Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 14 May 16 >

Contents

[edit] May 15

This is the old name for Template:Cent.

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD)

[edit] Nonexistence Time

Crank rant, from the people who brought you Factual knowledge. It's nonexistence time for this article. --Zarquon 00:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Deletion Time. -Sean Curtin 01:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoa, far out dude. Delete. Gazpacho 01:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since electrons cannot be destroyed or created, let us change the electrons storing this article into free electrons, where they can go into nonexistence chastity away from all those dirty positrons. Tinfoil hattery. Delete. Geogre 01:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC
  • Delete, wtf ✏ OvenFresh² 02:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Where? How? Why When? Delete--Doc Glasgow 02:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this a passage from that computer-generated MIT article that got time at a major conference just because no one could understand it so they assumed it was scholarly? ESkog 02:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - it looks like this user has also created Nonexistent Time. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could merge that into this VfD? ESkog 02:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless references are provided, Delete as original research. El_C 05:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. rant -MarSch 13:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Incoherent nonsense. Neutralitytalk 16:30, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlasology

The article claims that atlasology is the science of atlases, but it isn't. It's a neologism. --Zarquon 00:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No source for any such word. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 1 Google hit for Atlasology. Stancel 01:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity neologism. Gazpacho 01:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; neologism. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Silly neologism/prank. The study of atlases is Randmacnallyism. Geogre 01:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletology. Neology. Nestea 02:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Ganymead 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this subcognointellectual stuff. -- Hoary 03:37, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. -MarSch 13:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, nonsense. Neutralitytalk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - did just as Uncle G suggested. when? and where? redirected to Five Ws, what? kept and Primary Questions and Secondary Questions deleted - SimonP 13:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When?, Where?, What?, Primary Questions, Secondary Questions

An essay on the question, when? Kelly Martin 01:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Re-direct to Interrogative word, just as I did a while ago with How?. Georgia guy 01:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've boldly changed how? to redirect to Five Ws instead, to match the suggestion below. Uncle G 13:41, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Redirect i agree with Georgia guy. --Howard547 01:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I understand the purpose of the redirect, but I disagree that it's necessary. This article is lodged at w-h-e-n-question mark. If a person puts that into the search/go box on Wikipedia, then that person is probably not looking for actual content. The article itself is back to the tinfoil hattery. (In case anyone wants to be hypercorrective, the criterion is "not verifiable.") Geogre 01:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Factual knowledge again - delete--Doc Glasgow 02:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • An article on Where? has also popped up. Harro5 04:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of When?, Where?, What?, Primary Questions, Secondary Questions for reasons above. Not verifiable/essay. Eric119 06:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added VfD headers to Secondary Questions, What?, What? and Where?. Since the User has gone crazy with this stuff and isn't responding, I've blocked him for 24 hours and will ask him to discuss his actions with others when he comes back. RickK 06:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The user has responded. From Special:Contributions/Norhuc:
      • 05:50, 2005 May 15 Secondary Questions (Explaining new concepts in 'questions' for the greater edification of knowledge in general)
      • 05:37, 2005 May 15 Primary Questions (A new concept which needs explaining for the edification of this encyclopedia and knowledge in general)
      • 05:23, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - The clean up work continues!)
      • 04:57, 2005 May 15 Why? (Added information about the 'question' of 'why?')
      • 04:49, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still cleaning up this article)
      • 04:34, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still cleaning this article up)
      • 04:32, 2005 May 15 What? (Just creating a new page for a needed concept for the edification of the encyclopedia and knowledge in general)
      • 04:23, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - Still re-editing and making more room on this page)
      • 04:09, 2005 May 15 Factual knowledge (→FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE - To clean this up, I am moving some of the articles which have less content)
      • 04:01, 2005 May 15 When? (Added more information and corrected syntax. Instead of deleting this article, perhaps, others should just edit their views on this article. All articles are created for the edification of knowledge!)
    • Uncle G 06:48, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Original research. Redirect to Interrogative word. El_C 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Andycjp sometime on 15 May 2005
    • User made comment at 7:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [1].
  • Delete. Don't redirect these because of the question marks on the end -- they are extremely unlikely searches. Quale 07:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You'll be surprised. The author wikified several interrogatives in Factual knowledge. Articles for who? and why? already existed. Uncle G 12:19, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete or redirect to Interrogative word. I prefer deletion, since a redirect wouldn't be very useful. - Mike Rosoft 11:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

*Delete all. -MarSch 13:04, 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 - kept - SimonP 13:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slow glass

Delete. Three reasons - first, I can find no evidence that the term 'slow glass' is commonly used in scientific literature as a name for BEC. The physics categorisation is therefore invalid. Secondly, the article is currently inaccurate. The concept of slow glass was specifically not that of a BEC - rather, it was a real piece of glass through which photons travelled by a spiral trajectory, increasing the distance they had to go. Thirdly, I don't think a device in a short story really needs an article of its own, especially when the entry for the short story itself is only a one-liner disambig.--Fangz 21:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This nomination was not linked from the VfD logs; I have linked it to today's log. No vote. --cesarb 01:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but drastically rewrite. If the term is being used for a BEC, then this nickname has come about because of Shaw's stories (plural), not the other way round. The concept of slow glass is widely used in science fiction. For the record, the novel "Other days, other eyes" was based on four different slow glass stories ("The light of other days", "Burden of Proof", "A Dome of Many-Coloured Glass" and "Other days, other eyes"), and a later novel by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen baxter (also confusingly titled "The light of other days") also made use of the concept, as have Marvel Comics (with "Sandson O. Tyme and Earth-Slow Glass". Grutness...wha? 01:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. The concept dates back to sci fi novels in the late 1960s and Shaw's book Other Days, Other Eyes (1972). Megan1967 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the relationship of Shaw's slow glass to the ideas of Bose and Einstein is at best tangential, but the former is one of the classic inventions of hard SF. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasons cited by others above. --Unfocused 05:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google test of <"slow glass" Bose-Einstein condensate> gives 65 hits. -MarSch 13:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand Rangek 04:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep, not well known, but important SF concept 66.94.94.154 12:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I liked the story, but this doesn't get it's own article. We already cover BEC. Gmaxwell 06:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, then? Radiant_* 13:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no evidence that the physicists are using this term, but in SF it's spread beyond Shaw. Kumquat 09:02, 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 - deleted - SimonP 13:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krystal Wakem

An unidentified person mentioned as part of a list in a song which has no article of its own. Give it the elbow Grutness...wha? 01:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article admits that she's apparently unimportant. Kelly Martin 01:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's absurd. There are a lot of names mentioned in songs. They don't get articles. Wait until this author hears "Mambo #5" or "Walk on the Wild Side" or "Subterranean Homesick Blues." Geogre 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, several of those in "Walk on the wild side" should - they were members of Warhol's "Factory crowd" (ISTR Candy Darling is one of them). Perhaps I should expand the stub on that song... Grutness...wha? 06:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh2 02:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article has apparently been on the requested list for more than 2 years. Megan1967 04:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Commentexperienced Users are expected to do something to remove such requests, if permitted. I was just thinking a request for 2 years or a request for more than that makes a topic notable! --MissingLinks 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)I feel request will be there "apparently" - is there a hidden list?--MissingLinks 07:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -MarSch 13:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Remove it.. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Beyond non-notable. Jon the Geek 15:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the person exists he/she/it is non-notable, and I don't expect that a real person has that name anyway
  • Delete Article admits she's non-notable, and google hates her (only 100 or so results, and those are probably mostly song lyric sites). -Cookiemobsta
  • Delete Characters in songs who have no other notability are non-notable. Otherwise, we would need an article on "Billy" from "Billy, Don't Be a Hero". Rlquall 03:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed with the concensus that even if an article is on the "more than two years" request list, it isn't automatically worthy of being written. Not notable. -- Saaga 07:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I know who it is and it should be deleted it was just afreind of the people of Le Tigre. She doesn't even know why she was put in the song.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eklypsin

Vanity band page. Zero hits on google DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-existent. Formed this very month. How cute. Now, kids, get out of the bedroom and book some gigs, get a record contract, make the record, and then you can have someone else write an article about you. Geogre 01:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh2 02:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ganymead 02:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kyle Emmerson and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KORE... Samaritan 03:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Spinboy 03:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hey, I'm learning the guitar, why don't I have a page yet? Julianne 03:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete for reasons cited by several users.--Bhadani 07:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Bearcat (content was: '{{d}}Jacob Finke is the coolest boy to ever exist. He goes to Trinity Christian School, Williston, North Dakota. He is so cool. He has his own websit...'). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Finke

