Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 11

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siyh

Non-notable acronym. Less than 2000 Google hits, most of which are not instances of this acronym. Many seem to be a word in a foreign langauge (or in some cases it could just be gibberish). Many others are actually binary content from PDF files and the like. Actual occurrences of the acronym are extremely fleeting and I had a time trying to find one. Eric119 00:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "Sooner if you help" has a certain significance among collaborative developers (of Linux, for example) as the answer to the oft-heard question "When will it [the software] be done/released?" Even this is fairly obscure, and this acronym version obscurer still... perhaps specific to some forum or IRC channel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable acronym. Megan1967 04:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete ASAP --Doc Glasgow 10:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although if someone could perhaps elaborate on its origins, or its fields of use? Unlikely though. User:Jamyskis 13:58, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Delete, obscure --metta, The Sunborn 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Alex.tan 17:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this belongs anywhere, it's in the wiktionary, not WP. Tomer ^TALK 18:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kingturtle 23:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muid latif

Non-encyclopedic prose, likely vanity Zocky 01:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that people commonly leave these in good faith, and sometimes they even turn out to be encyclopaedic. Other times, they're a work of a newbie who hasn't yet grasped the Wikipedia concept fully. No need for snide remarks. Zocky 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, not notable. 129 Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it isn't a vanity page, it sounds like advertising. It goes either way. --Mitsukai 03:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 04:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's advertising, nothing more. Jamyskis 14:05, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 13:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow - self-taught dancer... so am I, and I don't have an article. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:33, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable persona. --metta, The Sunborn 16:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 21:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Bhadani 07:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Tomer ^TALK 18:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 02:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Samuel

Article doesn't establish notability, possible vanity page. Joe D (t) 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete probable vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Donna Williams. Sjakkalle 07:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You could merge with Donna Williams, but she doesn't seem to be particularly notable either. Jamyskis 14:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and I'd say she would be notable, assuming that the claims in the article were true ("best-selling and award winning"). Australians--heard of her? Meelar (talk) 14:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Donna Williams]--MikeJ9919 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, no indication of notability. This guy could merge with Donna since he's her husband, but that doesn't mean that you or Sjakkalle could. Barno 17:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. no indication that he is notable. The Donna Williams article states that he is her husband and the name should be free in case a notable Chris Samuel comes to our attention. As an Australian, I hadn't heard of Donna either but a quick Google shows that she has written about autism as claimed. Capitalistroadster 23:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: redirects are cheap, and if a notable Chris Samuel comes along then they can just overwrite the redirect. --bainer 02:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, being married to someone famous doesnt make you famous on your own. well, actually there is a Kevin Federline article. this article also needs cleanup regardless. i will keep my vote ofdelete. Sensation002 23:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Donna Williams--nixie 02:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Robert Merkel 02:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Donna Williams. --bainer 02:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect--Cyberjunkie 07:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Donna Williams, who is notable and deserves an entry. --Takver 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with/to (respectively) Donna Williams. Tomer ^TALK 18:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge Kingturtle 23:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 02:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WRT

This is a dictionary definition, with little opportunity for expansion. Also, in a nice reverse of the usual, it has already been transwikied to Wikitionary (see [1]. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Surely there must be something in this wide world called "WRT" that's worth having an article on. Isn't it a book by the Lake Woebegon guy? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me. You're now trying to search out possible alternatives to keep a non-notable article? That's ridiculous. If somebody someday comes up with what you're grasping for, it can be recreated, we don't need to strain to keep something that isn't worth keeping. Delete. RickK 05:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I think that's 'WLT' --Arcadian 03:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 09:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or let Starblind make his pick among Wallace, Roberts & Todd, LLC (environmental planning services), WRT web designs, the WRT racing team, or something that does "Planung und Herstellung von Wärmetauschern und Rippenrohren." [2]. Radiant_* 11:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, at least until Wallace, Roberts & Todd hit it big. Eixo 11:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Internet_slang#W. The information in WRT already exists there. android↔talk 13:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...dicdef --MikeJ9919 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Internet slang —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect → Internet slang as per android. —Markaci 2005-05-11 T 17:04 Z
• Delete. Dicdef. Redirect doesn't seem necessary, as wrt much older than the internet. Quale 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DO NOT REDIRECT TO INTERNET SLANG, as it is used in mathematics, long before internet slang. I suppose a history of the math term might be encyclopedic. 132.205.15.43 02:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how an abbreviation for something as simple as with respect to could have a history or be encyclopedic, even if it came out of mathematics. It's not like, say, WLOG, whose specific meaning in math is not easily understood by expanding the acronym. Feel free to prove me wrong. Until a meaningful article on WRT in math or whatever else is created, a redirect to Internet slang serves the reader well by expanding the abbreviation. android↔talk 03:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Everyking 03:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• replace with redirect but not to internet slang (no reason) but to List of acronyms and initialisms: W (where specific links to WRT (mathematics) etc. could be created if somebody wants to explain it in detail for a specific usage) — MFH: Talk 08:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of that article. It probably makes a better redirect target. (As an aside, it looks like there's serious duplication of effort between that list and the slang article.) android↔talk 11:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redir List of acronyms and initialisms: W or just del; the redir is not necessary, but redirs are cheap. —msh210 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redir to List of acronyms and initialisms: W#WR. This is not purely internet slang, as it's been around in other disciplines. I've seen it used in linguistics, for instance. I think this ought to be somewhere in the Wikipedia. Twinxor 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the entry there. Twinxor 01:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One more comment: Are we deleting TLAs now? That would be a major change, as there are hundreds of TLA pages with no real depth. Twinxor 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd like to see the TLAs, along with any other acronyms, sent to Wiktionary instead, where they're more appropriate. Tomer ^TALK 18:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect -> List of acronyms and initialisms: W. This acronym is quite commonly used. Tomer ^TALK 18:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there really is an internet slang "wrt" that means "with regard to", that should be erased and its memory stamped out. English already has a word for this, namely "regarding"...illiteracy and poor speech habits do not a noteworthy encyclopedia entry make. Tomer ^TALK 18:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 23:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tess khoo

notability not demonstrated

admins: please note that vandals have been attacking this ballot. Their vandalism has been struck out

• Delete - No notability, POV, and generally pointless. Revise it to fix these (amazingly huge) problems (and change to Teresa Khoo) or kill it. AyAn4m1 14:53 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no "Tess Khoo" in Google Samw 03:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• "After once waking up to discover a walrus in her bed, she now says that she has a deep hatred for all things to do with water"?! Delete. This looks like nonsense, a joke, or something in between. --Whimemsz 03:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 04:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Flibbertygibbet. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 05:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's hope this is not an article about a real person. Sjakkalle 07:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Gawd, what a lot of stupid flushatory flushings. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 12:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like a practical joke.Jamyskis 14:09, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Delete some cambridge uni prank - nonsense and possibly a personal attack --Doc Glasgow 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonesense --metta, The Sunborn 17:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep After all, Teresa Khoo as she is also known - does actually exist. I find it harsh to delete her on the basis of implausibility. Clean it up if you don't like it!
  • Note: Both the previous keep votes were made by anon users, 131.111.202.111 (talk · contribs) and 131.111.203.140 (talk · contribs). The IP numbers make it apparent that these users are from Cambridge. --Whimemsz 21:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note:and your point is? --Chani 01:04 May 12, 2005 (GMT)
• KeepThis describes the Tess Khoo I know! You people who are complaining need to get out more...
• KeepAfter some changes which I have made, this page is now an actual representation of the Tess that we all know and love, and google searching for Teresa Khoo proves her right to an entry.
  • Note: Exactly. When I enter my name into Google I get 190 entries - that doesn't make me worthy of an entry. Jamyskis 12:32, May 11, 2005
    • • Everyone has a uniqueness that makes them notable. I reject the vain argument that not everyone is special enough to have an entry. --Chani 01:04 May 12, 2005 (GMT)
  • It's still clearly a candidate for deletion: Wikipedia doesn't have articles on ever one of the six billion plus people in the world; only people deemed notable. The fact that she's a real person (assuming she is) is irrelevant. Furthermore, the Google results all seem to deal with the fact that Teresa Khoo plays chess. That's not notability. --Whimemsz 23:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• KeepIts tess khoo...she's an actual person! With info on her here!
• Delete This page sounds like a vanity page, indicative by the last line: Definately one to look out for. --129.180.1.124 00:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I support all pages dedicated to all individuals - no matter their 'google' results. This is an example of one.Chani <---sockpuppet?
• Delete, unfortunately most individuals are not verifiable. Kappa 01:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 06:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Excellent Article wanker 14:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Excellent Article Indeed, fantastic stuff Peter File 14:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Why do all you wankers above even care. Just fuck off and leave this article be Heywood Jablomie 14:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "When I enter my name into Google I get 190 entries - that doesn't make me worthy of an entry" It does however make you a wanker with a microscopic penis though wanker 14:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we has gotta like keep it innit. is like fuckin' well great innit. ya muvva fuckin' cahv innit 14:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Help I'm being abducted! large remis 14:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Don't delete it, it is the best article I've read in years. Absolutely spiffing stuff Benedict XVI 14:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is no joke I tell you. All you paedophiles who insist on deleting this should find something better to do, as long as it doesn't involve children. uhhhh? 14:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and is there some place to complain about offensive usernames and suspected sockpuppets? PatGallacher 14:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Sockpuppetry and non-notability in extreme. --Neigel von Teighen 14:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I like how Neigel is complaining that this article is not notable, yet two of his entries to Wikipedia were for a Mike Oldfield song and a David Bowie song. If they're notable entries for an encyclopedia, then this is a crap encyclopedia. But then Tess should just release a song and then suddenly that'll be worthy of inclusion. She was also a CHESS CHILD PRODIGY, as shown by a quick google search - isn't that enough?
• Delete - The people (person with sockpuppets) would be better served by cleaning up the article, including references and listing her accomplishments rather than arguing that "why do all you wankers even care" and "everyone has a uniqueness that makes them special". Prove on the page that she is meaningful and then tell us or abandon your indefensible position.Scimitar 14:48, 2005 May 12
• Delete, vanity. Nor does the support of Sockpuppet City help the cause. -R. fiend 22:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • who is this disgraceful r.fiend person. isn't he the chappy who was caught masturbating in public recently? Yes I think it was. Go hang your head in shame you disgraceful person. Even better, go hang yourself you pervert. Just fuck off.
• This is getting really ridiculous. --Whimemsz 23:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Complete garbage. The sock puppetts only re-enforce my STRONG DELETE vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • maybe they do sir. but the point is, i know what you do with small children yes i do, i think it is disgusting and i am going to call the police (This "witty" entry originated at IP 131.111.8.96) Oooh!! You know my IP!! Good for you
• Delete It appears that the majority of "votes" for "keep" include personal attacks, language that may be offensive to some and/or disagreement with what constitutes "notability".--WCFrancis 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: the version I saw and judged on was last edited 23:15, 11 May 2005. The only problem with the article in that version is the lack of notability. Earlier versions were obvious fictional concoctions. "...pre-natally involved in the assasination of John F. Kennedy" indeed. --WCFrancis 18:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Another note: it is informative to observe the history of this page (i.e. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tess khoo) one version at a time. --WCFrancis 19:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not sure which aspect of the internet makes it such a fantastic intellectual forum - the friendliness or the good humour. --DHP 00:35, 14 May '05 (BST)
• Delete A vanity page for someone who has little to be vain about! Rogertudor 23:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (And people think Cambridge is snobby.) DHP Are you from Oxford or something? Or worse, are you from St John's?
• Delete. And yes, the fact that the "keep" votes are from sockpuppets make this even more of a candidate for deletion. -- The Anome 20:29, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments only - I donot believe it is nonsense - I give two dictionary meaning of the words: 1) words that make no sense, 2) another meaning being: foolish or unacceptable behavior. The article is not a nonsense, it may not be notable. Users, particularly those who may be using this word habitually in real life should be careful while dealing digitally, and before using adjectives like nonsense which tantamounts to personal attack, not conforming to guideleines of wikipedia, one should read, and also understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense. --MissingLinks 04:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I will require proof of the statement "After a failed relationship with a whale, she blubbered.", before I consider changing my vote. Death to sockpuppets. Tomer ^TALK 18:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Are there any keep votes from non-sock puppets? - Tεxτurε 20:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • -- Yes there are actually, and I don't like to be called a sockpuppet for stating my views or having my arguments be "struck out" for no real reason.
    • Are all of these "keep" votes that were struck out yours? - Tεxτurε 21:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I don't know about the whale contribution, but I think otherwise we should give this article a chance --Dmj27 00:10, 17 May 2005
  • User's 5th edit. RickK 23:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • is coz its ya muvva innit, n i is a scally innit
    • Is Ali G now a Wikipedian? Grutness...wha? 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete Kingturtle 23:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• I always thought Tess Khoo was a supermarket. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

