftheyear.html ) but still, in my opinion, just not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable on b3ta, and this article is very informative - it told me who the two photographers were, how the image was made, the National Geographic debunking.Richard W.M. Jones 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update: I think the reference to 42 hits on Google is a bit unfair. The image is very well known, but does not go by the name Shark and Helicopter as far as I'm aware. This implies that the title of the page is bad, and could be improved (Shark and Helicopter Image, Shark and Helicopter Meme, Bad Day at Work Meme, ...) Richard W.M. Jones 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Same as Richard. The Recycling Troll 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don' tunderstand the reasoning of people. Somebody coming to Wikipedia five years from now is going to wonder, "what were these people thinking?" Let's not keep articles on nonce events which are already passed their prime. RickK 00:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it anyway. Wyss 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep internet memes which the National Geographic debunks. Real users don't use "random page". Kappa 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What does "real users don't use random page" mean? By that reasoning, you should have voted delete, since nobody is going to search for "shark and helicopter". RickK 01:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • It means they either search, or they click on links to find what they are looking for. This is an interesting example of photoshopping, and particular useful because of its debunking. Kappa 09:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. ComCat 02:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and who says that pic is PD. BrokenSegue 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Beneath notice. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 42 googles is FAR below the bar for an internet meme. Radiant! 09:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not snopes.com. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- unless (1) it can be put in a category like 'debunked' or 'hoaxes,' and (2) if such categories belong in the encyclopedia. There's a lot of dated material here, and this is just another example of "kooky things that happened in 2002. " Halley 18:24, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Category:Hoaxes would seem to fit the bill. Kappa 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all internet memes. —RaD Man (talk) 02:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a not-particularly-interesting or novel hoax. Rossami (talk) 16:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wait, Weak delete. Trivial topic, but craftsmanlike article. Wikipedia is not Snopes, but notable hoaxes have a place. But the problem is the copyright status of the image, without which the article is pretty worthless. An external link could be used, but isn't likely to have a long lifetime. Delete unless the image can be shown to be public domain before expiration of VfD, which is vanishingly unlikely."This image is believed to be in the Public Domain. It can be seen on hundreds of websites around the world" isn't convincing. Note that the National Geographic story credits the helicopter component to "Lance Cheung/U.S. Air Force Photo" which might be OK, but the shark component is credited to "Charles Maxwell" and almost certainly isn't. Let alone the hoaxster, who might pop up at any moment claiming a copyright on what is certainly a derivative work. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) P. S. For the record, this vote is on this particular article. It is not a vote on any policy about "articles on internet memes."
• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 21:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

RE: "I don' tunderstand the reasoning of people. Somebody coming to Wikipedia five years from now is going to wonder, "what were these people thinking?" Let's not keep articles on nonce events which are already passed their prime. RickK 00:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) "

The Meme IS what 'we' are thinking, no??? er...

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. Rje 21:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealist Group of Pakistan

As there seems a developing consensus above to purge post-War Surrealist fancruft, this one gets 105 google hits. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Quite significant in history of surrealism as issuers of Against the Dictatorship of Allah. And purging information on postwar surrealism is POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I voted to keep the two Surrealism related articles above that got 1,000 or more google hits. I'll do likewise for any other article even with low google hits if notability can be shown in major published sources-- say, a mention in the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, whatever. As is, I find without the word "Wikipedia", google gets 56 hits for "Surrealist Group of Pakistan". "Against the Dictatorship of Allah" gets 23 hits, without the word "Wikipedia" gets 16, only 7 of which are displayed as unique. I'm open to being convinced some of these articles are about subjects more significant than the average garage band with a self-produced demo cd and occasional gigs at a neighborhood bar, but I've yet to see the evidence. -- Infrogmation 05:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Infrogmation they are extremely non-notable and literally unknown in any literary reviews and lacking any credible information that can justify their work by critics, media, museums, etc. Plus the fact that Google brings up only 105 hits on this, "surrealist" group that was supposed to exist in Pakistan (of all places) since 1978 shows that this, "surrealist" group is bogus. Plus, this, "pamphlet" supposedly written by them, "Against the Dictatorship of Allah" is promotion on here anyway, I am surprised that this, "surrealist group" really could have written such a pamphlet denouncing Allah, in of all places in the world, Pakistan! This is bogus information and does not belong on Wikipedia.Classicjupiter2 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, this is part of an attempt to spam WP with hoaxy stealth ads. Wyss 01:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No adequate evidence even of existence, let alone notability; could this be a surreal joke? - Mustafaa 08:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Mustafaa, I am convinced that this,"pamphlet", "Against the Dictatorship of Allah" is just a goof.Classicjupiter2 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See http://www.surrealcoconut.com/surrealist_documents/pakistan_surrealist_group.htm . --Daniel C. Boyer 15:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Regarding the above, "reference" from this, "Surrealcoconut" website. It is one of those FREE WEBSITES that you can build online(kind of like geocities, you know), and a virtual soapbox, especially when you look at the introductory statement to the site, "Surrealism is not an art movement, etc.etc.etc,". That is just the view of the website artist Eric W.Bragg, who is an unknown anyway, and a very close friend of Daniel C.Boyer's, go figure.Classicjupiter2 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 08:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you on something? Not only am I not a member of the Surrealist Group of Pakistan, I've never even been there. How can it be "vanity"? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a real group, mentioned in some surrealism sites. But the article needs expanding. E.g. what artists belonged to it? BTW has anyone searched Google in other languages than English? -Hapsiainen 17:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you cannot find any evidence online about this group and its members, it really is a scam. I have been looking for a real long time and there is nothing! No mention of them in any art publications or literary publications at all. Maybe if there is a Wikipedia type encyclopedia in Pakistan that can dig up some dirt, but with a title like, "Against the Dictatorship of Allah", that could be a problem, you know, in Pakistan!Classicjupiter2 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The URL the statement is at is given above. And your webcentric, Googlecentric attitude you don't see fit in the slightest to justify. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Dan, I really am trying to work with you and everyone here in getting to the credible facts and quality research. We are examing the facts and I cannot find any substantial information on this group outside of the five plus, "surrealism" websites that are really not a legitimate reference source on surrealism anyway. Dan, both you and I can get a geocities website, or one like your friend Eric's, "Surrealcoconut" and build the site and then copy and paste anything that we find online from other, "surrealism" websites and then state that we are the voices of, "contemporary surrealism" etc., etc., etc., you know. Does the surrealism expert Mary Ann Caws recognize this, "group" as credible? Were did they exhibit their art and display their writings? Were did they met? Were did they get their publications published? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? What are their names? Can we verify who they are? What do they look like? Come on Dan! If I was a college student doing a paper on Surrealism after 1950 to now, you know, Surrealism today, I would have nothing on this group, really, expect a handful of websites, (around five to six) that say they exist, but that is it!Classicjupiter2 19:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Once again, how about offline sources? (Books that you are going to find bases for criticism of as well.) --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          1. Re: Does the surrealism expert Mary Ann Caws recognize this, "group" as credible? Were did they exhibit their art and display their writings? Given that surrealism is not a literary or artistic movement, this is completely irrelevant. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          2. Re: Were did they met? Were did they get their publications published? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? What are their names? Can we verify who they are? And show pictures, perhaps? For we have to have photographs of everyone just to prove that they exist. And then when the photographs are produced raise a whole new set of objections about how they look. Oh, great. You haven't disappointed me. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have to change my vote to delete. Although the phenomenons in Pakistan are underrepresented in Google, the Lust for Life zine, which originally published the pamphet on the web, fails to tell where it found it. Such is inadequate and dubious. -Hapsiainen 22:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no verifiable evidence of existence let alone anyone caring - David Gerard 00:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] The West Coast Surrealist Group