  • Vanity. Georgia guy 01:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as kiddie tribute/prank. "Coolest" and "cutest" and "hottest" articles are pretty much straight speedy deletes as user tests, IMO. Perhaps that's stretching the criteria a bit, but they're not really deliberative matters. Geogre 01:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Too bad it's a anon. user and can't userfy 'cause he "is the coolest boy to ever exist." DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Complimentary

more Factual knowledge or nonsense for you to ponder --Doc Glasgow 02:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ganymead 02:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC) These guys have certainly been hard at work, I'll take care of causeology while I'm at it.
  • Delete. Nonsense; Dear God what a mess. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ESkog 02:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Rubbish original research, from an author (Norhuc (talk · contribs)) that doesn't know the difference between compliment and complement. No suitable adjective→noun redirects are immediately apparent. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-verifiable, original research. Contributor is not responding to all of this VfD, so we may have a warrior here or a convert. Geogre 12:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of Norhuc's crap. How do you do that? [3]-MarSch 13:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteIanschmutte 18:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas J. Hopper

Does not pass the average professor test, vanity and/or self-promotion, only recieved his phd in 2004. Previously nominated for vfd but the discussion has gone strangely missing. All his pubs are conference proceedings, has not published in an academic journal--nixie 02:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

same goes for Luis von Ahn and he is not even a prof...so I put him up for deletion and redirected here to keep from cluttering vfd-MarSch 17:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC). I gave Luis his own page because he's a completely different kettle of fish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Ganymead 02:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mere professorship does not reach the bar of notability. Kelly Martin 02:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I applied the {{cleanup-importance}} tag nearly a month ago. Nick's a nice guy and a great lecturer, but he's still below the bar of notability for professors. android↔talk 03:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question/comment. Why is it that profs have a "bar of notability" but pocket monsters, ingredients of Wars Trek, televangelists, people who run around after balls, etc., do not? I don't know Nick at all, but advances in steganography seem much more significant than the preceding stuff. -- Hoary 03:33, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • There are guidelines for most of these things you mention. The Pokemon issue is undergoing discussion right now. Star Trek: WP:FICT. People who run around after balls: typically, I've only seen well-known pro athletes get kept, though I haven't seen many athletes up for VfD, I must admit. There are a lot of professors out there, and Nick's only been one for a year or so. In the grand scheme of things, he's an obscure Pokemon. android↔talk 04:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I had a look at Wikipedia:Poképrosal but quickly gave up: commercialized whimsy and ersatz cuddliness (I think) is a soporific mixture for me. For better or worse, WP:FICT doesn't represent my impression of what's going on, which is that any level of reverence for the minutiae of Star Wars/Trek is immune from the charge of fancruft. (As a participant experiment, I've even made a single contribution to this.) And I've seen sports-related people by the thousand. -- Hoary 06:56, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's only an associate professor, but he's already got a long publishing history including Proc. ACM. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all tenured professors (at any institution) and all professors at major institutions. Being an assistant professor at a major university like Cornell or University of Minnesota is notable. Klonimus 06:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Unfocused 06:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Published professor. Megan1967 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, original posting IP hasnt visited the article since October 2003. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep and expand per Tony Sidaway and others. Kappa 07:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an associate (not full) professor with a PhD for only a year, not notable enough yet. Quale 08:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of notability beyond that of an average professor. Do we really want every college freshperson coming here and writing articles on all their professors? Gamaliel 08:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Opinion seems to be divided. Kappa 10:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but I think the real problem is not just the potential for articles on all living non-notable professors. If they're to be included, clearly all the dead non-notable professors should be added too. This is simply a bad idea. Quale 17:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not normally a deletionist when it comes to academics, but in that case I do not see how he his more notable than millions of others. I strongly suspect that he is getting a "keep" bias because he is in computer science. Maybe some of the keep voters could expand the article to show how he stands out. Martg76 12:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; legitimate inbound link from Captcha that has been slightly filled out. Please, nominators, check What links here; at the very least we could be talking about Luis von Ahn, a graduate student only from Captcha, in the same VfD. Samaritan 12:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; and as far as EvilPhoenix's concern that the original poster has not edited for 1,5 years - so bleepin' what? Also, the inclination that there is a keep bias for his computer science degree - please, provide sources ;) So long as it can be expanded, there's no reason to remove it. --TVPR 12:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1000 hits in googletest for "Nicholas Hopper" and "Nicholas J. Hopper" together. -MarSch 13:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    this in contrast to Manuel Blum who gets 17800 hits and the Turing award and introduced the acro captcha. This Hopper is just someone he works with and so is Luis von Ahn, so I vote delete that also. MarSch 17:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless further evidence of notability produced. PatGallacher 17:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh2 18:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper; if we can have articles for every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek, and each of those pesky Pokemon, we can have an article about Professor Hopper. Kelly Martin 22:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plentiful as those minor characters are, they're a drop in the bucket compared to the number of associate professors out there, and they're all published (well, practially all). Granted, his field isn't Recreation and Leisure Studies, but do you really want to open the door to all the published Asst. Profs in any field? And which field's publications will we count/discount? -- Mwanner 02:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is now well into its second year, and survived a VfD listing shortly after being created in October, 2003. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, and you can see how wonderful the article has become with the advantage of 2 years development. It's 3 sentences -- still barely a stub after 2 years. This is an opportunity to fix the mistake made when it survived the first VfD. Quale 16:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity page. Inclusionist pileons here mean that the next db dump current of wikipedia will likely not fit gzipped on my Zaurus, and it means searches will produce more bogus results. Vanity and cruft make wikipedia less accessable to everyone. --Gmaxwell 00:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no vanity here, but all right, he's just starting. So, a particularly unenthusiastic delete -- a vote understood to say nothing about NJH's WPworthiness when he has a book or two, or a widely cited paper or two, in his CV. -- Hoary 03:07, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. An associate professor with a few publications is not notable. There are thousands of these people--and yes, thousands more who are deceased. Also, since obscure academic publication is a requirement for an academic job, using publication as a "reason" for "notability" is a tautalogical argument. It's like saying a dog is notable for barking. C W Merchant 18:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But we have articles on sports people just because they are good at their sport. Average Earthman 20:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - an average professor; a list of publications is just evidence that he is doing his job. CDC (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thoughts on Inclusion of Professors (DO NOT VOTE HERE) moved to talk page.
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 13:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this page was made when he was a grad student. Imagine if all grad students are archived just in case they achieve notable status. Without a major contribution to a field, associate and even full professors should not be in an encyclopedia.David D. 17:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Question just how much input did Ahn and Hopper have in the captcha project? I note at the Carnegie Mellon captcha project [4] page they are listed as PI's along with Manuel Blum, John Langford (It is strange that grad students would be listed with PI status). There are a lot of collaborators on this project too [5], should they all be listed too (Udi Manber Nancy Chan Scott Crosby Richard Fateman Brighten Godfrey Bartosz Przydetek Roni Rosenfeld Ke Yang)? There is a fine line between participating in a project and conceiving of the project. Conceiving the project does seem to be worthy of a wikipedia entry. Did Hopper and Ahn have imput with the conception of this project? David D. 17:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason I'd vote to delete my parents if articles were created on them. As basically all professors are published somewhere adding that adjective does nothign to establish further notability. -R. fiend 21:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, professors are not inherently notable. --W(t) 22:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. His website lists one journal paper that has merely been submitted, rather than accepted. Being published isn't adequate, being significantly published with papers that are attracting a high number of citations is the requirement. If you're judging on journal publications, I'd require a fairly hefty number of papers or citations - say 50 journal papers or one (as first author) with 100 citations as a minimum to consider being published (note, this is from a physics viewpoint, other subject areas may vary). Although even this can be well surpassed - one professor I've co-authored papers with has over 3000 papers to his name. Average Earthman 20:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causeology

NEW! Improved! From the makers of Factual knowledge and Atlasology! More junk included!--Ganymead 02:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • More rubbish original research, from Norhuc (talk · contribs). According to Wikipedia, the science of causes is universal science, a branch of metaphysics. And in case you hadn't already guessed, there's no such word as "causeology". Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Huh? If "original research" then only as defined by WP. Delete as uninformed and unnecessary. -- Hoary 03:36, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
How to make a Wikipedia article:
  1. Take a common English word, like atlas, map or cause.
  2. Add the suffix -ology onto the end.
  3. Give the word a bizarre, idiosyncratic definition.
  4. While your article is being deleted, you can begin steps 1-3 for your next article!
--Zarquon 05:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruftology. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm happy with my religion, thanks, and don't need the proselytizing. Geogre 12:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletology. Neology. Nestea 18:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as moronology. Neutralitytalk 18:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David R. Dougherty

High-school principals resume, cruft. Delete. --nixie 02:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Delete. Vanity. Ganymead 02:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No encyclopedic value, it's just vanity. Julianne 02:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio of [6]. Note that this fellow's place of employment, The Hill School, was also deleted as a copyvio. NatusRoma 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete only because of copyvio. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. copyvio. Megan1967 04:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on copyvio and vanity. Harro5 04:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've met the fellow. I doubt he did it. It's much more likely that the very heavily wired Hill School ($$$$$, wifi in the dorms, etc.) has had an eager kid try to contribute. At any rate, just CV. Geogre 12:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Ianschmutte 18:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; copyvio. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KORE, Dreamwars, Psychelands, The Grays, Seraphim: The Arkship Saga