hahahahahahah, that's just sooooo funny. i can't stop laughing. you really ought to be a stand-up comedian i just cannot get over how funny you are. hahahahahahahah. ooh hahahahah. oh dear

• • Are you sure it isn't really the sponsor of the Milton Berle Comedy Hour? - Nunh-huh 22:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cholds

Word appears to be a neologism. Searches on dictionary.com and yourdictionary.com have come up with nothing.--Mitsukai 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - article itself describes it as "a meaningless word". -- BDAbramson ^thimk 03:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Neologism. Jamyskis 14:10, 11 May 2005 (GMT)

Delete Neologism. --metta, The Sunborn 17:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Side issue

This was just previously closed a day ago with the consensus to transwiki (didn't catch it in time). Well that's just been done and it's just a dicdef, so delete. --Dmcdevit 03:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdefs with no chance for expansion. ESkog 20:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Wilbanks

A woman ran away. Doesn't the U.S. get thousands of these a year? How exactly is this a significant article for an encyclopedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- but add a section on racism. Jennifer Wilbanks: Racism An Integral Part Of Her Story

• Keep - receive national media attention whether we like it or not. Wikipedia's not paper and we should be an almanac of reported events when newservices archive and charge for theirs. Samw 03:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but we don't document every event that happened in the media. Do we document even obscure national media events? That's wikinews' job you know. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We have endless room to document all sorts of things. Kingturtle 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And I don't care about space as I never said this. I merely want to point out that every national media story is not notable or encyclopedic! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Um, "not every national media story is notable or encyclopedic." With that revision, TBSDY is correct. Weak delete or merge to media circus. Barno 17:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Ms. Wilbanks's escape received national attention. Jendeyoung 03:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am so sick hearing about that woman. With all the press coverage, the media treats her like she discovered radioactivity. She's already ruined most of my news magazine shows with the recent advent of 'jilted at the alter' stories. The news keeps wondering what kind of punishment she will receive for lying to the police and irritating so many people. Delete this stupid article. She's plain annoying and dumb and is definitely NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. If anyone had any sense in their head, they would Delete this news trash before she starts polluting Wikipedia. Ome 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A reason for deletion should NOT be that you are sick of it. Also, the fact that it is all over your favorite news magazine shows justifies that this article should be kept. Kingturtle 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sick of the Iraq war, but that's notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She may be prosecuted... or may not - either way, people living a thousand miles away with no connection to the case will be upset over it. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 03:39, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is such a non-story. Wikipedia should not have an article on everything that the reality soap channels broadcast. This woman does not deserve her own article unless it's in the User: namespace. It is nothing more than an invasion of privacy. →Vik Reykja 03:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Invasion of privacy? She might be indicted. She is an adult who made choices. Kingturtle 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • She has done nothing to merit as much attention as she is getting. Do we want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid? →Vik Reykja 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • She faked something and got national media attention. So did Anna Ayala, and we have an article for her. Wikipedia has all sorts of articles about hoaxes, missing people, and victims. Kingturtle 04:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. Mary Toft lied and said she gave birth to rabbits. It is not unusual for wikipedia to have articles about people whose claim to fame is that they lied. Kingturtle 04:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I hate to defend this article but here are some U.S.-centric non-murder tabloid stories that have Wikipedia articles: Elizabeth Smart, Mary Kay Letourneau, and Paris Hilton. --Chill Pill Bill 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, Tawana Brawley, similar kidnapping hoax. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is significant because there was a nation-wide search that involved the FBI. It is also significant because she reported that her kidnapper was hispanic. Kingturtle 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This event and its unusual circumstances are at least as notable as many other one-shot events that are in Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this search made national news for over a week in the United States. You may not like the media's priorities (I certainly don't) but your complaint should be to the media, not this article. Firebug 04:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't assume you know my motives for listing this VfD. I merely listed it because I didn't think it was signficant or notable. I seem to be wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I absolutely hate this story which is why I stir clear from the U.S. 24 hours cable news channels because they always talked about her...24/7 in the recent weeks. It is in the U.S. news headlines so it is keep. We have an Amy Fisher article and her story is similar to Jennifer Wilbanks because of the "soap opera" type news story. --Chill Pill Bill 04:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable because of level of media attention. Over 6,000 Google News hits and article is in pretty good shape. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Her fifteen minutes of fame are up, and this was a complete non-story to begin with outside the US. Nobody except maybe Jay Leno or Jon Stewart is going to remember her in six months. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It got moderate-to-heavy coverage in Canada. (Keep.) Samaritan 12:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Boy. I hate having an article on this subject, but if somebody could work on the story as sensation, and not just on her non-notable biography, then I vote weak keep. RickK 05:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable newsmaker, even though it was stupid news. Aerion//talk 06:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The issue isn't whether she merits the attention she's gotten (I agree she doesn't). For an objective encyclopedia, the issue is that she has in fact gotten the attention, and hence become notable. In addition to her own notability, the article will give the reader a good example of the nauseating superficiality of the mass media in the U.S. JamesMLane 06:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, media attention makes this notable, so long as it is kept NPOV (none of the recent "wilbanked" slang terms which we VfD recently please). Megan1967 06:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't understand why people are voting to keep this article. National attention is given to non-consequential things all the time which are not article worthy. She is not an important enough figure to warrant having an encyclopedia article. If the article is to be kept it should be to highlight the ridiculous "issues" that the media in the U.S concerns itself with so that people will forget more important problems, like the economy and the war in Iraq. Comment made by 24.193.227.161
• I wish there were some place we could merge this article, like Inexplicable media phenomena about stupid non-events#Jennifer Wilbanks. Until then, keep. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews. Radiant_* 08:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Robneild 08:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rogerd 12:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Currently going through her 15 minutes of fame, and no real reason why she can't have an article here too. However, I advise a re-VfDing after 2 years to determine whether she's well-remembered enough to keep an entry on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--just one more reason never to get your news through television. I read the newspaper, and it took me days to figure out who this woman was, because I'd just skip the article. It was blissful. Meelar (talk) 14:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh come on!!! 10qwerty 15:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Questions of "importance" are inherently POV. The only question that matters is verifiability and this story, for reasons I personally find inexplicable, has become easily verifiable. - SimonP 18:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - story has been reported internationally and in the context of a phenomenon rather than limited to this individual Sydney Morning Herald 8 May - more than 5 minutes of fame --AYArktos 21:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• May I just make the comment, if this is significant, can we add the reasons why it is significant to the article's lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the intro already says "sparked a nationwide search" and that she "claimed falsely that she had been kidnapped." what else do you want to add? Kingturtle 04:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something on the lines of the extreme U.S. media attention she received and the reason they were so interested? I'm not American, this didn't seem notable. Had I known why it was so notable, I wouldn't have listed the article on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to see what makes this "issue" encyclopedic. It belongs in wikinews at best. →Vik Reykja 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• A google search for "Jennifer Wilbanks" retrieves 162,000. Kingturtle 04:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So? →Vik Reykja 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Sort of a significance barometer. Kingturtle 04:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• This article probably should stay; however, it needs to focus on why this particular case has caused so much media attention, as opposed to the hundreds of other "milk carton" cases which occur each year around the world. Plus, can we possibly find a better picture? I almost died of fright when I first viewed the article. --Jquarry 05:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All her pictures look like this. she is not photogenic. Kingturtle 05:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. That is so true. The comedians are having a field day talking about her scary eyes. RickK 05:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Even her requisite eBay toast and peeps are scary-looking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. If it turns out, years from now, that this person/story is interesting, unique, and important enough to warrant its own encyclopedia article, it can be added then. Until that happens, this is just another grossly sensationalized news story, which means it belongs at Wikinews, not on Wikipedia. (If we must keep the article here, can I request that we get rid of the googly-eyed picture? Yeesh.) android↔talk 13:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although certainly worth putting in Wikinews too, since she's become quite a "celebrity" in the American news. It's not so much "news" as a detailed account of what happened. Will be of interest to someone. Jamyskis 14:17, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Keep -- she won't do that again. ;) - Longhair | Talk 13:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And you can be *certain* of this, because ... ? --Simon Cursitor 14:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • VfDs aren't article space, so we can fairly speculate... Samaritan 15:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- This story is notable in Wikipedia only for the ludicrous levels of media attention it got. It's not just a wikinews article "woman runs from wedding;" It's Baby Jessica for the new millenium. She is not in herself notable and should not have an in depth biography in this article. I am not sure how many of the elements of the story need to be there. We may want discussion of what made this story have wings in the first place: recent media circuses including Micheal Jackson, Pope, and Terry Schaivo. Other jolts in the arm for the story included 'hispanic' accusations, the ebay toast, statistics on incidence of cold feet, and the recent news office innovation of discussing whether people who make false accusations should be given jail time. conspiracy theorists among us may suspect other reasons for all the noisy hype over something so inane. -- only n4 vfd, 2 for transwiki, and 20+ for keep... I think this is becoming an obvious keep. MPS 16:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Btw, I've added to the introduction to the article the paragraph: "Wilbanks gained national fame and notoriety in the United States, and her story persisted as a major topic of national news coverage well after she was found and her safety assured. Many critics of the mass media attacked this as a media circus. Samaritan 18:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Disgust at the reasons for the attention she received is a not reason to exclude the article. We are not in the business of deciding what ought to have been newsworthy in the first place. -- Decumanus 20:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• keep I agree. It doesn't matter if her reasons for notability are justified, she is clearly notable. Brighterorange 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article satisfies the following: It is known to many people; it is well written; and it is accurate. IMHO that justifies its inclusion in the Wikipedia. Do I care about some dumb American broad who does a runner? Hell no. But I also don't care about some warlord in Sierra Leone or the final score of the 1911 world series, and yet these are all "Wiki-worthy" material. --Jquarry 21:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, why is she notable? By your reasoning, I should have an article because I wrote the exploding whale article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mcfly85 22:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she appears to have achieved some degree of fame and notoriety. Kappa 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'Move to Wikinews and delete. If anyone remembers this in a year from now it shall be kept then.--Nabla 00:05, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Merge to Cold feet. This is my reasoning: this woman is a good (and notable) example of this wedding term/act. We can have a small section in the main article about her and what she did to run away, but I do not think that she will last long on Wikipedia once time fades away. One week ago, I wanted smash my tv once I heard her name. But one year from now, few people will ever care about this woman, unless she does something stupid again. If she did not ran away, she would have not been known to us. Zscout370 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Bride. Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage. Klonimus 02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Along with every other bride who ran away I suppose? And this has nothing to do with lack of space, so don't use that one on me. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • True. Being a bride usually is not enough to justify a wikipedia article. However, this was a national story, it involves a hoax, and it may also involve a tacit racism on Wilbanks' part. Kingturtle 04:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Racist part? You mean when she blamed the kid-napping on Latinos? Zscout370 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, either in her delusions or in her effort to create a believeable story - she invented one of her captors as being Hispanic. It reminds me of Susan Smith. Kingturtle 04:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no one will remember her when the mass media finds another story. Sensation002 10:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia documents Mary Toft, Steve Brodie, Wilhelm Voigt, Princess Caraboo, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Spring Heeled Jack. We have all sorts of articles about different stories of bafoonery. They are good stories - and so is Wilbanks'. Kingturtle 15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would not be surprised if this article is put on VFD again once the furor dies out over time. Zscout370 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should try to purge such information. We still have the Douglas Corrigan article, and his 15 minutes came 30 years before Andy Warhol coined the phrase. JamesMLane 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly so. In response to Ta bu shi da yu above, I reiterate this issue is known to many people. Much other obscure minutiae is accepted as part of Wikipedia content, such as, say, exploding whales, so why not this as well? As for including an article about yourself, if you feel you are known well enough around the world, then go for it. --Jquarry 21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I might just add that all this commentary and opining has comsumed more time and disk space than the original article would ever have done. Perhaps we should just get rid of it and be done. If anyone cares in a year's time, then let them redo it. --Jquarry 21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jquarry: Perhaps we should set a wikipedia policy that when 85% of people vote to keep an article, then what we should do is actually delete that article. But you do raise a good point -- even though wikipedia disk space is unlimited, I have a finite time on this earth, and this time would be better spent editing important articles like media circus than pontificating on obscure fnords like wilbanks VFD. MPS 22:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No one's asking you to edit Jennifer Wilbanks. Kingturtle 22:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This VFD is another reason why I have to shake my head and go back into my self-imposed exile. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment made by an overly Wikistressed user with over 5690 edits [3] who recently left the project when contributing became no fun.
  • You make it sound like I put this up for VfD as a personal grudge against you! I have no idea who you are. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because she was on the news, and theres a photo and everything. Seriously this is why we need more Wikipedia:Article review and less VFD. -SV|t 00:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This item reminds me of a section from the People's Almanac, published long ago in the 1970s: "Some 9-Day Wonders -- on the Tenth Day". However (reviewing that section as I type), each item describes the reason for the notoriety, the media circus that followed, & where the person is now. This article lacks that kind of treatment, which would then make it a "Keep" in my eyes. -- llywrch 00:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mike H 02:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. teresateng 21:38, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This sort of trivial nonsense does not belong on Wikipedia. This story is a giant blob of nothing in a sea of nothingness. Hundreds of civilians are killed in the Middle East and Central Asia along with kidnappings of various people & etc and this nonsense story with no merit or value is what most American households are worried about. This soul-sucking culture-eating demon of anti-thought should be eradicated before it threatens to infect us all with an inane sense of seeking the milquetoast epitome of vicarious passionately confused maleficence and socially destructive fantasies of banality and violence born of boredom and neglect. --Xaliqen 23:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Naturally, I understand how the argument goes that because she received such massive media attention she should receive an article, and, though I do hold many reservations about that line of reasoning in this particular instance, I would tend to agree with the idea. However, the length of the current article seems far too long to be justifiable given the importance of the subject-matter. I feel that I must revise my previously expressed sentiments on the matter and suggest that, even though I personally despise pretty much everything surrounding this whole issue, it should have its own article so long as it is short. I don't see why a picture is necessary in the article. In any event, my personal sentiments are still that it should be deleted entirely, but, in the interests of the necessarily-principled foundations of Wikipedia, I will not contend with those who would seek to include it on the basis of a certain notoriety. Again, I would like to express how I feel that the relevancy and importance of the subject-matter is not nearly great enough to justify the current length and depth of the article. --Xaliqen 00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We don't dictate what's interesting. (I spoke too rashly before. I'm sorry.) --VKokielov 01:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a sub-heading in a media topic. Mass media was slow to pick up on the racial stereotyping, did they all take their clue from Poynter that week?
• Delete As a television free Canadian I don't get the relevance of this story and the article itself does nothing to clarify it. A woman ran away, she's got some issues. Hmm, sure glad I know that. As a few people mentioned this might have some value as part of a media circus article or somesuch but I hardly think it's weighty enough to merit a seperate heading of it's own. There's just nothing novel, interesting or memorable about this story. Does anyone seriously think that in 6 months (let alone 10 years) kids will be digging through Wikipedia for information on Jennifer Wilbanks for history reports? This is typical short term media frenzy crap. Of course maybe somebody can rewrite the article to illustrate the relevance and I'll change my mind. Gabe 07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI can't believe CNN gives so much time to every missing person, runaway watever and people murdered chosen at random from the ones who die each day. Even the international CNN does this, it's pointless, Wiki should not go down to the same level.