More Surrealismcruft, 94 google hits. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like a notable, widely documented group to me.--Gene_poole 23:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Infrogmation, I was thinking about deleting this group, yet there is wide documetation on their work as Genepool mentions above. Their history, art and work are all documented in museums, galleries, and there was a TV Documentary on the Bravo Channel in Canada on their founding member Gregg Simpson that featured West Coast Surrealist Group's history as well as his work in surrealism. Plus, there is proof of their existence and work on the site that showcases their history. Though the 94 hits is really, really small and minor, I must vote to keep, though the very little hits would have me delete, I will vote to keep knowing that credible research results exist proving notability, especially among art scholars and museums.Classicjupiter2 00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... article opens with, The West Coast of North America, where there is a natural surreality in the landscape... er, ok... but article offers no evidence of encyclopedic content, wide review... smells like a stealth ad to me. Wyss 01:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wyss, change my vote to *delete. Or someone needs to re-write the article.01:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)Classicjupiter2 01:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, advertisement. Megan1967 02:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, somehow I feel this connected to the Portland Surrealist Group that was VfD only a few days ago.. hmm...Tygar 04:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems vanity. Radiant! 08:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a copyvio of page http://www.greggsimpson.com/Chronowelcome.htm . -Hapsiainen 17:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 02:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Now listed as copyvio. For the content under discussion see the History.
• Delete, non-notable, vanity, advertising.Dpbsmith (talk) 22:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindscript

I wish I didn't have to do this, but there is no evidence that this is a notable software package -- certainly not notable enough to need references in rapid application development and open source, as 84.217.42.74 (talk • contribs) did. The article is long on adjectives and short on facts, and the facts contradict the adjectives: we're told the development is "very active" and yet the Sourceforge page says there's one developer, no submitted bugs, no submitted patches, no submitted support or feature requests -- the forums only contain 4 messages. I'm sorry, but this is just advertising. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with Antaeus Feldspar. It's not very well written either. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's thin 'cause it's a software ad. Wyss 01:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 00:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 23:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean Holy Motherfucking Keep --SPUI (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND

This website was deleted in a previous vote, on grounds of lack of notability. However, since that deletion, its popularity has skyrocketed and its Alexa rank, er, groundrocketed? Anyway, WP:VFU decided the situation had changed substantially. This VFD nomination is procedural after its undeletion.

• Abstain. Radiant_>|< 23:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Most defineately a popular internet meme/fad Winckle 23:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very popular website. has many fans that visit this article often. Karl Marx
• Keep popular internet meme. --SPUI (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable. Rhobite 00:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Jaxl | talk 01:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The tone of the article is somewhat POV. The site may be notable—its forum goings-on are not. It'd like to see more facts and less presumption of significance. ("...fads in the subject matter of YTMND's are fairly rampant.", "Before the modern day ytmnd...") -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful article. --K1vsr (talk) 03:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP!!!

• Keep and cleanup. Noteworthy internet meme, but the article is over-long and a bit trivia-heavy. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously Pengo 09:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning towards delete, although all the keep votes make me wonder, so I'll just call my vote a neutral...but this just seems like a minor internet fad, almost an in-joke. Weren't these the same guys doing all that Harry Potter trolling recently? This seems like another article in the mold of the lamentably still extant GNAA. We have a problem where we apply a far higher standard of notability for real-world stuff than we do for obscure bits of internet trivia that matter to a couple hundred people for a few months. Everyking 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I vote keep, albeit with some distaste. Everyking 09:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for voting to Keep :). But, just a note sir, the most popular YTMND page picard.ytmnd.com/ has received over a million page views. This is hardly something that only a couple hundred people care about. Celerityfm 15:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• I voted to Undelete, so it's not likely I'd vote Delete right after. Keep. --Shadow Hog 17:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it's an annoyingly obnoxious gimmick, and part of the reason it's annoyingly obnoxious is because it's cropped up on seemingly every message board and forum ever. So, yeah, notable. --Jacj 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
• Keep keep keep keep keep. ShadowMan1od 23:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a thorough cleanup to rid it of forumcruft. FCYTravis 00:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is not VfD material. --Randy 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, this article wasn't actually nominated for deletion this time. It's a formality after undeletion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just cut down on the forum info. Buzda 00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Uberkeep MessedRocker 15:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Easty How can you delete it? It's like teh best meme EVAR.
• Keep and cleanup Daemon8666 21:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a great page for info on it User:the-reaper 19:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• KHAN! Keep