An organization, and fictional works, by Kyle Emmerson, he of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kyle Emmerson and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eklypsin. Samaritan 02:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Spinboy 03:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ganymead 03:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Wow! Maybe I need to get to know this unknown visionary named Kyle Emmerson!
  • Delete When he's published he can make all the pages he wants, but right now it's just vanity. I knew a Kyle Emmerson in elementary, he had a terrible nose picking habit. Julianne 03:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy and hand him a tissue. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, definuitly not notable, and all vanity. --Howard547 04:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dream them dreams, kiddo. However, he can't have all the pages he wants when he's published. He can have all the pages someone else wants to write. Oh, and selling a few copies would also help, and a review or two would be good, and, um, being stylistically significant would be just groovy. Geogre 12:47, 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 - deleted - SimonP 13:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonexistent Time

More original research from Norhuc (talk · contribs). Uncle G 03:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to Nonexistence Time. Gazpacho 03:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Speedy Redirect to Nonexistence Time, one VfD at a time. El_C 05:50, 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 - deleted - SimonP 13:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chart-graphing

More original research from Norhuc (talk · contribs). Uncle G 03:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

  • Deleteology is the science of deleting crank articles from Wikipedia. --Zarquon 05:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for page rank boosting and zealotry. Geogre 12:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletography. Neolography. Unnecessary clone of cartography. Nestea 18:37, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 13:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sittner Hall and Omicron Pi Sigma

Unnecessary advert for a college dorm and society. Other subpages created by anonymous users related to Walla Walla College are also up for VfD. Countless useless stubs should be discouraged. Harro5 03:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with having articles about college dormitories. I wasn't aware that dorms advertised, either. Kelly Martin 03:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Walla Walla College. It may be an important college building but it doesn't need an article all to itself. Ganymead 03:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Ganymead. Colleges may advertise, but individual dorms probably don't need to unless the room selection process at said college is particularly unorthodox... android↔talk 03:21, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both. They're both good stubs, legible, appear to be factual, and they're too new to have developed. Articles don't start as feature articles on their first day, and frankly, I don't see any reason why these should be deleted even if nothing else is ever added. Further, "Unnecessary" and "Useless" look to me like inflammatory personal POV. --Unfocused 03:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Having read your user page, you are an inclusionist, and I accept that. The section here is not aimed to be POV, in fact, it was merely me writing what I believe to be true. An anonymous user creating numerous subpages about a small-scale college is not Wikipedia, because it doesn't add anything. I would be fine with this info being included on the main Walla Walla College article page, but the anon doesn't believe that should happen. They don't want to play ball, and all I want is for Wikipedia to be free of these sorts of advertisements disguised as mildly-factual stubs. Harro5 04:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it is self-evident that, contrary to your assertion, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is frequently anonymous users adding knowledge at the fringes. Wikipedia is also a group of consensus decisions about what stays, as evidenced by policy and this VfD. As long as knowledge is labeled, categorized, indexed, and presented in a useful manner, the "need" to merge data or eliminate smaller articles is purely artificial. These articles meet my criteria. Maybe not yours. This shouldn't ever be about limiting or discouraging the participation of anonymous users, quite the opposite! --Unfocused 05:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Harro5, Please don't apply labels to other people. Some consider it an insulting personal attack. I make my vote decisions one by one. Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to label me. (If I'd applied a label to myself, there would be no objection.)--Unfocused 14:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. If Omicron Pi Sigma is up for vfd, the article should be tagged as such to allow interested parties to comment here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Fraternities and college dorms are usually notable. Characterizing these articles as "advertisements" is questionable. Kelly Martin 04:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC) (comment: the fraternity wasn't included in this VfD page when I first posted)
  • Merge with Walla Walla College. Concur with Ganymead. Megan1967 04:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: This matter was settled months ago, folks. We had all sorts of mess with Dartmouth College. The answer then, and the answer now, is to have this material put into Walla Walla College#Student life. There is no need to destroy the information, but there are multiple sororities, halls, etc. that share names, and having specific iterations as separate articles is foolhardy. Expand your college's article, rather than stranding information in a spot where it will never be found and where it will be without context. Geogre 12:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Walla Walla College. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Walla Walla College#Student life Klonimus 06:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested by Geogre, consistent with college-building and college-organization precedents. Barno 18:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Walla Walla College. There is no way that college dorms or other campus buildings deserve their own independent pages, unless incredibly, independently notable (The Inns of Court, perhaps.)
  • Merge with Walla Walla College, as reasons stated above. Kel-nage 13:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason not to merge with the college. -R. fiend 21:27, 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 - kept - SimonP 13:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antigonish—Guysborough

This is kind of a test case. Somebody has gone and created a separate article for every Canadian federal parliamentary district past and present. I'll concede that district information is noteworthy, but it makes no sense to create dozens of two-sentence articles to hold it. A subject can be important enough to be discussed in Wikidedia, but not big enough to deserve its own article.---Isaac R 03:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into articles on the regions perhaps? I've seen these, too and wondered if they could be expanded. Ganymead 03:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I created these articles. There is no question that they are encyclopedic, and MANY have already been expanded by others with results, politicians that represented the districts, and other noteworthy details, etc. Note that more than a few already have inbound links, and that they have a very satisfactory categorization scheme. Fawcett5 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a suggestion, not a vote. Perhaps you could merge the stubby ones into main article(s), perhaps by region/location? (And is that an em-dash in the title?) android↔talk 03:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is (for the moment) an emdash in the title, the problem being that hyphens and emdashes have distinct meaning and usage in the name of electoral districts (i.e. St-Henri—St-Denis). I am aware of the issue, but no consesus has yet emerged among the involved parties about how best to deal with it) Fawcett5 03:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Real places, most contemporary ones with well over 100,000 people, but almost all within or overlapping other geographic divisions. Articles on Canadian members of parliament will link to a description of where they're from, and you simply can't describe every riding in detail this way. Btw, I've also seen many British parliamentary districts appearing on Newpages lately. Samaritan 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Riding articles are important and will be expanded to show voting results from former federal elections, issues, history, and demographics. The em-dash is required, at least federally, to connect different place names. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Somebody" (actually a whole Wikiproject's worth of people) created separate articles for every United Kingdom parliamentary constituency, past and present. And they expanded significantly at the time of the 2005 United Kingdom General Election. A different, less formally organized, set of somebodies is busy creating Canadian constituency articles, and they are about to fill up because Canada has the odd General Election here and there coming up too. (Note the date on the first.) Later in the year, expect a General Election in New Zealand, too. Creating boilerplate articles ahead of time is the only way to organize these things. I created several hundred of the UK Parliament constituency articles, and they were initially all almost identical, created as they were from a standard boilerplate. They aren't now. And a lot of people worked very hard to make them so. Keep. Uncle G 03:53, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • Did you not wonder where I'd been for the past month or so? Uncle G 03:54, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, for the reasons mentioned above. I can't believe we're even discussing this. CJCurrie 04:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep political subdivisions as separate articles. --Unfocused 05:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't want to encourate people to go wandering around randomly listing verifiable districts, current or not, for deletion from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepAndycjp 15th May 2005
  • Keep, not only are these actual paces (and therefore worth articles), but the Canadian WP are a bunch of busy little beavers who are likely to make worthy things out of this and related articles. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course Keep and fill with results, elected representatives and boundary changes etc.. Jooler 07:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and leave it to the beavers. Kappa 07:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy - beavers - will be filled, etc. Take a look at Canadian federal election, 2004 and 39th Canadian federal election to see how much detail Cdn Wikipedians are prepared to supply. Ground Zero 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jonel 16:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every riding has enough history to become encyclopædic, eventually. Mindmatrix 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 80N 22:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly encylopædic topic in my opinion. -- Joolz 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moose Klonimus 06:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suggest deletion of nominator. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:NPA. Radiant_* 13:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC) (also, keep, and this is not the place to discuss test cases)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 14:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been vaguely concerned at the use of long dashes (— instead of -) in the article titles; is there any way this could be avoided, or is it necessary for some reason? En- and em-dashes are fine for typographical purposes, but their meaning can be confusing (at least to me). Anyway keep the articles, obviously. sjorford →•← 16:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll agree that it's a little odd in the address bar of a web page but it's required, at least federally, for Canadian elections. Which one do you find more confusing: Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord or Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord? DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expandable. For those who are still hung up on the em-dash thing, I long ago added a paragraph to electoral district (Canada) which explains in detail exactly why it's done (and why it's unavoidable.) It's the fifth paragraph down, beginning "Riding names are usually geographic in nature..." Bearcat 22:20, 19 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop (content was: '{{del}}pen15 = penis'), undeleted by (?), redeleted by Rlquall (Deserved a speedy. Everyone on VfD voted for it to be deleted, even its author.). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pen15

A crude joke among teenagers referring to the male penis, as opposed to the female penis.... And labeled a stub, pending amplification -- though I'd have thought that the existing, laborious explanation would be more than sufficient for anyone who (i) is moderately good at English and (ii) has an IQ of 80 or above. I shouldn't have thought that each "crude joke among teenagers" would require its own article; anyway, as WP is not a dictionary, it surely doesn't need an item for each L337 spelling. DeL337. -- Hoary 03:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