--138.253.235.119 15:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Tureaugh

not verifiable

• Delete - not verifiable. Samw 03:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 04:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiable? Highly unlikely, I'd say. Jamyskis 14:19, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Aye right! --Doc Glasgow 16:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity or not real. --metta, The Sunborn 17:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• if he puts an avacado into space with his nose i say we keep. until that day, Delete. Nateji77 02:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, and also because someone (guess who?) using 24.18.168.125 repeatedly deletes the votes on this item! RussBlau 18:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. poppycock. Tomer ^TALK 18:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Kingturtle 23:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haas Pavilion

Notability not established - gymcruft? Possible redirect to UC Berkeley. Joe D (t) 03:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if someone can expand on it a bit. Maybe a photo or origins? Jamyskis 14:20, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
  • User has 20 edits.
• Delete, not notable. Radiant_* 13:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep home courts of major-conference Division I basketball teams. It does need a lot of work though. ESkog 20:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as I added some info and links.
• Keep and expand. This is quite a large stadium and home arena of notable basketball team. Google search for "Haas Pavilion" gets 21,600 results. [4] Capitalistroadster 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and important. Kappa 01:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bouncing balls, and that places they bounce. Klonimus 02:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This needs lots of work, but the home court of a major-conference D-I basketball program absolutely deserves an article. Dale Arnett 04:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep - maybe someday it can be an article like Carrier Dome. Kingturtle 23:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vortex Technologies Ltd

Advertisement; only two edits are create and add a link to it. Stephen Compall 05:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, spam --the wub (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Jamyskis 14:21, 11 May 2005 (GMT)
• Delete - spamvertisers go to Wiki-Hell!!!. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete --metta, The Sunborn 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spartan madball

Non-notable made up college game. RickK 05:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article doesn't even say what the game is about. Is the object to hit other players with the madball? Is it to score goals? Does it look like Quidditch in any way? Sjakkalle 07:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with shoes, weapons and cars --the wub (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. College students with too much time on their hands make up a game. This happens all the time. Very, very few such games will ever become notable, and those tend to have some sort of coherent ruleset. This specific article - well, google suggests it exists, but isn't notable. Average Earthman 08:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax - game ends when players are sent to the hospital? -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:44, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. One of a set of three by a newbie, who doesn't even say which St. John's College. It sounds very much like the Sydney one, but maybe they're all a bit like that... Andrewa 18:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by SWAdair. --Golbez 20:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podcore

A website which doesn't even have an Alexa rank. — A.M. 05:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedily deleted. Spam. SWAdair | Talk 06:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment And I'm 99.44% sure it is re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reality weekend

A celebration after fundraising for a college. While both the Sophistry contest and Spartan madball sound like fun, they aren't exactly encyclopedia material. SWAdair | Talk 05:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment is this VfD for the Reality weekend only or also for Sophistry contest and Spartan madball? Vegaswikian 06:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If this one gets deleted, the other two should automatically go, as they are only small components of the topic of this article. I do see, however, that Spartan madball already has a VfD entry of its own (two entries up from this one). SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Also, the same author posted Spartan madball above, which is probably a hoax (and why isn't the Sophistry contest on vfd - it gets 6 google hits, none of which explains what it actually is.) -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • That's the cool thing about a sophistry contest: Participants get to argue about what it actually is. Barno 17:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of a set of three by a newbie, who doesn't even say which St. John's College. It sounds very much like the Sydney one, but maybe they're all a bit like that... Andrewa 18:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Brown

I believe this is an unnecessary Vanity Page. My name is Ben Brown, and I know 2 others. There are many Ben Browns. I have published things online. Other Ben Browns have published things online. Why does this Ben Brown need an encyclopedia entry? Bennethon 05:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, his tv show is actually an internet narrowcast. Not a big enough phenominon. --metta, The Sunborn 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surgery is Optional and Rico and the Prosthetics

to-be-released debut album. Neither band nor album is notable. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as bandity, but this is one of the cleanest and best wikified bandity articles I've ever seen. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete is not optional. Radiant_* 11:34, May 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. Golbez 20:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Adams

Vanity page allegedly created by Jason Adams. Not notable at this time, but may be in the future. --Viriditas | Talk 06:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, published but not notable. Gazpacho 07:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. Sjakkalle 07:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not create this page, someone else listed me as 'notable' which I discovered by searching myself on Google several weeks back, thus I described myself rather than leaving it blank. Ringfingers

No worries. I assume when you say that you "described" yourself, you turned a red link (like this one) into an article, which led to its creation. --Viriditas | Talk 07:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Right - I made an article about myself since I discovered I had been listed as a 'notable anarchist', which I could make something of a case for actually, especially compared to some of the others who are listed here - my article on nonwestern anarchisms was translated into Turkish and Russian and published all over the world, and I have been active and writing for over a decade in the anarchist community - so anyway are you saying I should not have done so? Ringfingers

Check out Wikipedia:Vanity page. --Viriditas | Talk 08:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've published several journal papers and have a LiveJournal blog too. Average Earthman 08:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay well I just find it rather ironic that someone else listed me and now I am being punished for adding to what to they did - if it had just been a red link and I had added nothing I guarantee this discussion would not be taking place. Ringfingers

I understand how you feel, but please don't take the deletion process personally. You are not being punished. You are encouraged to move the current page to your user space, if you so desire. --Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay go ahead, no hard feelings. In fact I will do it myself with no hesitation. But does this mean I lose the Red Link listing also, which I did not put up? Ringfingers

• Comment: I blanked it and moved the text to my user description. Let me know what you decide about the Red Link. Ringfingers
  • We'll probably get rid of it. Best wishes and keep contributing, Meelar (talk) 14:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Megan1967 10:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Now that Ringfingers has userfied it, delete from main article space. Welcome, R. Barno 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LeveL 27

Spam, notability not established --the wub (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This is a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted. (I knew it sounded familiar.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 10:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Condemn to Wiki-Hell! -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:55, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. --129.180.1.124 00:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete (first choice), or redirect to Level 42. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send to File 13. Tomer ^TALK 18:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hunt down author(s) and send back to grammar school. Tomer ^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 Apparently speedied. Golbez 20:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ESA THASIN RASOOL

Looks like another vanity page. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, wish it could be speedied. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:ESA, seems like a user page miscreated in main namespace. andy 08:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 10:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 13:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delte - vanity - DavidWBrooks 18:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On-Air-Dare

A bit reluctant to add featured articles to VfD, but I cannot see how this commercial is notable. And for that matter, nor can I see how this article got featured. Sjakkalle 08:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't a featured article - Looking at history, User:Ugen64 just seems to have dropped the text from the Featured Article template into the top of the page. No idea why. Delete.