Lord Patrick 05:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as a major contributor to this article and small-time wikipedia contributor in general I'm shocked to see that it was deleted. I was responsible for jump starting it's existence and while the article has grown a bit out of control I think that it's an important article. While you may not see it on the surface, YTMND is really a major cultural phenomenon that extends way beyond the internet and the members of it's website. In and of itself it represents a new movement in ironic comedy and cultural attitudes. I seriously believe that it would be a disservice to the world to not include this article in the wikipedia body of information. Celerityfm 14:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. Discombobulator 17:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• KeepBrendantheJedi
• KeepSysys 21:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• KeepGordonfan 21:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This was deleted? Sheesh, internet culture gets no respect :-S --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ariamaki The Wiki-Wise Contains a lot of good information about a popular site- I also vote that the deletion notice be removed now, as it has been nearly a week with no down-votes. 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep DJ John 08:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think articles like this should be kept. Storage space is starting to be an non-issue with the decrease of cost, and even if something is a fad, it will just enhance the future historical value of the Wikipedia - imagine how useful something like this could be in 100 years time to someone studying the beginnings of the Internet and it's shifting culture. Ppinheiro 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC).
• Keep It's funny. Could be a tiny bit shorter, but certainly shouldn't be deleted. zachol 02:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Was a good article. Most likely some up-tight biased asshole of an admin is going to delete it anyways, as usual on wiki --Tykell 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I found this informative --Gearspring 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was wondering about the origins of YTMND. This page was helpful. T-mccool 03:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup See above. Very notable site, but the article itself needs some cleaning up. Zig 04:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; honestly, this site is well-known and well-visited. Eszett 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP....CAPTAIN JEAUN-LUC PICARD OF THE U.S.S ENTERPRISE: It has current significant value on the internet as a result of it's noticable memes and is a good front for people who expertise in Photoshop alteration, one example being the marevlous works of art portrayed by the TIGER Handheld LCD game variants of the sites' most popular commodities.
• Keep This is quite possibly the greatest interenet meme ever. And I state that not as a mere personal opinion. In other terms YTMND might very well be the most notorious of the internet memes and is indeed for starting (or at least spreading) other memes as well and responsible for 'their' notoriety. User:24.9.10.235
• Keep... popular meme, no need for deletion. User: SDiablo

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anabukinchan

With 93 google hits, what in this article illustrates notability? --GRider\^talk 19:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not entirely sure what her official name is, but she comes up much more on Google as "anabukin chan" (with 1200 hits), plus more under other variations. A valid, if slightly silly, part of modern Japanese pop culture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just in case anybody ever wonders why I voted to keep her but usually vote delete on other Internet memes (often with more Google hits), it's because she's already notable (within the context of Japan) as a famous and successful national ad campaign. In other words, if Anabukin-chan had never met the Internet, she'd still be notable enough for an article anyway. The same cannot be said for (for example) Mahir Cagri or Star Wars kid, who are most chiefly noted for being joked about online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep wierd Japanese internet memes with 1200 hits. Kappa 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, helpfully weird. Wyss 01:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obscure cruft. Megan1967 03:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 1200 hits is really not notable for an internet meme. Start talking from 10 kilogoogles. Radiant! 08:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Does anyone know how she Googles in Japanese? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • [9] 2,350 hits. Kappa 20:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Tentative keep for the weird meme, then--she seems notable to Japanese speakers. Perhaps change the name of the article, too...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as interestingly weird. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prehensilhouette

More surrealismcruft. Stublet doesn't even explain what the supposed technique is. 162 google hits; without Wikipedia = 28 google hits. -- Infrogmation 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Where's all this surrealism stuff popping up?
• Delete, it's a book ad, that's why it doesn't bother trying to be an article. Wyss 01:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn adcruft. ComCat 02:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, book promo. Megan1967 03:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milo Andreas Wagner

Seems to me like a vanity page. No google hit that I could find. yaz0r 19:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible vanity. - Mailer Diablo 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, uhm, let's wait until this person has at least been published (if that would even be legal in Germany, I can't frickin' tell). Vanity. Wyss 00:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a hoax (grammatical mistakes in the German titles). Martg76 13:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 70 Foot Century

Band vanity. Only 3 results returned on Google, but none were on such a band. - Mailer Diablo 20:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete! Can you get any more vain than "One of the greatest alternative rock bands of all time"? -- Riffsyphon1024 20:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, that first line stopped me cold. Vanity ad. If they've recorded or done a series of live shows somewhere, I never got that far, how could I? Wyss 00:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hideously overstated band vanity. Appears to be a garage band. Average Earthman 09:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 22:22, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaina

Not an encyclopedia article. Let's not have an article on the derivation of every name in the world. RickK 20:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a grand list of every possible combination of letters. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Bogdan | Talk 20:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non encyclopedic. --Woohookitty 21:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. Wyss 00:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conall O Brien

Bad, bad, vanity. CDC (talk) 21:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's so bad it's almost a speedy candidate. --Woohookitty 21:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 21:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. dreadful Nashikawa 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, borderline vandalism. --GRider\^talk 00:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied as a user test, who'd care? Wyss 00:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please delete.