  • Delete anything having to do with the female Pen15! LOL! Ganymead 03:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke article, nothing more. Harro5 03:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Documentation of a prank. This is better at Urban Dictionary than here, as it's basically a slang/prank dictdef. Geogre 12:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; as (somewhat) stated above, Wikipedia is NOT Urban Dictionary. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; im sorry, this is my first page, and i felt it kinda needed to be added, even if it was a joke. please delete. you have my full approval. ive read the tutorial and everything now, so go ahead. ive learned my lesson --mysekurity 03:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Base (architecture)

This page has long ago been subsumed by the article to which it redirects, and no article links to it. - Centrx 21:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, although note that there's no reason at all to delete this redirect by the normal rules of that page. In the words of the great Cartman: "I love redirects, you love redirects, if we didn't love redirects we'd be lame!" Keep. sjorford →•← 09:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect per Cartmanism above. Kappa 10:06, 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 - deleted - SimonP 13:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Cain

Vanity article on a website moderator. Doesn't have any relevance or notability. Delete. Harro5 03:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. -- Trivial 03:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, though the videos on the TacoClub website are amusing! Ganymead 03:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. NatusRoma 04:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you are the author of the article, please visit the articles discussion page. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete and replace with an article on the "Catholic Instition"! Rlquall 03:25, 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 - deleted - SimonP 13:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extending the Product Life Cycle

I doubt that this page is useful as an encyclopedia article in its present form. It might be better off folded into Product life cycle management. I see that the article has been created twice before, once as a copyvio and once as nonsense, so it's a recognised term.-gadfium 04:31, 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 - kept - SimonP 13:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christianophobia

Neologism and highly POV article. Any legitimate material here should be folded into Persecution of Christians. Firebug 04:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteI agree, they are perfectly synomynous. kralahome 5:00 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (/redirect?). "[T]heir 'neo-pagan' Christophobia could not have existed without Christianity and this is what the Vatican document overlooks...", from RS Wistrich (University of Jerusalem) "The Vatican and the Shoa", Modern Judaism, Volume 21, Number 2, May 2001, pp. 83-107. And, "The resolution also included ‘Christianophobia’ as..." from: Nazila Ghanea (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London) and Ladan Rahmani (University of Sydney) "A review of the 60th session of the commission on human rights," The International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 9, Number 1 / March 2005, pp. 125-144. El_C 05:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything salvagable as NPOV, and then Delete, NO redirect. Master Thief Garrett 05:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. Term is verifiable. I found the "Causes of Christianophobia" section implausible, and the "Demographic suicide" thesis frankly sounds barking mad, but this is dealt with in an encyclopedic manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Both Master Thief Garrett and Tony Sidaway seems to be implying that scholarly journals would employ neologisms in published works, but isn't the very fact they are published in those quarters negates it from being considered that? El_C 06:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, neologism. Megan1967 06:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Since I appear to be invisible, I'll take my trollings elsewhere! :D El_C 06:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect per El C. This "neologism" critierion seems to imply WP has to wait five years before it covers a new concept. Kappa 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with tiny number of sections possibling moved to the Persecution of Christians page. The 'causes of' might be worth keeping in some form, as as a 'modern persecution of christians' section of the POC page - the rest is total unsavable biosed BUNK INMO. - Pacula 09:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yes, we should wait for neologisms. Why? Verification. It's easy to get Google hits overnight with a term that few people are using. However, the best thing is to see usage. Usage has to be over time to be real. Further, dictdefs are out. Further, this is inherently POV. Further, encyclopedias, by their nature, are inherently conservative. They are not archives, but discussions. Geogre 12:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. the term has been used by the pope, used and described in several published books on the topic, and discussions on the topic have been had at the UN and EU. The General Assembly of the UN uses it in concert with Islamophobia and Antisemitism, which both have their own articles here on wikipedia. Further, the proponent of this vfd did not discuss his or her concerns on the talkpage before vfding, violating vfd procedure. Ungtss 14:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Stancel 15:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
it's a neologism currently being used by dozens of academics, the UN human rights counsel, and the vatican. beyond that, where does vfd policy recommend the deletion of neologisms? Ungtss 15:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or merge with a redirect with a suitable existing entry. Doesn't mean you have to read it. Deletions are for nonsense. --Wetman 00:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But just barely. It's not a good article, and it's of borderline relevance, but it does seem to be documented and any problems can be fixed without deleting it. I say when in doubt keep.
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Ungtss above. Rangek 05:14, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is now encyclopedicKlonimus 06:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Ungtss's reasoning —Tokek 19:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And see where it goes. It's definitely a valid concept, even if the article has problems. Pollinator 01:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Christianophobia deserves an entry as much as any other phobia. Citizen Premier 23:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dalf | Talk 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect NPOV, and redundant. pteranodon 18:09 20 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 13:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naziphobia

Non-notable neologism and equally non-notable computer virus. Firebug 04:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Tentative Delete. I'm not seeing anything in the scholarship employing the term Naziphobia; I'm not certain how notable the computer virus is, so I may reconsider my vote on that front. El_C 05:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Firebug. Quale 08:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neologisms, to pass over into words, usually have to be needed to explain common phenomena. This one hasn't usage, really, and we're not a dictionary anyway. Geogre 12:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per Pacula. Someone acted on a joke. And very few viruses are really noteworthy. Master Thief Garrett 14:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I sepected that the only reason this page exits is that somebody joked about making a 'naziphobia' on the Talk:Christianophobia page when talking anount neologisms ("Why don't we create the article Naziphobia and have done with it?) and somebody followed through. An old obsure virus and a neologism that rates a dictionaty blurbg at BEST do not deserve to be in an encylopedia - Pacula 00:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has almost no content and was clearly created as a joke. If it really is a virus it can be dealt with on a page devoted to computer viruses.--Heathcliff 03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move' to Naziphobia (Computer virus) Klonimus 07:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Naziphobia is one of many, many non-notable DOS viruses. A Man In Black 07:15, 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 13:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jesus Vibes

Non-notable band, generates only 12 google hits. Chiacomo 04:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Chiacomo 05:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, article does not establish that the subject meets any one criterion in WP:MUSIC. android↔talk 05:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by (?), page does not appear in deletion log for some unknown reason (database error?). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lnutell

Er, what? I found this incomplete nomination in the list. Not sure what to do with it. Radiant_* 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

  • 12:57, 2005 May 15 Geogre deleted Metal Gear Bio (Hoax/prank, per VfD)

[edit] Metal Gear Bio

Possible hoax? Was placed on speedy as 'subject does not exist'. - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as hoax. There are NO Googles (besides an unrelated forum thread), and that's just not possible for a new/rumoured game in a popular series. And what's "fleucky hair"?!? 0 Googles for that too, Speedy as nonsense perhaps. Master Thief Garrett 05:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 06:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax/patent nonsense. - Lucky13pjn 06:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 13:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mav Radio

A whopping 45 Googles. Non-notable... but doesn't exactly fall under speedy rules. At least, I don't *think* so. Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to University of Nebraska#Student life -- same as a frat house or dorm, IMO. However, if the author does create MAVSTOCK, that would be a quick nuke case, IMO. Geogre 12:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not relevant --nixie 02:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Radiant_* 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tuxedo mercenary

Very odd page created by an anon about formalwear merchants. I am tempted to say it is patent nonsense. Delete- Lucky13pjn 05:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, but this might be just bizarre enough to be a borderline BJAODN candidate. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:56, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 06:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahajana High School