Unsigned vote by User:TSP Sjakkalle 09:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. TSP 10:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• That is bizarre. Delete--from what I can tell in the article, this was just a commercial. Meelar (talk) 14:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)`
• Delete, topic was just a commercial, no potential to become encyclopedic. Misuse of featured-article template contents. Barno 18:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have heard of this, and I have seen it, but I still do not think it should be on Wikipedia, since many folks who do not watch Nickolodeon know what this is. Plus, I think this will be short lived, like many other things this company has done. Zscout370 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teresa Paoli

Being one of a few thousand minted Fulbright scholars every year doesn't arise to our notability standards.

Lotsofissues 09:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 14:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete vanity pages. ESkog 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete, since she's done enough to earn a place in the IMDb, although one film doesn't make a career. Jamyskis 06:55, 12 May 2005 (GMT)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - stubbed and kept - SimonP 02:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bennett

The article is simply an unverifiable personal attack against the man.

Alereon 09:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Starchaser page, or make this page an objective biography. Darksun 11:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Amend to make an objective biography seems more useful User:DavidFarmbrough 13:48 (BST) 11 May 2005
• Amend. This is a reasonably important guy. We're getting way too many VfDs about content quality. The VfD process is about whether a subject deserves wikipedia space, not issues of fact or objectivity. If you don't like the factual quality of an article, you can rewrite it, stubify it, or just just slap a Dispute or Maintenance template on it. ---Isaac R 18:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal attack page with no encyclopedic content except his Starchaser role. Recreate as just a redirect to Starchaser, unless verifiable information about the individual (apart from the company) can be gathered for a proper bio and can show notability. Not all of the thousands of companies, projects, etc. notable enough for WP articles confer such notability on their founders or bosses. Bill Gates, yes; Steve Bennett, not unless much more can be shown. Barno 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate the Steve Bennett linked to from CPU cache#Trace cache if anything stays. Samaritan 19:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Court of Honor

A detail of the process for receiving the Eagle Scout rank, although this is about the Phillipines version. I would just merge and redirect, but I thought there might be other courts of honor. Gazpacho 11:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Expand and (weak keep). Yes, there are other courts of honour; they seem mostly to do with duelling. Info about the Scouting version, and the Filipino Scouting version, belongs in whatever article is ultimately written. The data now here is not bad AFAIK, only incomplete. Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made some basic additions to the article. The Scouting part is still woefully incomplete. Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as edited. However, the article should be at "Court of honor" instead. -- Jonel 18:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Court of honor (scouting) and clean up. I can provide exmaples of the court of honors, and plus, I have been in several myself. Zscout370 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overview of MIDP1

Moved to Wikibooks via the transwiki system. Needs to be deleted. --Randy 11:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 02:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overgrow

Delete. I Poké-stubified a couple of these, but noticed there's already an article named Pokémon Abilities where these are listed. –Jonnabuz (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Meelar (talk) 09:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently got unlisted from VfD, so I'm relisting it today. My vote is merge. Radiant_* 11:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pokémon Abilities, per WP:FICT. Minor Pokécruft of no significance outside the milieu and not much significance within it. I'm not sure the redirect would be appropriate, but I expect the Pokéfanatics will insist that this general-purpose encyclopedia's readers need to be able to find this meaning of this word in a search. Barno 18:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I object to the implication that wikipedia should not aspire to specialist-level coverage of mineralogy. Kappa 23:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: a truly general-purpose encyclopaedia has extensive coverage of Pokemon. Klonimus 02:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and any others found as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 22:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pokémon Abilities as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Leach

Sam Leach wasn't the first manager of the Beatles, that was Allan Williams. He didn't coin the term Mersey Beat; that was probably Bill Harry. John Lennon never mentioned him AFAIK. He might now manage Vince Ruello, and run a web site selling prints of an autographed Beatles item, but that isn't reason enough for him to be included in Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Last Memento of The Beatles. I suggest this should be deleted. User:DavidFarmbrough 13:31 (BST) 11 May 2005

• Delete -- See my reasons at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Last Memento of The Beatles. Rewriting history is not on either. -- Longhair | Talk 13:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, insufficient evidence of notability. If the subject were significant and only some editing details were wrong, editors would have established the facts in the VfD cited above. Barno 18:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifiction

This is obviously not an encyclopedia entry-- not to say that it isn't a really cool idea, but it doesn't belong here Saswann 13:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Radiant_* 13:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I DNK if this is advertising, but it is all in terms of what will happen and I gather that this is not the place for crystal balls --Simon Cursitor 14:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I left a note on the talk page suggesting that the author join Wikipedia and userfy this proposal. Sounds like fun, but probably a recipe for disaster - considering the trouble we have with vandals of fact, how would you deal with a vandal of fiction? -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete - People (even those who take part in projects such as this) are very proprietorial about fiction, so this will be prone to reverts and attacks - but principally this is not in the right place --User:DavidFarmbrough 17:25, 11 May 2005 (BST)
• Delete. Maybe the new article form should say, "If you have to invent a word for what you're writing about, it probably isn't encyclopedic." ---Isaac R 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the text is already at Wikipedia:Wikidea, which might be another VfD candidate. But this speculation certainly doesn't belong in the article namespace! I'll refer the creator to Wikicities; Most of what they propose is already in place there. Andrewa 18:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikiprojects. This is most evidently in the wrong place. While it is not an encyclopedic entry, as stated above, it sounds like a good idea. This is more deserving as a project instead of an encyclopedic article. --129.180.1.124 00:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please sign your votes, user 129.180.1.124, otherwise they may not be counted. Redirects from the article namespace to others are very much the exception, the few we have are historical, and I could not support this one. Also, you need to say where the redirect should point to for a redirect vote to be meaningful. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Andrewa. My mind wasn't in the right place. While the redirect...well, as I said, it should probably be a Wikiproject (in with the project pages) than in with the articles. If anyone has any arguments against that, feel free to say so. --129.180.1.124 00:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for correcting your vote above. There's a lot going on! I suspect you may be confusing Wikipedia sister projects with wikiprojects, the term wikiproject or WikiProject has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. The project namespace is not a suitable place for this, as it's about a project that goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Once such a project was established, it might qualify for a Wikipedia article. But in the planning stage it doesn't. See what Wikipedia is not. See also redirect. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona Academic Hammock Society

"A student run orginization, started at The University of Arizona in 2004, The Arizona Academic Hammock Society promotes the use of hammocks in educational settings to enhance the academic process."--nixie 13:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

page is unbiased and encyclopedic This article is encyclopedic regarding the groundbreaking nature of this orginization. It provides a resource for other institutions and idividuals to use in identifying what this 'Academic Hammock Society' is and learning about it's history and the history surrounding the movment. Though it is too terse at this point in time.

• the above edit is by 68.228.37.166, who has fewer than 10 total edits. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:20, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • That is certainly not a good advertisement for the academic standards of the U of A. RickK 16:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• How could an article that clearly advocates a position and that is written in the first person possibly be encyclopedic? Delete this non-notable student club. android↔talk 14:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Hm, apparently the members spend so much time in hammocks that they never learn how to properly spell 'unbiased' or 'encyclopedic' :) Delete. Radiant_* 14:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Although the tone of what is currently written may not be encyclopedic yet, with revision it can be made more so. As for the validity of the orginization having a listing with in an encyclopedia, I believe it has it. The club is a legitimate legal entity, has a large membership and has recieved significant local press (in the Tucson Citizen). With revision, I vote keep. nathanpbell 17:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User has about a dozen edits, and should consider reading WP:VAIN.
    • My vote is mostly based on the legitimacy of the title and subject matter. I do agree that the content needs some major revision to more accurately (and unbiasedly) reflect the nature and importance of the organization. But the comments so far have talked more about the legitimacy of the organization as an academic entity and less about the content actually inside. As I said before the organization is a legal entity with real membership that has recieved significant press and warrants an article if someone is willing to write it. My vote remains. nathanpbell 17:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • What does it mean for a University club to be a "legal entity," and what significant press coverage are you referring to? I've been able to find one article in the Tucson Citizen's "Living" section, which I would hardly call significant. Please do have a look at WP:VAIN, as I notice you're quoted in the article. android↔talk 18:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:VAIN, real but not encyclopedically significant campus group. There are dozens of such groups at virtually every college and university in the English-speaking world, or tens of thousands of groups in total. WP precedent has been that such a group gets an article only if substantial notability (beyond campus) is demonstrated. There's no indication that the AAHS (one hammock!) has garnered as much attention even locally as other groups on that campus. Apparently the members spend so much time in hammocks (or sharing the group's one) that they never learn how to properly define 'encyclopedic'. Barno 18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• For How much y'all abide by the rules, how about reading your own WP:VAIN section. I'll quote it for you. "The user who created the page is probably a new user. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to the newbie. During deletion debates for vanity pages, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the page/author (often presumed to be the same person) and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the page's creator from future contributions. Remember to assume good faith." In light of my new understanding of Wikipedia I anticipate allowing a third perspective the opportunity to write about this movement and to resubmit it in the near future as the movement becomes more notable for you're liking. I hope to see y'all back on my second go around so that you may again give me some 'helpful' criticism. Sarcastically, I submit. - Author
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I begin to doubt the unbiased and encyclopedic aspects. I'd say this was set up as an attempt to gain more members within the campus. While I will suggest deletion, I would also make a suggestion to the founder (and also the writer, if they are separate people) to try another method of advertising, one that doesn't broadcast the Society to the entire world, since it has little reference outside of Arizona. --129.180.1.124 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 03:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pieter Claesen Wyckoff

Not encyclopedic. - jredmond 14:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not clear to me whether this is a genealogy article, or a hoax-attempt to connect famous people. Vote: delete unless verified. --Simon Cursitor 14:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC) --Simon Cursitor 06:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's a real person. Wyckoff himself might be a questionable topic, but his house probably is encyclopedic as the oldest known house in New York.[5]. The article, however, is apparently a copyvio.[6] --iMb~Meow 15:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The house is mentioned at Flatlands, Brooklyn, and I have no problems leaving it there. Good eye on that possible copyvio! - jredmond 15:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Um, he's an ancestor of mine.  :) I'd have to vote a prejudiced keep if it weren't a copyvio.  :) And all of the famous descendants are true. Martin Van Buren is in there, too. RickK 16:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• He wasn't exactly Napoleon, but Pieter Claesen Wyckoff was a figure of some importance in the early history of Brooklyn. I think he probably does merit a non-copyvio article, if one is ever written.--Pharos 07:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doing Our Nation's Service PAC

This is a political action committee that doled out only $156,000 during the 2004 U.S. election cycle (compare to Tom DeLay's ARMPAC, which distributed $3.5 million). The name gets about 260 google hits. Created by User:66.20.28.21, who has been nursing a grudge against Phil Gingrey for over a year now (see this edit, for instance). In short, non-notable--they're just another PAC, and Washington has tens of thousands of them. Meelar (talk) 14:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Meelor is claiming, in effect, the ability to read minds. She possesses the godlike ability to devine the motivations of other contributors. That is quite a trick!