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

• 07:52, 9 Mar 2005 Dante Alighieri deleted Rory (nonsense)

Deathphoenix 01:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rory

dicdef, neologism. Not encyclopedic. Smoddy (t) (e) 21:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence this definition of Rory exists. Could be speedied as vandalism, else deleted as a possible vanity neologism, too. Wyss 00:41, 9 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. dbenbenn | talk 09:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White skin privilege

Moved from CSD. Not a valid speedy, but not article-worthy either. Unneccessary – we already have plenty enough articles about discrimination. Smoddy (t) (e) 21:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity book ad, else as original research, else as neologism. Wyss 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but should probably be renamed White privilege which is a more commonly used term. I think it should be covered separately from discrimination in general. -- Cleduc 00:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rantish, book promo. Megan1967 03:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but cleanup; definitely needs NPOV, but the phrase itself seems fairly noteworthy; at least I've read it in use. The content as it now stands is not wholly useless to make a better article. Agree with move to White privilege. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- spamming, POV, and no reason why it couldn't be merged into some other article. -- Curps 07:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean and Rename to White privilege. I'm really surprised that white privilege doesn't already have an article. DaveTheRed 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, leave name as redirect. As per Wyss. Radiant! 08:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I'm not sure even White privilege would work as an encyclopedic title for an article on this topic. I'd also be concerned that any such article could devolve into a rantish fork. Wyss 18:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If it did devolve into a rantish fork, somebody will have to establish NPOV. I don't think censoring which ideas are explained is a good idea -- Cleduc 00:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Censorship? Naw, I just think it's a crummy title for an article about racism. Wyss 02:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to move this discussion to Talk:White skin privilege. -- Cleduc 05:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Clean and Rename to White privilege. White privilege is an accepted term in race studies. It's an aspect of racism but I think enough can be said about it to merit a separate article. FreplySpang 06:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it currently exists, with current title. "White skin privilege" was an important concept and slogan in 1960s radicalism. Gazpacho 23:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or (second choice) merge. -- Jmabel | Talk

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 09:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate immune response

Sounds like original research. 400 google hits, many of the top 20 are from WP or WP ripoff sites. Maybe merge as a subarticle of corporate culture? jdb ❋ (talk) 22:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, smells like a vanity neologism to me, I'm sure there's a more peer-reviewed and appropriate term for this anyway. Wyss 00:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. This article has been around and largely unnoticed since 2002. The phrase generates only 68 unique Google hits and a high proportion of those are Wikipedia mirrors (some of this article and more of the two articles which link to it). The phrase is not in use among any of the communities that tend to specialize in corporate change management such as Harvard Business Review, Workforce Week, etc. The more general term would be "resistance to change" which does not have the same connotation of inevitability or purpose. As much as I hate to lose a business-related article, I have to be consistent and consider this a neologism. With great reluctance, delete. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No references = neologism. Delete - David Gerard 00:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Checked first 20 hits, and at this point in time there's several cases of the word appearing "in the wild" , including in the top 10 hits: a newsletter, a .ppt for some kind of lecture(?), and the gnome mailing list. Kim Bruning 00:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 09:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurumi

Webmaster of a site that is in general non-notable. It is only notable as an external link, which it is being used for on other articles. --SPUI (talk) 22:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- Mailer Diablo 22:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The website is interesting and informative - an article stating who its webmaster is, however, is not. Delete Arkyan 00:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a webguide, ad. Wyss 00:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though the article should have a note that it's a stub. It might be a good idea to retitle it Kurumi.com and rewrite it about the website itself, which is a fairly interesting website to those with an interest in highways and civil engineering, though maybe not so much to anyone else. Sort of like SPUI's own website. Haikupoet 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting website, which is why I've been adding it as links on articles about three-digit Interstates. What website of mine are you talking about; mine no longer exists, and even if it did I wouldn't create an article about it. --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo/ad. Megan1967 03:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, there's a docking big difference between linking to a helpful website from a WP article, and writing an article about that external website. Wyss 06:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Megan. Radiant! 08:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy (move to user space of this user if (s)he exists), else Delete. Vanity. Suggest creating Kurumi.com if notable. Kim Bruning 00:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 10:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computing analogies

Original research. --SPUI (talk) 22:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rather painful original research. --MarkSweep 23:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research indeed. Eek. Wyss 00:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsalvageable original research. gag. -- Cleduc 00:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 03:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Ouch! Original, but I think to call it 'research' is pushing it. Delete Treborbassett 15:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nice try, but it's original text, and not very enlightening. Kim Bruning 00:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this for educational purposes for other Wikipedians. --GoofyGuy 02:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's overly generous to call this "research". older≠wiser 17:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 10:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hobosh

This would be advertising, except it lacks a link to anything; Google doesn't find anything for "hobosh network", and for "hobosh" I don't see anything relevant. I can't see any evidence that this is encyclopedic, even if it wasn't written as an advertisement. CDC (talk) 22:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this ad, for what, uhm, I may not want to know. Wyss 00:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, either an ad for something obscure or an unverifiable hoax, non-notable either way.-- Infrogmation 15:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just Delete it is just patent nonsense(whose patent?) TAS 16:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) *I'm wrong but still delete TAS 16:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless someone can come up with some evidence that this exists. Kim Bruning 00:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 10:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mong

At best this slang dictdef can be merged into some general article on cruel slang for people with mental handicaps. It definitely does not deserve its own article, especially if that article is going to be used for that mean-spirited namecalling. Redirect back to Hmong. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I was going to say transwiki, but I just dont think this belongs there either. Delete.Tygar 23:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being mong. Wyss 00:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we're not the urban dictionary. Rhobite 23:13, Mar 13, 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) 01:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation science

This article fulfills the following chritera from the deletion policy page:

• Not encyclopedic material - refer to WP:NOT paragraph 1.3: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Creation science is a term invented by creationism to lend credibility to their ideology.
• Creation science hasn't been published in peer-reviewed scientific publications, and therefore constitutes original research.
• Falls broadly under the category of "advertisement or other spam" - there's allready a page dedicated to the topic of Creationism, the term "Creation science" is inherently biased.
• Completely idiosyncratic non-topic - only creationists think of creationism as a science.

Additionally:

• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article.