This article was previously deleted after a VfD vote. It was then undeleted via Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. The previous VfD listing is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School. It is now being relisted per undeletion policy. Please review the article as it is now and vote. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was not really deleted after a VfD vote, the VfD vote was actually a no consensus. Sjakkalle 07:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly verifiable stub. Give it a chance to grow, and stop wasting time by relisting frivolously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you read what I said at all? Have you bothered to read the undeletion policy? I didn't relist it for shits and giggles, I listed it because it was required of me to do so. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Considering how many admins I've seen breaking the rules lately *taps side of nose confidentially* you probably didn't have to. Master Thief Garrett 04:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (But be sure to list it under its proper name. I understand there was a dispute about the proper name last time.) Educational facilities and other public infrastructure belong here. --Unfocused 06:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable subject. I echo Tony's comments. El_C 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Notable enough (most schools are). BTW, I won't tell you what I misread the title as, but it involved a different kind of high ;) Grutness...wha? 07:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC) I estimate a factor in you writing "most schools are." (ooh, this colour is!) :p El_C 07:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep again. Kappa 07:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete again. Gamaliel 07:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete an article that had the support to get undeleted. Harro5 10:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It takes only a simple majority or three people to get an article undeleted. The undeletion policy hinges upon the deletion policy. Articles are deleted by the deletion policy, and they are only kept by the deletion policy. In other words, no article's value has ever been or ever will be proven by the fact that it was able to get undeleted. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only a stub rather than a substub because it waffles (its age is vague, that it's been used as a polling station is true of thousands of schools, so is not significant). The article essentially says: "The Mahajana High School is a school in Erode"; that just about qualifies it for speedy deletion. The support for undeletion was based largely on the fact that it was speedily deleted in error (mea culpa), so was procedural not substantive. The claim that most schools are notable is an odd one, but even if I accepted it, there's no indication that this school is one of that majority. If just one of the people who think that it should be kept would actually add some information, then I'd be convinced, and change my vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That it's a stub is evident, because it correctly identifies the location of the school. The bit about it's supposed age is indeed waffle, but that's not relevant to whether the article is a good school stub--that is to say, an article that defines its subject matter well enough to be expandable by someone who has information about the subject. The claim that undeletion was merely procedural is a falsehood; there was no consensus that the article was deletable in the last vote, it was speedied because someone claimed falsely that no such school existed under that name, and the admin who performed the deletion failed to check that this claim was true.
    • Finally the statement that an article consisting of "Mahajana High School is a school in Erode" would qualify for speedy deletion is absolutely false. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • This is the second time that you've presented this false account of events, and it's still just as false as it was the first time that you did. Postdlf laid it all out at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted#Maha_Jana_High_School. It was speedied because it was a redirect, and the undeletion was a procedural one because it was a redirect with editing history and speedied by mistake. In the original VFD discussion it was kept because I said that no such school existed by the name Maha Jana High School. Indeed, in the original VFD discussion I said that a school under the name Mahajana High School existed (in Mysore). Please pay more attention to what has actually been written in these discussions and what events have actually occurred. Uncle G 14:32, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
        • Nitpicking. Because of your false claim it was redirected to Erode and then deleted. In essence, the article was mugged. An article being a redirect is not a valid reason to speedy delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • This is now the third time that you've made that false statement. Can you really not tell the difference between Maha Jana High School (which I said didn't exist in Erode, and whose existence there has not been demonstrated by anyone) and Mahajana High School (which I said did exist) ? Once again, I strongly encourage you to pay attention to what is actually written. Uncle G 02:06, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • When will this pointless nitpicking end? For heaven's sake man. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
            • There is a school in Erode [7] and in Mysore[8], when the vote is decided, disambiguation will be required.--AYArktos 02:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete all stubs on non-notable schools. Including the size of its gym will not improve it either. Dunc|☺ 11:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- and expand. Longhair | Talk 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No content, no topic, just a little fingie about a little fingie. High schools are no more significant inherently than donut shops. Geogre 13:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and let it expand. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted to keep it deleted on VfU, but since it appears to contain verifiable information now I'm voting keep here. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete once again, existance does not equal notability. --InShaneee 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, again. Neutralitytalk 16:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, high school. ✏ OvenFresh2 18:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, ridiculously unnotable. Grue 19:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still non-notable. --G Rutter 20:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the information seems to have been verified - SimonP 21:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:42, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:55, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • Agree, Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage Klonimus 07:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia ran out of disc space on 2005-03-07. It was down for a day as a result. It ran out of disc space the previous month, too. Uncle G 02:06, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • How much of the space problem was caused by the 3.6 gb (total, all languages, as of the end of March 2005) database taking up room? --Unfocused 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 01:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 03:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rangek 05:16, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, school cruft. Megan1967 05:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep enough with hassling this poor school. It's a school, it's notable. It survived VfD, was speedy deleted, was restored from the dead, only to have deletionists try to kill it again. I'm tempted to create The Passion of Mahajana High School to describe this dolorous history. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 07:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I look forward to the VfD vote on that article. ;) Gamaliel 07:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I still consider the blanket claim that all schools are notable to be absurd, and this school seems to be an ordinary, common-or-garden, bog-standard school of interest to no-one but the local community — but there's enough in the article to raise it above the substub/stub that it was. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable (reference to the school's use as a polling site) & NPOV--AYArktos 08:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you take that site as a reference for how to spell "elementary"? Actually read the reference that you are waving around so readily, and tell us which street Mahajana High School is on. How accurate would you say your reference is? Uncle G 02:06, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Comment - sneering at people whose first language is not English for a miss-spelling is beneath contempt. The issue is whether we can verify the school's existence, which I can with reference to this electoral site and I have referenced the verification for the benefit of other Wikipedians. I did not write the site and am not responsible for the spelling errors contained within. I did not need a street address, I needed to establish whether there was such a high school in Erode - for my purposes this web reference attests to that fact and also the content of the article referring to the use of the school as a polling booth. There is now a more adequate reference with The Hindu article referred to on the school's wikipedia page. That there are two addresses does not phase me, many institutions operate out of more than one site - for example Avans Hogescholen. --AYArktos 08:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Erode (that would really need expansion) and delete - Skysmith 08:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, schools are not notable. - Cedars 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all stubs on non-notable schools. Master Thief Garrett 10:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 17:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another useless collection of trivia. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give this good stub time to grow. No need to be delete-happy! --Zantastik 19:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How much more time do you need? It's been around since 2004-11-02 and twice had the attentions of people who have actively tried to expand it. The first time, the article actually shrunk to nothing, as it was discovered that none of the information in it could be verified, not even that a school by the name Maha Jana High School existed in Erode. During the VFU discussion it was moved to a different name, Mahajana High School, but so far the purported evidence that that school merits an article in its own right has in fact demonstrated exactly the opposite. The evidence presented for having an individual article about this school is a long list of schools used as polling stations, which actually shows that it's identical to lots of schools in this respect (probably hundreds of thousands, worldwide), and doesn't stand out from the crowd in any way whatever. Similarly, the ration card news article tells us that "various schools" are used as ration card distribution centres, too. The remaining minutia in the article is in fact about a person named Shri R. Soundara Rajan, and not about the school at all. Wikipedia is not a directory, but the only things that are in this article are: effectively a paraphrase of its directory listing in a (clearly less than 100% reliable, given the number of glaring errors that leap from the page when reading it) list of schools used as polling stations and an paraphrase of its (implied) directory listing in a list of schools used as ration card distribution centres. As a criterion for encyclopaedia-worthiness, the trivium about people being moved into a back yard really is at the level that would establish the infamous shed in my back garden as encyclopaedia-worthy. I find it saddening that the level of desperation to prove a plainly unsupportable assertion has risen to such an extent that people are willing to employ criteria that actually present a significant danger of the shed in my back garden getting an article. It's amazing that even when the prime reference being waved around is a long list of schools about which exactly the same thing can be said, the point that large numbers of schools are identical, and intentionally so (as a matter of public policy in many countries), still seems to be missed, even when it is glaring right in one's face as here. As per Skysmith, mention in Erode that schools are used as polling stations and ration card distribution centres (albeit that the former fact is so general that it could be mentioned in Education in India) and Delete. Uncle G 02:06, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • The purpose of wikipedia articles is not to astound people with notability, it is to provide information to those who are seeking it. Kappa 22:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as much as verifiably possible. High schools should not need to establish notability. --BaronLarf 21:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Wikipedia would not be improved by the (re)deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV, referenced. - David Gerard 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Okay, I usually stay out of these high school debates, but I will make an eception here. The original poor Maha Jana High School article was kept, and then improperly deleted (first redirected, then deleted). I was the one who brought the article to VfU as an improper deletion. The current revision of the article is much better than the one at the first VfD debate, and if that one was kept, this one most certainly should be. I recall also User:Postdlf's comment on the VfU debate, if we can verify that the school exists, undelete and don't list again on VfD. Sjakkalle 07:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Folks, lets try to keep this in perspective. Bring up just about any article in Category:Soviet Navy submarines. Do you honestly beleive that this school is somehow less notable, or less worthy of a WP article, than say for example, Soviet submarine K-429? Sure, that story about it sinking may be fun to read, but really, that's what thriller movies are for, not encyclopedia articles. linas 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Perspective?!? You try to keep perspective with an unfair comparison? That submarine is world history, admittedly a very small player, but still world history. What part has this school played in the world as a whole, in comparison? My submarine just sunk your battleship comparison! Master Thief Garrett 02:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let it grow, let it grow let it growwww. [9] —RaD Man (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • "Every time that I plant a seed // He said, "kill it before it grows."" *sprays with Roundup, note the pun* Master Thief Garrett 09:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you are able to see things from our perspective. Kappa 10:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every school is notable. This one isn't. Jonathunder 22:31, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca sivitz

Looks like a vanity page; Delete. Emiao 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, typical vanity. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Probably a boyfriend/girl friend created page. Silly vanity. Geogre 13:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a cool-sounding university student, but who doesn't yet merit an encyclopedia entry. Samaritan 13:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She is "totally badass" but page is vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop (content was: '{{del}}pen15 = penis'). Undeleted by (?), re-speedy'd by Rlquall (Deserved a speedy. Everyone on VfD voted for it to be deleted, even its author.). Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abif

This article is a ramble of misguided "original research" (based on misunderstandings of Hebrew words from the Hebrew Bible yet.) See Talk:Abif and especially Talk:Abif#Freemason agenda for a scholarly view as to why this article deserves deletion. IZAK 06:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. IZAK 05:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. Neutralitytalk 06:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV original garbage. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the most laughable piece of insane rubbish I've read in quite some time...and believe me...I read a lot of unspeakably insane rubbish. Tomer TALK 06:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, it's bad. :\ El_C 06:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy-delete another attempt to pollute WP. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Eliezer 07:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Outline)