More importantly, this PAC is one of many such groups that should have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. Afterall Wikipedia is not a reflection of what she might want to talk about but about what anyone who uses Wikipedia might want information about. This is not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia. If we deleted everything on Wikipedia that Meelor thought not worth her time considering we would have a very small body of information. 66.20

• These flattering remarks by User:66.20.28.21, who does in fact have over a hundred edits.
  • Also, it's he, not she ;) Meelar (talk) 14:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Compared to the sheer amount of money spent on US elections, $150k is pocket change. This PAC is one of meny such groups that should not have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper. Delete as NN. Radiant_* 14:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems un-notable in the scheme of things. Rich Farmbrough 14:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not opensecrets.org, nor should it aspire to be. android↔talk 16:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Meelar has made a good case, which has not been answered. Andrewa 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Meelar, unless evidence of much more notability is shown. There were hundred of PACs active in the last election cycle. By either media attention or amount donated, this one is among the least significant, and had no known effect. Barno 18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I doubt that there are "tens of thousands" of PACs -- Barno's estimate seems more credible -- but, either way, there are enough that we'll probably never have a complete list. Nevertheless, it's a noteworthy topic, and any coverage we can get is a plus. Knowing a PAC's size (budget) and roster of supported candidates is worthwhile. JamesMLane 19:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This chart from the FEC shows about 4000, but it's only good up until 1998. Tens of thousands may have been an overestimate. Meelar (talk) 20:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It seems reasonable that such PACs come up in the news and people may come here as part of their search for information. Would like to see more about the comparative notability with other more well-known PACs (or does someone need to come up with a political BEEFSTEW meter?) ESkog 20:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting thought--I'll take a look at doing just that. Will announce on VP when ready. Meelar (talk) 21:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't oppose that either, and it would probably be rather interesting as a project. android↔talk 21:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Problem: Suppose a reader sees a news reference to a particular PAC and wants to know more about it. This particular reader, used to consulting Wikipedia (and we want readers like that, right?), comes here and finds no article. Is that because the PAC failed the BEEFSTEWish test? or because no one's written an article? I think that, if the PAC is small, that's still information worth conveying. Furthermore, even fairly small donations have occasionally been the basis for notable political scandals, when a candidate is accused of receiving money from someone disreputable. Therefore, information about a PAC is worthwhile even if it's a small PAC. JamesMLane 22:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Hopefully, said user would be savvy enough to head on over to opensecrets.org to learn about said PAC. If not, said user would hopefully end up at Political action committee, where opensecrets is linked (though not nearly prominently enough, and not by name, either!) android↔talk 22:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • If it were up to me, I would keep all articles on PACs which have received even a small amount of coverage in the media. Most of them never attain this level. See User:Meelar/Test of Political Significance for my personal criteria. Meelar (talk) 23:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Meelar is right. This is just another PAC. There are millions around the world, nearly all of whom haven't an entry in this encyclopedia. What I would like to ask is how this specific one is exceptional; this was not proven in the article.
• Keep and expand, since people may be researching, say, party funding in the last US election and the effect of the Christian Right on politics. While this is a relatively minor PAC, it still could be useful. The use of the word "controversial" strikes me as biased, although looking at the views of the three politicians in question, I can understand how they would cause controversy.

Jamyskis 07:02, 11 May 2005 (GMT)

• Delete, not notable PAC. Megan1967 06:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sophistry contest

For a longstanding college tradition, this does not get much support - rather it gets 6 google hits, none of which explains what it actually is. Delete. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:52, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

• Comment: related to Spartan madball and Reality weekend, also on VfD. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of a set of three by a newbie, who doesn't even say which St. John's College. It sounds very like the Sydney one, but maybe they're all a bit like that... Andrewa 18:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with St. John's College. I often think wikipedia decends into a Sophistry contest/ Klonimus 02:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 06:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN and/or WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion on June 16. silsor 19:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ameriphobia

Neologism. Only 166 Google hits. Firebug 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep What is the minimum Google hits for a term? This seems like a politically motivated deletion. We have a page on Islamophobia. So why the double standard? This would be like allowing a Pro-Choice page in the abortion debate, but deleting a Pro-Life page if google didn't show enough hits.
• Delete as essentially a duplication of information that should be on Anti-American sentiment/Anti-Americanism So at best, I'd redirect there 66.94.94.154 15:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I noticed on the Islamofascism debate that there's a tendency to treat etymologically similar terms as being similar in importance/notability. This is a flaw in logic. Bias and notability need to be addressed within a given article, not by pointing to other articles. (Note: I'm not assuming Islamophobia is a notable article in its own right, I'm just saying that its existence has no bearing on this article.) 66.94.94.154 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The only standard is that neologisms are not permitted. Islamophobia gets over 100,000 hits, and thus clearly has some currency. By contrast Google gives no evidence that Ameriphobia is in common usage. - SimonP 15:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure it's a pretty common term, no matter how many Google hits it gets. But it's also a very POV term. The article attempts to document a irrational hatred of Americans based on "the belief that all or most Americans are stupid, fat, bad, racist, or generally inferior" and labels it with a special term "Ameriphobia". This explanation for anti-American prejudice has some merit, but it's already discussed in existing articles. Creating a separate article for this idea and giving it a talk-show-style name has no purpose but to further somebody's political agenda. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ---Isaac R 17:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your comment. If it's a common term, why shouldn't Wikipedia document it, even though its usage is POV? If it's common, how is documenting it using Wikipedia as a soapbox? (Actually, though, it's not common. So redirect to Anti-Americanism, which it doesn't seem to be any different in usage from.) Nickptar 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly the word deserves documentation. But that doesn't mean giving the word its own article. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't have articles for every single widely-used word. ---Isaac R 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. IMO it's bizarre to expect Wikipedia to have any meaningful content on subjects such as this one anyway. NPOV is unobtainable even if we could define it for this subject area, and I don't think we can even do that. So my feeling is, no big deal either way. Andrewa 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 18:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a POV rant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE Stancel 21:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 22:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Cookie Wendsday

Non-notable local middle school event. Also, "Wednesday" is misspelled in the title. Firebug 14:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this can go right to speedy.. which.. I thought I had marked it for a minute ago, but it doesn't seem to remember it... --Goldom 14:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You marked Big Cookie Wednesday (the correctly spelled title) for deletion. It looks like the user created an incorrectly spelled article and then went and created a correctly spelled one. Firebug 15:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence it's encyclopedic. However, under current policy, I can't see the slightest justification for speedying either of them. Interested in other views. Please note, I'm not talking about what the policy should say. There are other forums for that. I'm talking about what it does say. Andrewa 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

delete -Cookiemobsta

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Believe me, I really wish I could vote keep. I do. —RaD Man (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's cute though sadly not what Wikipedia is for. Cedars 09:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Wilson

Looks like a vanity page. Orange Goblin 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Gillian Tipson 15:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — There are a few semi-notable people by this name, including a professional hockey player, but I don't think this individual is one of them. — RJH 15:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some bloke having a laugh about his mate I'm sure. This is also my name. My rectum has as yet never been penetrated by Dr Pepper. By all reports I am also not famous.

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete. please. Sensation002 02:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party

• obvious hoax / original research AlexTiefling 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete - is fictitious --Sgkay 15:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• ...WP:POINT about the Draft Beer Party VfD? Delete this. Samaritan 18:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Keep Capitalistroadster's the rewrite. Samaritan 03:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• This article is nonsense but there was a real Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party that stood candidates in the first Australian Capital Territory elections in 1989. Its preferences went to elect Residents Rally candidates to the Assembly. As a result of the lax party registration laws that allowed this party and other similar parties to stand candidates, the electoral legislation in the ACT was changed to provide that parties must have 100 members and a constitution before they could register. I would vote delete for this article but would keep an article about the real Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party. I will have a go at writing it myself. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Revised version. I was going to rewrite it myself but someone got in ahead of me. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if article re-written as per comments by Capitalistroadster --AYArktos 01:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the re-written version. --bainer 02:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalistroadster is correct - just one of a myriad of frivolous political parties. I believe their platform was to ban gas-ripened tomatoes in particular.--Cyberjunkie 07:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• A most definite keep. —RaD Man (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to list of frivolous political parties. Sceptical about having separate articles for each of these, especially if there's as little to say about them as the SRWTP (the second sentence isn't even particular to it). By all means branch one out if there's a lot to write about it, but that doesn't seem the case here. JRM · Talk 22:00, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd heard of it before. Ambi 02:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As the original proposer, I'd like to back the new, edited version. AlexTiefling 19:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the material, or at least Merge and redirect to list of frivolous political parties as suggested by JRM. This was a real political party, created like some other nonsense parties, as a reaction to self-government being forced on the Australian Capital Territory -- despite two referendums at which the ACT electorate declined to buckle under and agree with the then Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke. The Australian Government still retains a Minister for Territories (actually Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads), and the local public service still exists, too. People figured that not much would change, and it's a debatable point. This party and the Party! Party! Party! Party made the first ACT Legislative Assembly election into a national joke, and us locals still regularly use the inside joke of the name of this party. Peter Ellis 01:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US-Cuba Democracy PAC