Proposed action:

Merge and redirect to Creationism.

Spazzm 22:43, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Keep The creation science movement is an important movement within creationism and has significance to both theology and the cultural acceptance of science. Creationism is not creation science. Young Earth creationism is not creation science, though creation science is a subset of creationism and strongly connected to YECism. But YECism isn't creation science either (see omphalos, Ussher-Lightfoot calendar). It's very transparent pseudoscience, that's why it is in category:pseudoscience. But pseudoscience is culturally significant yet scientifically insignificant. Creationism may seem like a blunt instrument, but is also very subtle, and explaining this subtlety should be of use to those opposed to it, and they should reach a better understanding of it and write better articles. (Though I do think the philosophy section may have been "untgssed"). btw, if this goes, flood geology should go too. Dunc|☺ 22:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, there have been several very popular books written on the subject (start with The Genesis Flood), despite it being unpeer-reviewed, an NPOV reflection of unpeer-reviewed ideas is encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though I disagree with the reasons given by the nominator for listing it for deletion, I do think this might well be merged with Creationism as one of the ways in which that religious view represents itself. As I have argued on previous occasions, there are quite a few too many articles covering various aspects of creationism. --BM 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I would not merge with Creationism as they are separete concepts. Not all creationists are creation scientists. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I have been defending this page for the last 3 days. My arguments for keeping are well represented there. Furthermore, this does not fall under the definition of original research, advertisement or patent nonesence. This nomination was not made from a NPOV. DaveTheRed 23:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trolling nomination. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism. Creation science is an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool and a neologism whose only purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. The term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby underservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. Further more it is my believe that if wikipedians don't make a firm and clear stand against such use of propaganda in wikipedia, then the whole project looses credibility. The main asumption of wikipedia is thats its user will autoregulate the content. If we fail to do so in this instance then I fear that the assumption is incorrect and thus credibility will only be gained by revising policies and their implementations. --LexCorp 23:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment:Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. DaveTheRed 00:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of propaganda? Can there be NPOV propaganda? No don't think so and neither should you.--LexCorp 00:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda can not be NPOV. A wikipedia article about propaganda can be NPOV, and should. DaveTheRed 00:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that why did you revert my inclusion of propaganda in the definition of Creation Science arguing that it was POV. Is or is it not propaganda?--LexCorp 03:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because it is not NPOV to flat out state that something is propaganda in the first sentence of the article, especially when there are people who would disagree. DaveTheRed 06:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see and it is NPOV to flat out state that creation science is "the use of the scientific method to study God's creation" in the first sentence when there are even more people who would disagree to that. Funny concept you have there of NPOV.

• Keep. Reasons for deletion severely misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Eric119 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: What deletion?. The main drive of this Vfd is to merge it with creationism. No one suggested deletion. Lets not cry wolf. he? --LexCorp 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merges don't need consensus from this page, only from the talk pages of the pages concerned. If someone wants to merge pages they shouldn't list them on vfd. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The debate was going in circles, other users encouraged VfD listing. The 'original research' point alone should lead to deletion but I do agree that some of the material has value, thus the 'Merge' compromise. Spazzm 00:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

If you have a problem like that, where the "usual suspects" on a page are deadlocked, it's probably best to file an RfC, so you'll get some fresh brains on the job. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Article as it stands may have problems, but it's a legitimate topic, distinct from Creationism in general. Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, creation science is a crock, but it's a widely known and discussed one. The topic is encyclopedic. Article should carry more objective, debunking content though. Wyss 00:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Creationism. They cover the same topic. Jonathunder 00:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