This is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 06:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" in the above statement have been deleted by RickK and restored by myself. Kappa 09:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
And I've re-deleted them. RickK 20:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing personal: it's always true. I didn't bother to see who was responsible for this particular tag. --Wetman 09:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the cleanup tag, yes it's easier for me to add the tag, and yes it's easier for someone who knows the book and the article to write the intro. Kappa 09:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons outlined by JW1805--Jjcarroll 08:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no need to cramp Wikipedia on the basis of some obselete idea of what an encyclopedia is. Oliver Chettle 14:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire isn't that long, and (as Radiant! would say) "information does not want to be alone". As a freestanding article, this lacks context to explain that it is about a book, and it's a reasonable mistake to make to think that this is the beginnings of an actual wikibook on the history of the Roman Empire (which indeed would not be an encyclopaedia article, and I suspect is what RickK thought this was). The title really doesn't give any clue, either, and indeed lends weight to the hypothesis that this is the draft outline for a wikibook. There's space to Merge this into The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which, by putting the information in context, eliminates the need to write an introduction to give this article the context that it is lacking. Note that in all of the other book articles mentioned, the outline is included in the main article. If in the future you want to treat the contents of the book in detail, by the way, I suggest a {{wikibookspar}} tag on the encyclopaedia article and a The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire book on the Annotated works bookshelf at Wikibooks. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonencyclopedic. It's not even an outline of the book, it's just the table of contents. (And even if it were an outline of the book, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic.) --Angr/comhrá 15:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as Wikipedic. It's a forum to provide expansion on chapter summarys and context and relevance and information about abridgements and key ideas and quotes. If/when things progress, each chapter could be an article, just as we have individual articles on each line of the Bible. Personal notions of what an encyclopedia is, or isnt, are opinions. Stbalbach 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. ✏ OvenFresh2 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Wiki is not paper. --the wub (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful guide to notable history. Capitalistroadster 20:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - outline of notable history and will merit a separate article as it develops --AYArktos 00:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- it can grow gradually and become more useful than many other articles on TV serial characters, small Computer games, insiginificant places and more insignificant persons, and several such things which continue to circulate in the wikipedia, for want of proper attention.--Bhadani 02:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an index --nixie 02:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it is a mistake to see this as just an index. Decline and Fall is one of the great works of historical scholarship in Western civilization. It spans about 1500 years and runs about 2500 pages. It is not just a treatise on why the empire fell, it is an extremely detailed history of how it fell. A few paragraphs are simply not adequate to summarize this work. The comparison with the Bible is appropriate: there are pages and pages on Wikipedia about the Bible, including lists of chapters and books. I think a listing of the chapter titles of Decline and Fall is an efficient way to summarize the text, and also provides a very useful reference for anyone who is interested in learning more about it.--JW1805 03:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is too long to merge. Though I would like to see a little excerpt on each chapter as in The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World; that's really just because I would have thought as Outline would be a summary rather than (mostly) a list. That said this might be a wrong assumption on my part so just ignore me if it is! -- Lochaber 12:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep !!! It's a great encyclopedic topic but a poor initial article. I wouldn't remove the outline but it needs text and context. Put it up for community polishing. This work is one of the top 10 history books ever written and was a milestone of historiography. alteripse 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G. Radiant_* 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. And remove the pictures. They can be accessed by links to their articles. We don't litter articles with pictures of every person mentioned in them. -R. fiend 21:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Rj 08:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IHUB

This appears to be a small non-profit organization that is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Some evidence for this is:

  • No web pages link their web site. See Google search
  • No one has signed the guestbook on their web site
  • Was created by the new user IHUB.org Founder that appears to be quite biased
  • No Wikipedia articles link to it

With all of this, I nominate it for deletion. -- JamesTeterenko 07:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • As a campus movement it may well be worthy of note on the Trent University page, IHUB.org Founder, with a link to ihub.org, but i would be careful of that; i would list it among other similar notable campus movements if i were you. best wishes, man. i must abstain. -shuffdog 07:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Merge. Keep this page, because other more dubious pages than this one, with much less clear motives, survive VfD. Harro5 10:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


Keep it. By definition the purpose of an encyclopedia is to act as a reference book containing informational articles on subjects in every field of knowledge. iHUB appears to be a "neologistic concept " with noble and highly aimed goals. By its mission statement, the organization has the role of a hub and most importantly connecting all the people around the world. And therefore it definitely refers to everyone out there and what better place to be found at than among the content of an encyclopedia.--Ununoctium 14:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


No web pages link their web site. - http://www.trentu.ca/news/daily/archive/050301mankindunited.html Mankind United was the first name of our organization.

No one has signed the guestbook on their web site - iHUB Forum Statistics: Threads: 111, Posts: 455, Members: 31

--IHUB.org Founder 06:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep it, it should be listed in Wikipedia at least because of the goal and motives of org. (and for the rest the time will show)--Turbolium 11:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to college organizations. If it achieves national or international action (not membership), then it will have affected and acted in a larger context. Until that is true, it should be discussed where it will be found and where it makes sense. Geogre 13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wtshymanski 14:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Content currently reads like an ad (eg -references to 'our'); the first paragraph in bold is particularly irritating. Moreover, User:Turbolium and User:Ununoctium appear to be sock puppets; their only contributions are related to this topic. Mindmatrix 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A globally-focused organization with 31 registered members and not mentioned anywhere else on the web? It's a good idea, but they don't belong in Wikipedia until somebody outside their oganization notices them. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Spinboy 22:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Reply to:

"Delete. A globally-focused organization with 31 registered members and not mentioned anywhere else on the web? It's a good idea, but they don't belong in Wikipedia until somebody outside their oganization notices them."

Thank you for supporting the vision of iHUB.

We realize that at this point we might not have enough credibility. But we are mentioned on Trent University Daily News Page. This is important, because we are acknowledged at Trent.

Further, I should mention that WikiPedia holds articles not only about organizations. For example take any existing word. “iHUB” was not mentioned anywhere in WikiPedia before.

WikiPedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Our organization is not a fraud, but a grassroots effort, which sooner or later works and achieves its objectives. Therefore, it IS worthwhile mentioning in this great project. On YOUR decisions will depend how fast we will be able to spread our message across and make a change. --IHUB.org Founder 06:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete, Wikipedia is not here to spread your message. --nixie 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article would be appropriate when major newspapers started publishing articles about you, etc. Best of luck! Samaritan 17:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox. Radiant_* 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not well known enough to be verifiable. - SimonP 13:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 13:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate mousse

Kind of hate to do this, but Mousse already exists and is more complete. This is simply Mousse with a specific flavor. Nominated for VFD by Vegaswikian

Then put {{merge}} [[Mousse]] on the page, not a vfd. Nateji77 07:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
sorry. {{merge|Mousse}} Nateji77 07:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Nateji77 07:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect with Mousse. -- JamesTeterenko 07:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with some kind of orange mousse to form a swirly combination mousse. Or keep, preferably in my fridge. Kappa 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -- with Mousse. - Longhair | Talk 09:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Plain recipes belong in the cookbook, but this has plenty of cultural connection to make it encyclopedic. --Wetman 09:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. ✏ OvenFresh2 17:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect seems obvious, here. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I finished merging in the extra items. However I can not removd the VfD tag as I understand it. Yea, I may have jumped the gun on that, but the consensus was rather clear. As the proposer, can I ask to have the VfD removed? Vegaswikian 19:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep How nice that the article was clobbered during the VFD Process. Chocolate mousse is a very notable sub type of mousse. This is a perfect example an article that needs clean up and expansion. The subject itself is notable, and therefore the article should not be presented to VfD. Klonimus 07:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote - comment - I've reverted the redirect. The vote may go for merge, but it's only two days in and there's no harm in waiting a while longer before doing the business, to see if the consensus stays with merge. If someone extends the article, it may change! Please send a nice large bowlful of chocolate mousse to... Grutness...wha? 09:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above (or wikicookbook) Radiant_* 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Interview with Robert Dowding - a WWII Japanese POW

At best, this should go to Wikisource, but it's almost undoubtedly a copyvio. RickK 07:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No context or proof of original work. Likely copyvio. Sorry Bob. Harro5 10:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think this is even a repeater, but I'm not sure. Memoir, and therefore original research. Geogre 13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an encyclopedia article. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:54, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitedust.net

Ad for unnotable news website with an Alexa rank over 2 million. -- Grev -- Talk 07:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Delete. Spam. Harro5 10:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Harro5. Robinoke 13:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spamvertisement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dizzlete with extreme prejudice. --FCYTravis 22:17, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelangelo's Bacchus

We already have an article at Dionysus. Only one non-sentence of this article has anything to do with Michelangelo. RickK 09:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dionysus or delete. Harro5 10:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe this article is meant to be about Michelangelo's statue Bacchus which would be worthwhile but this isn't. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not related to the title. ✏ OvenFresh2 17:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone wants to write a real article on the subject they should go ahead, but this isn't helping them. -R. fiend 21:35, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timbury_Entonin_Mudgett