This PAC only contributed $246,000 during the 2004 U.S. election cycle. Again, most PACs aren't notable enough for inclusion--there are thousands of them. Moreover, they only function as money channels--they're often not really independent organizations. Delete. Meelar (talk) 16:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not opensecrets.org, nor should it aspire to be. android↔talk 16:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Save. This PAC is indeed one of many. That doesn't make them unimportant. Note that Open Secrets has chosen to include information about it, something that it has not done for thousands of other. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia. If anything it can have more information than Open Secrets. Some of the anxiety expressed here is that this article ventures in tabu territory by talking about ethnic lobbies in American politics. If we can't have an article about an interest group with a half million dollars in contributions, then why do we have an article about a nobody political appointee like Andrew Manatos? Meelar you should propose to delete that article if you want to be consistent.
  • My position is consistent. Real people who served as high-ranking officials are notable; groups that have no function but to funnel money are not. Of course, you're free to nominate any article you wish for deletion, but you have no right to force me to do so. Meelar (talk) 16:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Ethnic lobbies in American politics sounds like a title for an interesting article. No one here has used the allegedly "taboo" status of such a topic as reason for deletion, and if they did, they would be roundly criticized for doing so, I would hope. android↔talk 16:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, opensecrets.org chooses to include information about every PAC that has reported making contributions in the current or two previous election cycles (i.e. 4 to 6 years). [7] I see no evidence that Open Secrets is particularly selective in that regard. I would need more evidence to establish notability before supporting this article. --Metropolitan90 17:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. $250k is a rather small amount of money considering the billions spent on US elections. Radiant_* 17:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, for same reasons as the Doing_Our_Nation%27s_Service_PAC VfD above. Barno 19:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as in Doing Our Nation's Service PAC above. Perhaps we could come up with a way to merge these PACs into larger categories? ESkog 20:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See Doing Our Nation's Service PAC. --129.180.1.124 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote cast by anon user with ~25 edits. Meelar (talk) 23:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Non-notable PAC vanity ;-) Stancel 01:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are literally thousands of PACs, and, as above editors have mentioned, they're not really entities in their own right. I'd say that this one isn't notable or encyclopedic. A Man In Black 01:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep I don't think it conflicts with anything and is of marginal influence... why not allow PACs to have some reference, they are pretty integral to the political system. gren 06:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable PAC. Megan1967 06:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A minor PAC, in a country stuffed with them. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mack 10

genuine artist - but this biography seems bogus unless there are two of them - cf. [8]----Doc Glasgow 18:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• well if no-one else has a view, I vote delete--Doc Glasgow 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, complete nonsense. Please try again. —RaD Man (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 03:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sexual Life of Catherine M.

Wikipedia is not a book review. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• marked as copyvio --Doc Glasgow 17:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• The book was highly notable and widely discussed; keep a hypothetical non-copyvioed article about it. Samaritan 18:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, but what should we do about the article that is there? --Carnildo 21:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The copyvio tag will get it deleted. Kappa 23:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expande. Notable book. Lots of sex scenes and bukkake. Klonimus 02:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite to remove copyvio, even as a stub. Major book release. 23skidoo 04:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 12:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. --Gmaxwell 19:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Krebbers

Wikipedia is not an obituary column. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• • That is why I love this article, it tells the truth! 150.104.12.107 (article creator) inserted this text
• it helps if the obituaruies aren't crap see [9] and delete--Doc Glasgow 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, crap. Feydey 17:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

delete -Cookiemobsta *BJAODN. RickK 19:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• strong bjaodn. hilarious. Brighterorange 21:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', total nonsense, badly written Rogertudor 21:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it's accurate, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 22:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or BJAODN. Gotta love Wikipedia. A Man In Black 01:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense.. probably not funny enough for bjaodn though. Megan1967 06:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • nb the creator probably is aiming for a BJAODN - (s)he put a 'look at me' on its page [10] --Doc Glasgow 18:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In view of that, I change my vote to a straight delete. RickK 18:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not pass BJAODN. It uses the word "famousest". JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Above vote stricken as it contains no valid reasons for deletion. Vote changed to Delete, unverifiable. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• On second thought, I really do want it deleted for using "famousest". I'm willing to write a new policy proposal. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning

Just a restatement of ideas already discussed in Cosmological argument, apparently by somebody with a Creationist agenda. ---Isaac R 17:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete agreed,unnecessary and POV --Doc Glasgow 17:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk —Wahoofive (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : NPOV + "it is assumed" - false premise, false conclusion, non-factual --Simon Cursitor 06:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guru (sociology)

POV fork created today of guru to get rid of critical material. There is no concept of guru in sociology. Most founders of NRMs are Hindu gurus. Some Western founders of NRMs like Adi Da and Andrew Cohen are or were disciples of Hindu gurus. See also Talk:Guru#Guru_in_Hinduism_and_Buddhism_cannot_be_separted_from_guru_.28sociology.29. .Besides the title is wrong: only four of the nine scholars and scientists that are cited are sociogists. Merge with guru Andries 17:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sociological analysis of gurus—especially some of the more obscure information that you have contributed—is only tangentially related to the doctrine of the guru in Eastern religion. --goethean 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

wrong, they analyze the guru in Eastern religion, Eastern and Western society. Your argument is the same as saying that the sociological view of religion cannot treat at that article. Andries 17:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow. A religious doctrine is not the same type of thing as religion in general. --goethean

• Agree with deletion. Article is ill-named and consists primarily of argumentative material, the author of which is the one requesting its deletion. Mkweise 18:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Guru of all types use personal influence and have some power on other people or groups. Thus the whole guru phenomenom could be related to sociology, or better, social psychology. There is no need to have a specific article where some gurus (the western flavour) would be related to sociology while others (the eastern flavour) would not be. To split the guru article in two article makes an artificial distinction. Merge with guru 11 May 2005 user:Pgreenfinch
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bruin

Vanity; non-notable high school newspaper. Stephen Compall 17:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete, even though I'm trying to overcome my deletionism. --Theaterfreak64 05:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Disagreed. Do Not Delete, Nationally known, the Bruin is one of the top high school newspapers and sets the standard for secondary education journalism. 09:20 12 May 2005
  • The above should be signed 204.203.50.129. Stephen Compall 05:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justine bowser

Not notable person. Alex.tan 17:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not one relevant web hit and no IMDB entry or inbound link for this alleged actor, allegedly afflicted with an unnamed disease. Delete. Samaritan 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine McIntosh

vanity --Alan Au 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, no indication of encyclopedic notability. Barno 19:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• story seems to check out - but like 'who cares?' delete (forgot my sig --Doc Glasgow 19:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC))
• Delete -- unless notability is established. - Longhair | Talk 21:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie 07:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, a not particularly notable relative of three notable Australians. I'm abstaining, but pointing out that there are many articles in Wikipedia about people who are non-notable relatives (*cough* Kevin Federline *cough*). --bainer 00:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 02:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 13:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic revolution

Not notable. No potential. Physchim62 18:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• VfD fixed. Weak keep (or merge), seems notable topic. Radiant_* 19:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No potential? It sure looks like it's got potential. Stancel 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too vague a topic to be useful. Does it mean Ars nova or Counterculture? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asteriscus

Dictionary definition, already transwikied. Physchim62 18:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fish anatomy or something. Radiant_* 19:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete altogether. Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note:Above vote is by an imposter, not the real Dante Alighieri.
    • A renaissance sock puppet! ---Isaac R 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, anatomical features are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Could be expanded to discuss function, morphology, evolution, and diversity. Kappa 00:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Megan1967 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per Kappa. --Nabla 15:45, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I am sure more could be said about this anatomical feature of a fish. It also appears to be a form of daisy according to Google. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airy fairy

Dictionary definition, already transwikied. Physchim62 18:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Radiant_* 19:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lilian tradition

This stuff appears to be totally bogus. Gets pretty much no google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. Therefore, it's not notab--no, wait, instead of "not notable", I meant to say "original research".

Anyway, one of the top hits is about a Lilian tradition of fashion, so even if we keep this thing, we'd have to move it and make a disambiguation page. Let's just delete it instead. - Nat Krause 18:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Mcfly85 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Iff (if and only if) more information can be found on the Lilian tradition. --129.180.1.124 00:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
•  ?Delete unless verified ? --Simon Cursitor 06:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Radiant_* 08:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:27, May 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. Golbez 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panda~man

Non-notable. I have been looking on the net for the past day or so for any information on this character or not, and the closest I can find is a character of a similar name, from an entirely different creator (Pandaman, from the anime One Piece). The Official Panda~man site (the information is found on) doesn't seem to have been touched lately, and only has 300-odd hits on the counter. Lastly, Tripod (the hosting service for the website) indicates that the site may have been abandoned shortly after creation. Unless someone can find any more information on this, I strongly vote for Delete; how this page has survived for so long is beyond me.--Mitsukai 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• If it is relevant, I can find the site and it appears live. --Simon Cursitor 06:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• The problem is, the "Official Site" is a subsite on a Tripod account (see link one above). The main portion of this account is listed with the standard Tripod blurb for abandoned accounts (see link two above). Granted, there's no dates or time indicators on the pages, but an active site would have a lot more information and updated data. Furthermore, if this comic is critical to the creator's business/fame/welfare/etc., I would think that it would rate a lot higher than a subsection on a free ISP; not to knock Tripod or the kind, but in a day and age when most substandard webcomics have their own domains and URLs, something that reputedly saw publication at one time should not only have a mention somewhere else on the web as well, but should have its own domain and URL, IMHO.--Mitsukai 12:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Mcfly85 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autorooter

Dictionary definition, already transwikied. Physchim62 18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beehive shelf

Dictionary definition, already transwikied. Not notable. Physchim62 18:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, laboratory equipment is encyclopedic. Could be expanded to include history, method of use, construction, typical dimensions etc. Kappa 20:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Probably true, but that would be most useful if merged to lab equipment. Radiant_* 22:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to lab equipment or equivalent article. --Carnildo 22:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Potential for encyclopedic article as per Kappa's suggestion. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A stub with potential, hopefully someone will expand it. And also laboratory equipment, by the way. There are a lot of these in Category:Laboratory equipment. --Nabla 00:23, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Keep gas collector. Klonimus 02:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Megan1967 06:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonichq

Alexa: 163,524 along with other little things that makes the article what it is. Feydey 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete - better to just have one sentence about it on sonic hedgehog page, with external link. --Sgkay 19:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 22:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 06:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi and sith ranks

Much of the information presented here is apparently fan material courtesy of supershadow.com not to mention that all avaliable information on jedi and sith ranks are already covered in the respective articles on Jedi and Sith. I for one would think this article should be deleted. Timon 18:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - information here is more detailed than that on jedi/sith pages. eg shows more jedi ranks. Or perhaps updated Jedi/Sith pages with full rank listing? --Sgkay 19:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The information listed in the said article is also entirely false having being extracted from a source known for its lack of truthfulness. Timon 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete SuperShadow has a long, LONG history of bullcrap. Misleading false info. --InShaneee 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 22:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, maybe complete fabrication. --Carnildo 22:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stancel 01:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. This is entirely fake, but come on. Sith ranked "Whatazor"? Classic. A Man In Black 01:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, agreed classic. Megan1967 06:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no objection to BJAODN but I don't find this particularly funny. — Phil Welch 22:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington, DC Sesna scare

Non-notable news event, extremely badly misspelled, badly formatted, maybe two lines worth of Wikinews space. RickK 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the Ernie Fletcher incident was notable, this one was not. -- Jonel 19:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Maybe if something comes of it down the line, but as it stands, not right now. Hell, I'm in Arlington right now, a few miles away from the incident and I didn't even know it happened. ^_^;;; --Mitsukai 19:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Canderson7 20:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Recent but not notable. ESkog 20:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• The incident could have encyclopedic relevance to an article about the air defence of Washington, D.C., of the United States or of North America, or general aviation security surprises generally (remember the private pilot in Red Square in the 80s? the office tower in Florida not long after 9/11?), but there's nothing much here. Samaritan 03:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I vote delete at the moment since this was clearly a false alarm, I agree that some sort of article cataloguing similar post-9/11 events over Washington would be of interest. 23skidoo 04:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A carzy goy on a sellfone drivin in frunt of my mums lassed fridy hit a dear on teh hiway. That's not notable either. Tomer ^TALK 19:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think every little thing that causes a "scare" like this is newsworthy. Every few weeks they have security "scares" at MSP int'l airport, and so flights get re-routed to my town. This all started as a result of the calamity on 9/11/(01), but I hardly think mention of such things is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article (or certainly not, as in this case, to have its own horribly misspelled article). Tomer ^TALK 19:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Dillon