• Keep even though the subject matter is something I wish would go away, people view these as distinct things. Merging is a value judgement on the debate.Merge and redirect to Creationism. -- Cleduc 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate. Reasons given for merging are misinterpretations of wikipedia policy. Kappa 01:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the article is slightly POV but does a sufficiently good job of justifying its opinions that it's forgiveable. Given the status that the term "creation science", uh, enjoys in the creation vs. evolution debate, there is no justifiable reason for eliminating or merging this article. In fact, if it was merged with Creationism I'd think the appropriate thing to do would be to break it out again. Besides which, nominator is phenomenally wrong about it being a minor branch of a minor subject -- there are an awful lot of people on both sides of the debate that will disagree. Haikupoet 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In the interest of accuracy, I have never claimed that Creationism is a minor subject. I claim that Creation science is a minor branch of Creationism. Spazzm 02:10, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Merge and redirect, faith is not science therefore the term is incorrect. Megan1967 03:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have changed my vote above upon further consultation with other editors. Megan1967 11:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember Wikipedia's Naming conventions, which state that articles are named after what the majority of people call something. DaveTheRed 03:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's keep it on the talk page, please. Spazzm 03:54, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
      • Um....Megan's vote seems to indicate she thinks Creation science should be deleted because its name is an oxymoron. I pointed out that the name Creation science conforms to our naming conventions. How is that not appropriate to this discussion??? DaveTheRed 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Because it's already been endlessly debated on the talk page. Discussions in this space makes it harder to tally votes. And the majority knows it as Creationism. --Spazzm 04:04, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or not it's notable pseudoscience, similar to Flat Earth Society.--Gene_poole 04:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, I actually agree with Gene Poole on something. Miracles never cease. Samboy 08:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creation science is an oxymoron and a steaming pile of velociraptor droppings, but the phenomenon of people working to back up Genesis through science (or an approximation thereof) does exist, under this name. Notable and sufficiently distinct from Creationism and should be kept. Assuming it can be kept NPOV. At the moment the article is seriously lacking as it suggests that for most of the Creationism movement creation scientists have supported a young earth theory. It has nothing on day-Age creationism etc. Sabine's Sunbird 05:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs to deal with the problem that the term "creation science" is itself POV. (I agree with LexCorp that the term is "a neologism whose only purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society.") We have other articles with such titles. The articles on Poverty pimp and Chickenhawk (politics) both begin by making clear, in the first sentence, that the article title is a phrase chosen to convey a particular POV, rather than a neutral description. JamesMLane 08:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try. When I did it I was inmediatelly acused of no NPOV. The futher I have got is the second paragraph.--LexCorp 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and do not merge. This is a very commonly used phrase and is precisely the sort of thing that people would come to wikipedia for. It is also very distinct from creationism, which makes no attempt to phrase its arguments in scientific sounding lingo. I have heard dinosaur bones explained away by creationists (but not creation scientists) as placed in the ground by the devil to tempt believers. The creation scientist will carefully refute the results of radioactive decay due to groundwater contamination, the stratigraphic layers as elevation-based community structure, the fossilization in sedimentary rock as occurring in the Noahic flood, and the mass extinction as a result of inbreeding depression and bottlenecks just following the flood (because two of every land animal got on the boat). The article makes an attempt at NPOV, but I still think it's a bit pro. That's really tough to call on something like this, though, because it's hard to find someone without an opinion on the initial topic. --Aranae 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Better suited as a sub-section of creationism. Creationism will benefit from a discussion on its relation to science and how it has tried to bring about a neologism to fight back the attacks from the scientific community. Askewmind | (Talk) 09:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with LexCorp in that this is merely a propaganda article that furthers the agenda of Creationists. We need to protect Wikipedia against this sort of action if we are to survive as an encyclopedia. Esher
• User's only edits are to his user page and this vfd. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article on creation science (although I'd love to delete creation science itself as a bunch of anti-scientific drivel). Average Earthman 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as a substantial section of a political and social movement. We have an article on the United States Democratic Party, but we also have articles on factions within that party (for example, the War Democrats versus the Copperheads during the United States Civil War). We have an article on Christianity, but we also have articles on Anglicanism and Catholicism. Just because the subject is bunk doesn't mean we can't write about it in an NPOV manner. It's bunk endorsed by a lot of influential people, and has significant impact on politics and society. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Title is an inherent contradiction. Merge with creationism if any content is salvageable. This topic is totally overrepresented on the English Wikipedia anyway. Martg76 20:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles should never be deleted just because we don't agree with the concept they concern. And how can a topic be "overrepresented"? Write the other stuff needed to balance it! Dr Zen 03:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This movement has had social impact and should not be brushed under the rug .. despite the fact I think the beliefs are ... hogwash is still a word, right? As Dr. Zen said "Articles should never (my emphasis) be deleted just because we don't agree with the concept." That should be written into policy somewhere, carved into stone, etc. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• strong Keep. While as a Christian and a science fan, I disagree with Creation science, it's a major, major topic. 186,000 Google hits! I could ask most knowledgable people what this was, and they'd know. There've been articles in the mainstream media describing this movement. Compared with some of the minor topics we have, this is vastly important. It's a different thing than creationism, and definitely long enough to be it's own article. Yes, it's an oxymoron: that's established in the second paragraph. It's not propoganda: there's a pretty major section of criticism. It should probably also have some refinement, and a note on Christian criticism of the whole idea, but it definitely should be kept. -LtNOWIS 16:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Creationism. Gazpacho 18:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We should have a decent article on this. (We probably won't, but we should.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real phenomenon. Every bit as valid a topic as Christian Science (and equally scientific) (<--- note: last previous parenthetical remark is ironic). "We live on the inside of a hollow earth" is unencyclopedic. "John Cleves Symmes Jr said we live on the inside of a hollow earth is encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a lot of pages describing different aspects of creationist thinking on Wikipedia, and however weird some of it is, lumping it all in one article will not made it go away. --Henrygb 20:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Creation science" is one type of Creationism, and the reasons cited for nominating it seem to purposefully misinterpret VfD criteria. As it stands, the article could use some NPOV editing, but that's not criteria for deletion by itself. An article on the development of "Creation science" and "Scientific Creationism" as a strategy in the evolution/creationism debate could be quite interesting (I am sure that Ronald L. Number's The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Harvard University Press, 1992, would be invaluable in this). --Fastfission 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A reason would be nice. The discussion is more important than the vote count. Even saying "for reasons given by so-and-so" is helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism, for the reasons given by Askewmind and LexCorp. --Plainsong 18:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism for the reasons given above. --Axon 18:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the Creationism article is already over 32K. Although an opponent of creationism, I think that Creation Science deserves an article as much as Intelligent Design or any of the other flavours of creationism. Guettarda 00:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote tally

Keep: 23

Merge: 10

Delete: 1

Uncertain: 2. I'm not certain how to interpret BM's vote - Merge or Keep? Is Guettarda's comment a vote?

Huge victory for Keep, I concede defeat and will remove the notice from the page. --Spazzm 02:15, 2005 Mar 15 (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. Rje 02:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy grail family

It appears to be a mix of original research and advertising for some books. Whatever it is, it's unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, more from prolific spammer Lords Page (talk • contribs) -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, same crank. Wyss 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay, book advertisement. Megan1967 03:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons as above. -- Hadal 04:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. --khaosworks 08:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 9 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. dbenbenn | talk 10:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alastair Santhouse

This applies to both Santhouse and Alastair Santhouse. I don't see enough evidence of notability. Smacks of self-promotion. --MarkSweep 22:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion/vanity... Nashikawa 23:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be vanity, CVish... Wyss 00:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- both. Vanity. - Longhair | Talk 09:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep if the publications are indeed notable, if not, delete SusanaeIII

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COME IN AND DRINK TEA WITH ME!