This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 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 - redirected - SimonP 14:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reality-distortion field

Topic already covered under Reality_distortion_field. Delete this duplicate entry. Timharwoodx 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the existing entry. Harro5 10:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect -- Longhair | Talk 12:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear redirect. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect --the wub (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Apply reality redirection field. Barno 19:05, 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 speedy deleted by Duncharris (patent nonsense, see vfd.) --cesarb 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Sahbaz

"Paul Sahbaz" doesn't seem to actually exist (nor does "Cronicles of McGiviney" either spelled thusly or correctly). No hits outside Wiki-mirrors in Google; no pages link to it. Page consists of stream-of-consciousness drivel. The page has existed since Nov. 2004 and seems to be mainly a tool for anonymous "creative expression" rather than an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Nunh-huh 09:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I find no evidence of this "popular comic". Nothing links to this article and from its history (originally the villain in an Armenian comic called the FMM, obviously) this appears to have been a series of personal attacks between various anons. SteveW | Talk 13:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm surprised the page has survived this long! Robinoke 13:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.EvilPhoenix 16:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:49, 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 speedy deleted by Petaholmes (recreation of previously speedied material) --cesarb 23:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Smeeton

This person does exist, but the story is unverified, and also un-notable. The author says that this did happen in Canada, but there is not proof, and it is possibly a hoax. Google News has no reports on Smeeton. Harro5 10:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Apps

This article would appear to be a hoax. No-one named 'Apps' appears in the roll of the Knights Bachelor nor in recent honours lists. The photo link turns out to be to a gym/personal training business in California. No google hits for "Steven Apps" + Botany or under any permutation. The species of Monarda mentioned also draws a blank. Dbiv 10:31, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nalu

This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear_Sailing

This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all promo demos. Master Thief Garrett 10:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would vote keep if it wasn't for the fact that it's about the DEMO, not the card itself. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • As an aside, I'd rather see GE Force MX series (graphics cards) and so forth rather than *individual* cards. Master Thief Garrett 08:19, 19 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 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DEATHdIGSdISCO

Delete. I don't think that this passes the notability standard and as such is not encyclopedic. --Ricky81682 (talk) 12:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- band vanity. Longhair | Talk 12:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ephemera. Geogre 12:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Robinoke 13:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. A single poor sentence since 29 Mar 2005. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all bandvans. Master Thief Garrett 08:19, 19 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 14:08, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BugBox (software)

Advert for some sort of "project management" software. Delete. SteveW | Talk 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Doesn't read like an ad. Describes the main feature (that the software supports PRINCE2 methodology), and a link to the website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Entry created by new user. Format copied from existing Wikipedia page for Projectplace (software). Author Stephen (unsigned) User:217.44.102.13
  • Keep, not adlike. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable, google hits:577. -MarSch 18:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not adlike, sufficiently notable. Kappa 21:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Codecruft, perhaps not an ad but not notable. Gmaxwell 00:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Borderline notable. Megan1967 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Article expanded, as suggested194.63.116.72 08:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)StephenAshurst
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 13:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Erase all non-notable software. Master Thief Garrett 08:19, 19 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 14:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kompanie 1

Non notable? Robinoke 12:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Since you ask, I'll estimate that 1,360 google hits [10] are not bad for a historical recreation society, and say notable. Kappa 15:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's try again. They have a busy schedule [11], and two armoured vehicles [12], I'd say they are notable in the field of British WW2 re-enactments societies. Kappa 21:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. google hits for: <"Kompanie 1" re-enactment> are only 212. Kompanie 1 is the name of many things. -MarSch 18:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Tokek 21:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Gmaxwell 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopedic--nixie 02:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep To wear it out all over again, more notable IMO than every Pokemon card ever created, or every minor Star Wars character, or every single episode of some TV series. Rlquall 03:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Re-enactment groups can be notable, and this is said to be the largest group of its type in Britain. Quale 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, kompanie = German for 'company' and plenty of companies are #1. Non-topic. Radiant_* 13:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's meant to be "company" as in "troops" but Delete anyway. Master Thief Garrett 08:17, 19 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 14:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer Tropsch

A more complete treatment already exists under "Fischer-Tropsch synthesis" (Unsigned comment left by Eric Kvaalen.)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tardbusters

A website with an Alexa ranking of 3,850,864, wikispam --nixie 14:14, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cattygoths

Former group of editors of a defunt website, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 14:17, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knutell

Appears to be nothing more than an advert. Orange Goblin 14:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was lazy and just copyied what I put on my site (so yes I guess it was just an Add) I hope the revised version is ok. --213.122.66.217 14:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Judging from google, I don't think this thing will qualify as "notable"... doesn't look like an established and well-known piece of software. Kappa 15:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. highly non-notable. google-hits:246. -MarSch 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, as per above. Master Thief Garrett 08:12, 19 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 14:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halo Fanatics Must Live

The site is non-notable

  • While I congratulate the site's ethos, it simply isn't notable enough (Google test for site's URL) to warrant an article about it. Sockatume 15:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Orange Goblin 15:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • don't delete hfml is one of the biggest forums in freeforum101.com 24.177.168.111 15:36, 2005 May 15 (according to history Uncle G 16:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC))
    • Comment: You have less than 40 members. Sockatume 15:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: have you looked at the average member count of freeforum101? We are in the top bracket 24.177.168.111 15:40, 2005 May 15 (according to history Uncle G 16:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC))
Comment: Very well, you are more notable than the other non-notable forums.Sockatume 16:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't delete 70.106.102.249 15:46, 2005 May 15 (according to history. 24.177.168.111 edited this vote, apparently in good faith. I've restored the original. Uncle G 16:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC))
  • Delete, not notable. --W(t) 15:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • Comment: why should something small not be noted? User:dum 15:59, 2005 May 15 (according to history Uncle G 16:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC))
Comment: The Wikipedia isn't meant to record the entire internet. That's what the Internet Archive is for. If you have a look around, you'll notice that precious few forums are notable enough to be included in the wikipedia. Those that are included are typically attached to a highly notable website, or have interesting histories around which to base an article. Aside from stating where HFML is and that it's a Halo forum on free web space, what would an article on it contain? Sockatume 16:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: as a matter of fact it has a farly intresting past, involving rebellion, bannings...and many other theatric eliments...I just havn't gotten to adding the history yet...if you would care to look at old topics on the forum, you might get a idea of the history, as I hate to covor things up by deleting them...if you gave me some more time, I would have added the history, along with documents on the rebellion that took place on its "parent forum" www.halobabies.net User:dum
Comment: Bear in mind that these things have to be interesting to non-insiders. I mean, there are countless fascinating in-jokes and events on my forum of choice, but I don't presume that the future ages are going to be interested in them. Sockatume 16:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: in all realty there ain't many inside things, and any of them i would be sure to explain fully.
I could write gallons about TRM's "that train has sailed" mixed-metaphors slip-up, and perfectly detail the origins of it and exactly what happened so anyone could understand it... but would anyone outside of the forum care? The answer I leave up to you. Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.EvilPhoenix 16:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV/vanity. It is fairly unique in the fact that not only dose it rely completely on free web hosting it’s also never intendeds to get a professional domain. yeah right. If you are so unique, let someone neutral post an article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment whatever, i never said anything about not letting them post...nothing is stopping them...

  • Delete. completetly unknown with 3 googlehits. -MarSch 18:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. POV. Unnotability. Killtacular. Nestea 18:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable forum with 37 members. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. R Calvete 00:08, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, last night I added it to my to-be-deleted list but you beat me to it! Master Thief Garrett 04:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:07, 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 speedy deleted by Neutrality (content was: '{{vfd}}'''Penultimate frisbee''' was the short-lived precursor to ultimate frisbee.{{substub}}{{sport-stub}}Category:Sports[[Category:F...') --cesarb 23:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penultimate frisbee

Joke article. --W(t) 16:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starwolf team

Game clan vanity. --W(t) 16:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

  • Are you going to nominate all the related pages, too? Kelly Martin 16:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - not vanity, part of a game. Merge with Star Wolf. Orange Goblin 16:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, sorry about that, I was thrown off by there not being any mention of them in the Star Wolf article. Merge+Redir seems to be the thing to do yes. --W(t) 16:54, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Merge -- into Star Wolf. It's not a clan. Did the submitter even give the article more than a glancing look? - Longhair | Talk 16:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Star Wolf and delete. I remember seeing individual Star Wolf members on the VFD some months ago. Nestea 18:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Star Wolf. Megan1967 06:08, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Neutrality ((content was: '{{db|no actual content}}Category:EconomicsCategory:SocioeconomicsCategory:Social justiceCategory:Development[[Poverty|Low Income...'), recreated by author, speedy deleted by Neutrality [no edit summary]. Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Low income rights

Recreation of previously speedily deleted content. Per policy, moving to VfD on the grounds that perhaps the author will defend why this low-content article should remain. Kelly Martin 16:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - moved to user space - SimonP 14:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Eric Norwood