Looks like self-promotion, no links for that actor in the internets exept this: [11], hmm. The link in from Burbank, Los Angeles County, California is made by the same user (if Vfd successful then delete it too) Feydey 19:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

delete - pure vanity. --Sgkay 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. He is a very busy guy who has thus far accomplished nothing notable. --Stan4.246.117.48 21:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...he's apparently been "studing acting" for so long and with so little success that he forgot to "stude" spelling. Tomer ^TALK 19:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 05:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Warner

A walk-on athlete with good grades in high school. Most likely a vanity page. I vote to delete. — RJH 19:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Keep rowing, buddy. Maybe someday your little boat will hit something notable in the water. Stan 4.246.117.48 21:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable - Longhair | Talk 22:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rowing for a university team doesn't automatically make you notable. I wouldn't even automatically make an article for a rower in the Oxford-Cambridge boat race, those that have articles tend have also rowed for their countries. Average Earthman 07:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A walk-on athlete 9 years ago, Captain Steve apparently has accomplished nothing since. Tomer ^TALK 19:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was apparently speedily deleted. Golbez 04:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of lines

er... is this an encyclopaedic topic? Joe D (t) 19:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• No way! Delete and draw a line in the sand! --Doc Glasgow 19:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please. Also, created as List_of_state_lines. Do we have to VfD each one? --Tabor 19:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SOAK

I can't even tell what this is meant to be. --Tabor 19:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A company. --Freedom2005 19:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There isn't even enough information in the article to identify the company in question. The entire text of the article is "It is a company to relax and to drink tea and other bevorages." D&B databases of 1.3 million North American companies and 1.6 million international companies do not show it. It is non-verifiable, and certainly non-notable, if it does indeed exist. --Tabor 20:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no content nor reference to understand the single sentence. - Tεxτurε 20:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content. --Canderson7 20:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't find anything on Google or Yahoo! search that would seem to relate to this alleged company - it would be nice to have some evidence that it actually exists. --Dcfleck 20:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably one of those pearl tea bars that are all the rage. I'm partial to the stuff myself, but Wikipedia isn't an ad board. ---Isaac R 21:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any article that is so incoherent that nobody can understand it, and is about a company so obscure that nobody can find out anything on the internet is clearly not sufficiently influential or well-known to warrant an article. Average Earthman 07:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Conway

A strange one, this - I found it via the random page link. As far as I can tell no-one called David Conway has anything to do with John Conway's game of life. The page was anonymously created on April 1, has not been edited since, and has no links to it. However, there may well be useful material in this article, so I recommend merge what material is useful into John Conway and Conway's Game of Life and then delete. Qwghlm 20:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• So merge the material (use a template if you don't want to do it yourself) than ask for a speedy delete. No need for a VfD. ---Isaac R 22:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I agree. This article's more about the game, not the guy who created it. --129.180.1.124 00:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with John Conway. Megan1967 06:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move the material about John Conway to the article about John Conway, and start a new article about the actual David Conway 13 May

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 12:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshido

This page was previously listed on VfD. The prior consensus reached was Redirect without Merge to McDojo. The old discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido/Archive1. Since the original discussion, the article has been significantly rewritten and now bears little if any resemblance to the version existing when previously listed. (For convenience, here is User:Taxman's edit previously nominating the page: [12]) However, User:Fire Star has made the point that any admin would be within their rights to execute the previous consensus decision. Therefore, I am renominating this article for reconsideration by the community. My personal vote is Keep --MikeJ9919 20:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• redirect again. The article is still an advertisement, and it still just reiterates material found elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to McDojo. Megan1967 06:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Could this be NPOV'd, or otherwsie re-edited, in which case it may warrant a keep as a "more than a definition" --Simon Cursitor 06:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with McDojo - and MikeJ, please note that merging or unmerging an article does not require any kind of vote, as long as it's done in good faith. Radiant_* 17:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that, Radiant. However, I think a merge of the article after the previous consensus was to redirect without merge would be inappropriate and actually blatantly bad faith. --MikeJ9919 19:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• As I mentioned before, this is a notable group in Western martial arts circles. That being said, this could certainly be a paragraph or two at McDojo, or vice versa. Abstain for now. Fire Star 03:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to keep. I have some ideas on how to expand different viewpoints in the article to promote NPOV. The article as it stands is the result of a collaborative effort between Phrost, myself and a few others, and is less POV than many of the other martial arts articles. BTW, "bullshido" gets over 6,000 Google hits, FWIW. Fire Star 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge -- I don't see how any other action would apply. — Xiong熊talk* 13:10, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
• So far I've seen no solid justification for merging it with McDojo, especially considering they're completely different terms. Bullshido is a term that encompasses McDojos, fraud, questionable practices, poor standards, and other garbage in the martial arts. It sounds like sour grapes to me, go go passive-aggressive wikipedia editors! Keep --Phrost 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've heard the term at many different martial arts clubs and it is prevalent throughout related internet groups Jekyll 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Bullshido is a valid and established (in certain circles) term that is separate in definition from 'McDojo', thus a redirect, with or without merge, would not be appropriate here. I think the mere fact that there's so much discussion around this article is an indication that the article is, in fact, relevant and interesting. Thus, removing it would be a disservice to the community. If some of you are not happy with the content of the article, then a dicussion of how these complaint can be addressed is the way to proceed, not this. --thefurman
• Keep -- Bullshido is a website with 5,000+ members. The word "Bullshido" is used by many martial artists as a descriptive term for ineffective or fraudulent martial arts training and instructors ("That's Bullshido!", "He's a Bullshido artist." etc.) . It's becoming part of the martial arts vocabulary and is used even by people who don't frequent the primary website. This entry should stay. --Katanahamon 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - These are terms with different meanings, it would definitely be beneficial for the online community to be able to view the seperate meanings for these two different words. - --Jso234 01:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - An instructor can teach bullshido. He can't teach McDojo. You can train at a McDojo. You can't train at a bullshido. The only thing these terms have in common is that they both describe serious (but separate) problems in the martial arts community. (Added by User:Bunyip but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - The term has even slipped into the vocabular on other message boards.McDojo and Bullshido are separate terms.

• Keep - The two terms are different and have fallen into common use outside of the internet - they need seperate definitions for the simple reason that they do not mean the same thing. (Added by User:Jcache but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - Seperate meanings different definitions Mcdojo one on every corner. Not necessarily good or bad. Bullshido is fake and fraudulent. (Added by User:Mw234 but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - "McDojo" is a recognized term among people who haven't even heard of the Bullshido website. The two words are often used simultaneously but do not have significantly overlapping definitions. --Shuma-Gorath (Actually added by anon IP 24.42.13.51...User:Shuma-Gorath has no edits --MikeJ9919 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - The usage and meaning of "McDojo" does not pertain to the phrase "Bullshido" in manner or form. While a particular school and/or style *MAY* be both, more frequently than not, the terms are used for distinctly separate instances. (Added by anon IP 68.220.129.74 --MikeJ9919 16:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Bullshido is applied to anything that is purported to be effective when it can be refuted in demonstration. No-touch knockouts are a example of this. A McDojo is a place wherein Bullshido could be but is not necessarily taught. A McDojo is usually shown to have it's front window lined with trophies and to churn out black belts like a burger chain churns out combo meals.

• Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Seperate terms. A McDojo can host legit fighting arts OR bullshido.

• Keep - Bullshido=Ashida Kim, Frank Dux, and the multitude of no-touch knock-out fakers. Mcdojo=Martial arts schools that are simplily trying to make a living, some could be Bullshido but not all. --Skeptical Warrior

• Keep - Bullshido is a valid term and has grown much bigger than its humble, internet message board, beginnings. --Ktulu

• Keep -Bullshido has become common parlance in the Martial Arts world- ----Garbanzo

• Redirect without Merge In light of the ridiculous sock-puppetry on this deletion vote, I am changing my vote to redirect without merge. I prefer delete over keep. I thought this article had some value, but the admin closing this vote should note that every person voting between Phrost and myself has fewer than 5 edits. Most have only one or two. User:Shuma-Gorath appears to have none. All of the unsigned votes that I could see (I didn't actually go through each one, I don't have that kind of time) were by anon IPs, and under policy should be automatically discounted. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and one more comment...while I have heard McDojo before, in my 10+ years studying the martial arts, this is the first time I've ever heard this term. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So, you're changing your vote not based on your opinion, but simply because your feelings were hurt over new members voting? Do you realize that this goes against EVERYTHING that the wikipedia is supposed to be? Sad sad sad. --thefurman 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm changing it because they appear to be accounts created specifically to subvert the VfD process. When I say "one or two edits", I don't mean they appear to have edited articles and then stumbled on this one singular vote for deletion...their only edits are on this page and this page alone. That smacks of blatant sock-puppetry, and using sock puppets to subvert VfD is against policy.--MikeJ9919 15:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, but what does that have to do with the worth of the arcticle? That's what all of this is about, remember? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a venue to play out political confrontations. If you think the article has merrit and should stay, than that is how you should vote if you want to remain true to the mission of this project. Otherwise, you're acting out on emotion or some silly sense of revenge. Now, onto "sock puppets". Am I a sock puppet? I've never participated in the wikipedia process up until this point. In fact, I only made my account to vote here, since this is the first time I am faced with something I feel strongly enough about to bother. Should my vote not count? Are some members more equal than others? Why do you feel the need to insult me and others like me? It seems that you really need to sit down, forget about your emotions, and think through your position. As it is right now, it's in conflict with itself. You can't claim the moral high road and accuse others of subverting the wikipedia process while voting to delete an article that you yourself consider worthwhile over a petty grudge. Sorry. --Thefurman 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • If you want my reasoning behind my vote, it is actually a logical extension of my sock-puppet argument. I've found that sock puppets tend to show up when there is an attempt to subvert NPOV. The NPOV problem with this article has been mentioned by previous voters, specifically Simon Cursitor. I was not persuaded at the time - I didn't believe that the article was POV. I have rethought that position and am now under the impression that (1) it is and (2) there is not sufficient content to modify that. Therefore, with regards to my vote, it stands. With regards to "some members more equal"...sockpuppets are all different faces of one member, and while that member is equal, his/her attempt to vote twice (or three times, or four times...) by using sockpuppets is actually an attempt to be "more than equal." If you aren't a sockpuppet, then I'm sorry...this is nothing personal. Nevertheless, even you must admit that it is very suspicious.--MikeJ9919 16:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm going to bow out of this discussion as I see no point in it continuing. You're not litening to me. That is ok. You don't have to. Hopefully, you will soon cool down and rethink all of this with a clearer head. --Thefurman 16:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not a sock puppet. I was an anonymous user but felt compelled to register to defend this article. The concept of "Bullshido" is different from "McDojo". A TKD Franchise where you have eight year old Black Belts running around is a McDojo. They may teach legitimate fighting techniques that could actually work if applied and trained correctly, but elect instead to sell belts and ranks to make people happy. Bullshido are those techniques that are pure garbage. One touch knockouts, Chi power, slow moving defense against attackers, no-contact sparring, etc. The words are different. I've been studing martial arts for over 20 years now and hadn't heard the term being used either until a year or so ago. However that's strictly a function of how long the term has actually been around. This article should stay. -- Katanahamon 17:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not a sockpuppet either. How about caring more about the integrity of the definitions and less about some misguided ferver to discredit actual live people who care to express their opinion. Even if you had a million edits your opinion would not be more valid than ours. Elitism has no place in this type of forum. Like many facets of the internet, this particular idea (Wikipedia) was created in part to escape/circumvent the very thing you are doing here. OH, and by the way, I tried to email you but you aren't accepting emails through your Wikipedia login. That's your right, but it is kind-of cheesy to be able to argue then retreat behind annonymity. --Chronomorte 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm an active user, and I read and respond to anything posted on my Talk page. Feel free to leave messages there.--MikeJ9919 22:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Bullshido has a different meaning, it does not translate into McDojo. Bullshido as a term relates to unrealistic expectations in the martial arts, McDojo relates to questionable business practices in martial arts schools which may or may not include bullshido. Different things. - --WingChun Lawyer 16:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - McDojo and Bullshido are two different words having two different meanings, in my opinion there is a need for two seperate entries. --ojgsxr6