Proposed for deletion because the title is lousy, the article is essentially content free, and I can find no evidence anywhere that this phrase is a traditional greeting anywhere in the world. The phrase returned no hits at Google. And before anybody yells at me for wasting VFD's time (and yes, I recognize this is essentially a waste of time), it doesn't fit any speedy deletion categories. Trust me, I tried to find one. Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tygar 23:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• COME IN AND DELETE THIS WITH ME. DaveTheRed 00:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, actually it could probably be speedied as a user test, it's so trivial and empty. Wyss 00:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. I'd argue that the intention of the "test" section of speedy delete policy is to allow the deletion of an article that says "Does this really end up on the web site?" or "I'd like to know more about TOPIC X and don't know why there's no article here." -- that is, something that clearly isn't gibberish or vandalism, but also clearly isn't someone intending to write an article. I don't see that this article can be considered anything but an actual attempt to write an article. It is definitely worth considering, though. Jwrosenzweig 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the one sentence is verifiable, it could be added to tea. No need for a separate article, and certainly not under an ALL CAPS name. Jonathunder 00:28, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Let's Delete and have a cup of tea. =D - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Do all phrases deserve wikipedia entries? MicahMN | Talk 03:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This phrase is a (rough) translation of another language. This (roughly translated) is often used as a greeting, but it's not the only greeting, nor is it the most common greeting. Phrases aren't inherently notable to be kept, certainly not one that is a rough translation of a foreign phrase that isn't the most common greeting, in all caps, with an exclamation mark. --Deathphoenix 18:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- NO SHOUTING PLEASE! - Longhair | Talk 01:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • AND NO CAPS LOCK ALLOWED! DELETE xD --Andylkl 19:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since there's too little text to establish context and go off and research what might be behind it. Kim Bruning 01:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bush family

This poorly titled article is about a book that purports to trace the Bush family back to Adam. It was added by User:Lords Page who has been adding links to books by L E Cooper. It's quite likely that this is advertising and the book isn't notable. Carrp | Talk 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Book is vanity press crackpottery. Demi 23:34, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity crank (btw, virtually anyone with European, Indian, Middle Eastern and often African ancestry is probably a direct descendent of Alexander the Great, yawn). Wyss 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more spam. Spammer removed the vfd tag. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and blanked all the VfD votes. Somehow I doubt Umberto Eco would behave this way :) -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Shanes 01:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book advertisement. Megan1967 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons as above. -- Hadal 04:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. --khaosworks 08:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family to avoid future recreation, despite the "The" in the title. Lupo 11:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L E Cooper

He's self-published two books, with the more successful one, The Jesus Presidents ranking #2,461,855 at Amazon.com. Non-notable, possible vanity. Carrp | Talk 23:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Submitter Lords Page (talk • contribs) has been spamming author and book around prolifically, and scorns those who ask him to stop, saying "you are not up on this topic enough to be editing inputs in regard to it" (User talk:Hadal). -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not notable. Demi 23:36, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete I tend to be a strong inclusionist when it comes to authors: pretty much anybody who's been published, even by an indy publisher, should get an article. This does not include self-published or vanity-press works, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, crank. Wyss 00:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I pity whomever had to copyedit and proofread this individual's books, if such procedures were even followed. -- Hadal 04:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crank. Vanity. --khaosworks 08:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Groovything

Advert. Miss Pippa 23:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising for POV site. Delete. Tygar 23:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neilc 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, brutal ad. Wyss 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pode 00:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website advertisement. Megan1967 03:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 9 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 (NB. page could not be deleted due to technical limitations). Rje 02:23, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecademy

advertising cruft for a not-very-notable cite. delete --Milyle 23:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity advertisement. Delete Tygar 23:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 00:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 18:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Blatant ad. Glennwatkins 02:34, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Keep, This page has seen a running battle between disgruntled ex-members and staff. I agree that the current piece reads like an Ad but I'd call it plain rather than blatant vanity. it might be helpful to compare it with the page about Orkut which is a similar community. And note also that the comment immediately above this one is apparently from glennwatkins, the name of the MD, although emphatically not him but rather, a fake. jbond 14:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars.

I count four deletes, three merges, two transikis, and a keep. There is no consensus for deletion, but an overwhelming majority agree that this should not remain in its own article. —Korath (Talk) 01:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The last Handmaiden

Is even so much as a redirect really necessary for every minor fictional character from every single Star Wars video game? What about this particular article suggests that it is inclusion worthy? An unrestricted search turns up 43 googles. --GRider\^talk 23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Lucascruft. Wyss 00:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep lucascruft. Kappa 01:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article is reasonably detailed. The fact that a dozen or so distinct users have already contributed to this page over the span of a month indicates that there is at least some degree of interest in the topic. It seems worth having a discussion on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus to determine the notability threshhold for characters like this. - Jpo 01:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea Jpo, go ahead and create one.
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Characters from films and books are mergeable. I have to draw the line at video games though. -R. fiend 06:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with list of minor characters. Also fix capitalization in title. Radiant! 08:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with R. fiend. DaveTheRed 20:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwikied. I have moved it to the new Star Wars Wiki. I'll be moving more trivial articles as time permits. Please help.  :) Cbarbry 07:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a Star Wars Wiki? Thank god. Send all this stuff there. There's tons of it. Keep articles on the movies, major characters, things, and places, and the lists of minor characters, and send the rest over there wholesale. -R. fiend 20:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. It's just getting started. Cbarbry 23:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Good job Cbarbry. We need to save the rest of these articles for Wookieepedia Transwiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:47, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Why has the page been blanked and redirected outside of Wikimedia before the end of the debate, consensus has not been to delete? I am going to revert the blanking (please let me know if this was not the correct action (User_talk:Lochaber) however my vote is to merge into Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars (or is she a Jedi character? and what is that actual characters name "The Last Handmaiden or The Handmaiden?) anyway if consensus in a few days is to merge then I volunteer to do it. -- Lochaber 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• My concern for the transwikied is that the original Wikipedia page should have the entry as well I do feel that it should be debated if most Star Wars entries should be transwikied.

• Sorry. I should not have blanked the page before the vote. My bad. Cbarbry 04:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Do not merge this nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jesus Presidents

A self-published book, ranking #2,461,855 at Amazon.com. Non-notable, possible vanity. Carrp | Talk 23:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad, unencyclopedic, possible vanity (never mind the dodgy premise of the book). Wyss 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, book advertisement. Megan1967 03:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons as above. -- Hadal 04:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. --khaosworks 08:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't forget to delete the book cover illustration at the same time. -- Infrogmation 15:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 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. Rje 02:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brynsaar

Seems like an advert, or other plug. Non-notable. Bratsche ^(talk) 23:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad, muddcruft. Wyss 00:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 18:30, 9 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. .

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rje 02:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Daniel Crocker

On what grounds is this article significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? LDC is just a programmer, after all. While certainly LDC's contribution to Wikipedia / Mediawiki is worthy of recognition, I don't think an article in Wikipedia itself is the right place for that. Neilc 23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, could be speedied for little or no content and lack of context. Unhelpful. Wyss 00:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to User:Lee Daniel Crocker. -- Infrogmation 06:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't deserve a redirect, but he's welcome to move it there. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Briefly I thought this might be one of those old articles from before there were user namespaces (you never know, there might still be 1 or 2 that have been missed), but nope, this article was created by an anon in january of this year. Kim Bruning 01:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have no objection to deletion. This page was created back in the days of Cliff's software that didn't have a separate user space and all Wikipedians (maybe a few dozen) had pages. The User page is more appropriate nowadays. And I'm not even "just a programmer" anymore :-) For the last year or so since the country's gone poker-crazy I've been earning my living at the table. I still drop by every now and then to see how the gang is doing. --LDC 20:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wierdness! It was deleted before, but recreated on 10 jan 2005. Kim Bruning 21:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars.

I count two deletes, two transwikis, two merges, two merge or keeps, one keep, and one very new user. There is no consensus for deletion, but an overwhelming majority agrees that this should not remain in its own article. —Korath (Talk) 01:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ainlee Teem

Has a consensus been reached on this matter? How many Google hits does a minor character from the fictional Star Wars universe need to yield to be considered inclusion worthy? Is 88 unique hits enough? --GRider\^talk 23:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Lucascruft. Wyss 00:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, lucascruft. Kappa 01:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to appropriate Minor characters in Star Wars page. -R. fiend 06:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Average Earthman 13:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Star Wars Wiki. Here's the article there. Cbarbry 08:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - SimonP 23:02, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more lucascruft. ComCat 02:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to article at Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Oh, and please stop putting, "cruft," on the end of everything. Pushing the boundaries of cool. SusanaeIII
  • User has eleven edits, all in the space of twenty minutes' time on March 24, and all but one to vfds. —Korath (Talk) 01:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh but GRider has already started the Great Lucascruft Purge. I think we can stretch this out a little more. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:31, Mar 25, 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 Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars.

I count two deletes, a transwiki, three merges, a merge or keep, and two keeps. There is no consensus for deletion, but a clear majority agrees that this should not remain in its own article. —Korath (Talk) 01:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commander Bly

With 50 unique google hits, is this a case of scifi-cruft, or is this a legitimately encyclopedic topic worthy of note on Wikipedia? --GRider\^talk 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Another one? Merge or keep. Sigh. Kappa 00:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Lucascruft. Wyss 00:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of minor characters from Star Wars or similar. Miss Pippa 00:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Minor characters in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be more specific, merge this with Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep We should certainly wait to see his part in Episode III. They're making action figures out of the guy, so he's probably of enough note. -LtNOWIS 01:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, if he makes an appearance in Ep. III, then there is no doubt he is noteworthy. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been Transwikied to Wikicities:c:StarWars:Commander Bly. If he is a notable character in Episode III, he may be able to return to Wikipedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:56, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into and then redirect to Miscellaneous minor characters in Star Wars, can be expanded if his story is created in more depth in upcoming movies or comics/books &c. -- Lochaber 16:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth note at this point that I'm not that keen on the phrase "transwiki" being applied to moving stuff outside of Wikimedia projects... do you mean deleted out of Wikipedia? -- Lochaber 16:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically no matter what happens here, it's still copied to the SWW. But lets wait for this to end to see what we'll do here. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:28, Mar 25, 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. Rje 02:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Lee Sharp

No evidence of notability (fails the Google test). --MarkSweep 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also Talk:Ronald Lee Sharp. Based on that, it seems to be clear case of vanity (though perhaps excusable as a beginner's mistake), but there is also some evidence of notability (has written one book). --MarkSweep 03:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mark, you need to put the VfD tag on the page (maybe your update was lost). -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The servers are just slow. I always do a preview of the vfd tagging first and save it after I've created the VfD page and listed it. In this case, it took a while for the save to go through. --MarkSweep 00:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. I'm really reluctant to delete an article so new on the grounds of notability (cf Peter Palumbo, above). Maybe we should have a "lets sit on this for a week and see if it grows into something worthwhile" tag. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The VfD process will take a week at least, so maybe someone will rescue it if the subject is really notable. Meanwhile, it's only been the target of vandalism, which I didn't revert because it's not clear to me that this wasn't a further experiment by the original creator. --MarkSweep 00:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied as a user test. Wyss 00:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not sure if giving it a week will accomplish anything, as the name does not appear to be notable at all. RidG (talk) 00:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ronald Lee Sharp, I am the author - delete the article and move on with your life.

This was anexpiriment and not vanity as Megain suggests. To find my article you would have to enter the full name so it would not show up to anyone unless they were looking for it. I had wrongly assumed this was an open source of information since you offer no method to verify sources, which you should. I understand now it is a closed information source which "may" accept new information from open sources iff the "editors" feel it is appropriate. Thanks and please keep up the effort, I think it is a worthy project and may well evolve into something really great. RLS

• Speedy delete as a user test according to WP:CSD—General #2, since the article author (135.104.20.14 or 135.104.20.13) indicated above that this was a user test. --Deathphoenix 20:14, 9 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.