• Keep Hi there... even though it appears I am to be labelled a "sock puppet" I would like to vote keep... I have browsed Wikipedia a few times and never registered pretty much because I dont have much to add to many items here... The reason for keeping Bullshido is because its a valid term in its own right, it is different in meaning from Mcdojo so shouldnt be merged with it. There are many obscure terms out there that I havent heard of but I dont think they should be deleted... so why should this...??--Shadowdh 16:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - It doesn't make sense to delete a word that has a unique meaning and is established. Bullshido definately deserved its own posting, as does McDojo, it's a shame this is even in question.- --Chronomorte 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, but holy sockpuppet overload, batman! Tomer ^TALK 19:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see how we need this. (Not to mention the abundance of Sock puppets) - Tεxτurε 20:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note - Sockpuppetry is futile. The admin who makes the final tally will, by long-established precedent, give proportionately less weight to votes from any accounts with few edits, and practically none to those with one or two, especially if they are all on this VfD. If anyone of the seeming multitude of concerned newbies has actually been an anonymous user for a while and wants to get previous edits assigned to their new account, this is the time to do so if they want their vote to "weigh" more. Fire Star 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Darn it, apparently the attribution change service has been suspended. Still, people can list their previous edits on their new user pages, if they'd like, with perhaps an appended note to that effect on their votes here. Fire Star 01:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • This is hilarious. An outpouring of support for the article gets dismissed simply because the individuals involved aren't going around cramming their views down other people's throats. The opinions of people who have been recently introduced to Wikipedia aren't as important as those who spend copious amounts of their free time interjecting themselves into subjects on which they have absolutely no expertise. I especially love how some of the votes for deletion, which are BLATANTLY biased, are being presented by people who have absolutely no connection to the martial arts and no perspective on the relevance of Bullshido within this community. It would be as asinine as me editing the NASCAR article, or voting on deletion of a related subject. This is precicely why people have legitimate gripes with how Wiki operates. It doesn't take any expertise, just an overinflated sense of self-importance, a healthy dose of passive aggression, and a dash of hubris. --Phrost 02:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even without the votes from the new accounts, it looks like the article is likely to survive.Fire Star 04:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is blatent misuse of the word sock puppet here. Sock puppetry is multiple accounts made by the same person, not an influx of newbies prepared to vote on something they consider important. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet . The majority of new posters can be found over on Bullshido under the same name as they log on with here. This agressive attitude is not encouraging them to stick round and contribute.Jekyll 11:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver-free

Ad for IRC channel for Vancouverites. This would really stretch the limits of noteworthiness, and the profanity is disappointing. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's not an ad for a channel. It is a demonstration of a different way of running a channel with a very diff philosophy behind it's beginnings and how it works. The profanity is a result of the freedom allowed in the channel and was inserted in the topic as a warning to the sensitive viewers. It needs more content but I do not feel deltion is the solution! Keep --TheSimkin 20:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• This is not an ad; it is a piece on a place. Places can be on the internet, in the mind, in the world, etc. An ad is trying to convince people of the fitness of something for some purpose. Exactly what purpose is being put forward for Vancouver-Free? Vancouver-Free is a part of our heritage as Canadians, so if this is an international project, I'd worry about potentially racist exclusions. 24.84.212.100.
  • The point is that this IRC channel must become well-known as an embodiment of freedom, a Canadian cultural icon, or whatnot before it merits a Wikipedia article. PlatypeanArchcow 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just because I'm offended at being called a racist because this nonnotable article needs to be deleted. RickK 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Who called whom a racist? There was the idea that perhaps this is a piece of Canadiana and therefore is subject to different standards for cultural appropriateness. If Wikipedia is something that's supposed to galvanize American culture and make it appear as though there are no alternatives, that is of course valid. Vancouver-Free is the embodiment of freedom, and so there may be cultural problems accepting what it is... 24.84.212.100.
    • You called anybody who would dare vote against this a racist -- what part of Vancouver-Free is a part of our heritage as Canadians, so if this is an international project, I'd worry about potentially racist exclusions is not an offensive accusation of racism? RickK 18:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have articles on every non-notable IRC channel out there. Also be aware that anonymous votes are not considered in the vfd process. ESkog 21:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would anyone lower himself to vote in an election like this? Anyone who shows up to the "Should we kill everyone's favourite nigger" poll---even to note "no"---has some issues. 24.84.212.100.
• Comment: RE: "We don't have aritcles on every non-notable IRC Channel out there". I do not beleive it's fair to dismiss an article based on the fact that other articles like it do not exist. The question is weather this article has any merit. I think as an example of a random group of people discussing ideas without restrictions the channel and the wikipedia page should be saved. At very least, this article is brand new and should be given some time (a few weeks) to grow and expand. --TheSimkin 21:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Please register your misgivings elsewhere. If a lot of people who have edited on Wikipedia for a while think this article is not worth keeping then it will be deleted. I understand your frustration at having your cherished work removed, but Wikipedia cannot have an article on every IRC channel out there. IRC channels become noteworthy when Osama hangs out there, it is cited extensively in newspapers or is the vehicle of celebrity adultery. Until then, you cannot insist on Wikipedia keeping this article. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought this was the location for posting misgivings regarding having a page deleted? I do not insist or want to force anyone to keep this page. I just feel that it's content is useful and relative (and will be more so if given time to grow). I disagree strongly that a channel becomes important because someone famous is in the channel. It is a place of open discussion of ideas. This is why it is important and deserves a place on wikipedia. --TheSimkin 21:57, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • No, this is where you vote. It's the numbers that count, unless someone votes for a reason and you can prove with evidence that this reason is incorrect. Wikipedia has certain rules for notability. Even if Brad Pitt were to use vancouver-free, this would not make the channel notable unless a major scandal brewed on there. On Wikipedia:Importance you will find some examples of what are reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - heads up for a flood of new members from this channel - the current topic on the channel is 'You guys. Create accounts and do some wikiing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver-free'. ESkog 22:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rules-free channels are nothing unusual. --Carnildo 22:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totally not notable, advert, spam. To our, uh, new users, I'd like to point out the following policy, which appears at the top of our VfD pages: Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. In other words, if you came here just to vote on this, don't bother, it won't count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I am Canadian, and I'm an inclusionist voter on Votes for deletion. This is a self-admitted attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host to promote something, and something that would not yet inspire someone outside the very small online community to write or want an encyclopedia article otherwise. I vote delete; come back - with the article; I'm not telling any user personally to go away! - if you start getting prominently featured in the Straight or the Sun or so on. With respect, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not... Samaritan 01:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 04:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable proof of influence or significance is provided (and no, new users saying oh, it's really influential doesn't count). Average Earthman 08:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Influencial to what Level? In this case it has been influencial if in nothing else it has made #vancouver clean up there act and be less facist. This in turn means new people who join #vancouver get a more pleasant and real to life view of what people in Vancouver are really like. I must say that many articles i have read on Wikipedia have not met the critia you guys are asking for. Nor do I think that Brad Pitt is important in any way. According to Wikipedia policy wikipedia is NOT a democracy. So i'm not sure why the few hundred bites this articles would take up must be deleted when some people think it contains useful info, other than you guys don't think it's worthy. I realize the page is going to be deleted now. But I am going to save it make changes to it and do it better and then post it again at a later time. I don't think this is in violation of any of the rules or policies of wikipedia. I'd also like to point out that as an advertising tool this would be extremly week. And there is no reason at all that i would want to use wikipedia to advertise anything. What I did want to do was have it so when someone asks what is #vancouver-free about we could post a link to the vancouver-free home page and to the wikipedia site. --TheSimkin 00:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, and Wikipedians are advised not to rush into votes everywhere, but what we do ultimately need to reach is consensus. We have (a) an overall consensus that some articles are below the bar, and (b) a lot of judgement calls and differences of opinion about where that bar might be. TheSimkin, if you want to join Wikipedia, I don't think anybody would object to a short introduction to #vancouver-free on your user page, where you can introduce yourself and things that are important to you, mindful of the consensus that you should avoid just using it for "Communications with people uninvolved with the project"... Samaritan 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Alan Charny

Anyone heard of him? Google certainly hasn't. --Doc Glasgow 20:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity - appears to be a new user who isn't aware that they cannot create articles about himself - Tεxτurε 20:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supraconsciousness

Reads like promo literature for some obscure new age group or possibly original research. --Lee Hunter 20:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete mumbo-jumbo and nn --Doc Glasgow 23:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passenger of Shit and Crapcore

An Australian crapcore band who release mod files via the internet. The article has been around for over a year and received a few edits but never found a true home here. The crapcore article was created the same day for that matter so I'm including that as well.

The only other articles linking to this are Anal Cunt, a band I assume they're attempting to emulate. I live in Australia, and I've never heard Passenger of Shit or the genre they're trying to invent given any notable mention before. -- Longhair | Talk 20:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- both. - Longhair | Talk 20:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie 07:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. I think Crapcore would probably count as original research. --bainer 00:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cyanidecordial doesnt matter if you live in australia, if you havent heard of passenger of shit you havent heard of him. he very much exists and your lack of knowledge doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crapcore

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Passenger of Shit

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 20:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the link in the article to 'a homepage for many crapcore bands' is offline as well. - Longhair | Talk 22:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be a popular genre. Not one I'd listen to, but that doesn't say much. ---Isaac R 22:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Popular based on what? Vegaswikian 02:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 22:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because you can string an adjective and the word "core" together does not mean you have a new genre. A Man In Black 01:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MIB. Radiant_* 08:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can establish that the term is widely used in a technical sense. One-dimensional Tangent 18:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 04:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100000 digits of pi/old