Appears to have been created by the author, non-notable. Orange Goblin 16:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy to User:PENorwood and let someone else create this article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — The article as it stands doesn't even qualify as a biography. There doesn't appear to be much information about P. Norwood in google, so I'm not sure how it will be expanded. Perhaps add name to list of requested articles? — RJH 17:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if possible. Orange Goblin, I assume you meant "appears to have been created by the subject." Dystopos 21:55, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qube

Advert. --W(t) 16:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

  • Also, Qube Cinema (same content). --W(t)
  • Delete spamvertisement. If you want to nominate Qube Cinema put the tag on it as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And now delete Qube Cinema as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisment and already duplicate article Freyr 18:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cube as implausible misspellgni. Radiant_* 13:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topcoder-Samp

Orphan article that makes no sense. The entirety of the article is code demonstrating a simple use of memoization in C. --Delirium 16:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup, if someone can explain how the title makes sense, redirect, otherwise delete. (Truncted "Topcoder-sample", some sort of tutorial perhaps?) --W(t) 17:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't a pseudocode repository, so delete. Isomorphic 17:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this unwanted orphan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Tokek 21:00, 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 - kept, but needs much work. - SimonP 14:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


"Delete this travesty "

[edit] Occupied territories of Baltic States

Under current title the article has incurable problems with POV. The claim that all territories which were part of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the first half of the 20th century, but are not part of those countries now, are to be considered occupied territories is highly controversial to say the least. Balcer 17:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well the territorial expansion did happen, and it is mentioned on the Soviet Empire page. So perhaps Soviet Empire should be expanded to include acquisitions during the same time frame? I'll vote to Merge there with no redirect, along with suitable editing for neutrality. (There are plenty of other Russian border states that lost territory, in addition to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. So those could be covered in more detail as well.) — RJH 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

But Estonia could not have lost territory to Russia because it was not a country that could lose any territory. Until Bolsheviks, it did not exist or existed merely as a geographical concept (no encyclopedia or any source define Estonia as a country until 1920s. Pre WWI Encyclopedia Britannica has no entry on this non-country country). The question of territorial loss or gain or of occupation or annexation is of irrelevance if other, fully legitimate viewpoints are to be considered.

In essence - the Estonian ethnocratic state claims that it is miraculous reincarnation of the ethnofascist dictatorship named Estonia or Estonian Republic between its recognition by Bolsheviks and the grant of independence by Gorbachev in 1991. Now only from this totally preposterous standpoint can one claim that Estonia (or Latvia) was occuppied or any territory gained. Even if the USA supported that claim during the Cold War for obvious political reasons the claim, the claim is fairly preposterous.

The current Russian Federation official view is that Estonia is a brand new entity that emerged from the Soviet Union - hence its borders are the borders of Estonian Soviet Republic. The case closed.

The third point (the one I adhere to) that the overthrow of Russian Republic by the Bolsheviks in 1917 was illegal (and the Russia's Council of State issued its last proclamation to that regard) and all treaties concerned border changes therefrom are illegal since the parties who signed them had no authority to do so. Hence Estonia or Latvia are illegitmate statelets, illegal today as they were 1920s. Those statelets could not have lost any territory since there was none to lose. Territory of Estonia is two Russian provinces or governments (Estland, Estlandia or Esthonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Esthonia and the northern portion of Livlandia or Livonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Livonia). The only treaty that can possibly govern Russia's relations with those provinces is that of the Treaty of Nystad in 1721. Occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the USSR is hence an annexation of own territory by less than legitimate entity. Unfortunately this viewpoint is not shared by the current Russian administration because they can't - they would have to carry out restitution inside Russia and de-privatize a humongous number of assets if they recognized the fact that 1991 was not a fresh beginning as they claim.


  • Strong keep seems to be like a vfd to prove a point maybe. I myself suggested in the discution that the rename might be needed. However, the subject itself is encyclopedic, there are really territories which were part of Baltic States during interwar, but were detached from their Soviet Socialist Republics when they got occupied by Russia, and up till now these territories causes certain troubles, e.g. certain people protests against recognising them as part of Russia; this owas the main reason why the Latvian-Russian border treaty wasn't ratified recently, as Vladimir Putin himself said (he said that treaty would be ratified in case Latvians would drop "claims which does not correspond to European spirit"; Latvians required to put into the document that the document is based on the interwar boundary treaty, adn the interwar boundary treaty between Russia and Latvia included Abrene region as part of Latvia. In Estonia same things exists too with Petseri region and the East Coast of Narva. In Estonia even the maps are frequently drawn to mark these territories as occupied Estonian lands (type "Eesti" in google and see pictures, many maps will be like that). In Lithuania the situation is that government refused all claims to such territories which were claimed in the interwar. The article is a very good way to compare the stance towards these lost territories in all three countries; as the reasons for loosing them and situations were similar. Also, it is at the same time as the list of those territories with links to their respective artciles; so person who needs this infor but does not know well what territories of Baltic States were lost, could see this to get the info (as there are links back from the articles baout the respective territories to this article). BTW, to all who does not know the history of region too well, all Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union for the firts time in start of WW2, and for the second time at the end of WW2, and the detaching of territories happened during first years of occupation in all cases (I mean, each of the Baltic States was made into an Soviet Socialist Republic, part of USSR, while these territories, despite of being part of independent states previously, were attached to other Soviet Socialist Republics instead; after indeependence was redeclared in 1990/1991 therefore these territories did not became part of Baltic States again). During the interwar period, all three countries were independent states for whole period.DeirYassin 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves, keep preferable to deletion if move not possible. POV is no reason for deletion. The problem here is the word 'occupied'. Consider changing to annexed. Wouldn't that solve the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Annexed is less politically charged than occupied, but I think it still means the same thing. I wish to replace the word Occupied with Disputed. Other than the renaming of the article, it should be kept, but clean-up any POV sections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename and clean-up ('disputed' sounds good). I found this intriguing - but I want to know what a Russian perspective would be --Doc Glasgow 21:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Disputed would also be incorrect, at least for 2 out of 3 Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. Both of these countries have signed (or are just about to, see news link) agreements with Russia recognizing the current borders. The agreement between Latvia and Russia is stalled, but even there the dispute is not so much about territory, which Latvia knows it has no hope of getting, but rather about compensation for the depradations of the Soviet regime in Latvia. How about Lost territories of the Baltic States as a name which reflects the actual state of affairs. Balcer 21:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, arbitrary bundling of issues into one. Each country has an article about its history. It may contain whatever territorial gains/losses happened throughout its history, including a very ridiculous claim abiout Konigsberg in the current context, but would be pretty clear if explained historically.
Also, bundling "baltic states" into baltic states is a bit of disrespect, although I know the history. But why Finland is not here? In the context of Soviet history, its losses would be more than relevant to the region/issue. Mikkalai 03:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Mainly because of the Russo-Finno War and the loss of Karelia? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Karelia's loss was not exactly similar as loss of these mentioned territories; these territories were all detached after whole countries were occupied, while it was not so for Karelia. Of course, if someone wishes so, comments about Finland could be added. And there is no ridiculous claim about Koenigsberg, it is said that "some" territories of Kaliningrad Oblast used to be dominated by Lithuanians; not the city of Koenigsberg however, and that is explained. And anyways these territories aren't added to occupied territories and it's explained why they aren't. And grouping is useful same as all lists, so person who heard first time abou tthis we.g. at Abrene region could then see about whole issue in otehr Baltic states too DeirYassin 05:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly why the article is described as POV: you pick and group issues selectively. Shall we write and article "Belarussian territories occupied by Lithuania"? What about Vilnius? How many Lithuanians lived in the area at the beginning of the century? And what about saying thank you to the Soviet Union for lithuaninas got it back after Pilsudski grabbed it? And so on. Thank you for not listing Belarus as taken away from GDL and Poland and ruthlessly occupied by Belarussians. Mikkalai 16:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Vilnius wasn't Lithuanian at the start of century but was Lithuanian once (before XVII age), territory of Lithuanian nation retrated over the time because Old Byelorussian at first and then Polish were written official languages and so people in cities started to learn them and even speak as native, same happened e.g. in Ireland with English changing Irish. But however, this does not matters, the fact is the fact that all the regions mentioned in article belonged to the said countries during interwar (at least for some time, and these borders were officially defined). Interwar was already tiime of national states, and current Baltic States, at least officially, are the same states as they were iinterwar (officially the independence ws not declared, but restated: i.e. this was similar to e.g. France regaining independence after WW2; that's why in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia articles we have two indepndence days). What happened in medieval when there were no national countries and such is one thing, what happened in the interwar is another. If you say nationality is the onkly important thing than e.g. Anschluss was right too and such. Anyways, this article is eligible about an eligible subject. If you want to add info about more point of views, feel free to do so but that is no reason for deletion.
My reason for deletion is an arbitrary grouping three states into one. I suspect, to make losses more impressive. Who forbids you to put the corresponding pieces into the histories of the respective states, in proper context? Mikkalai 16:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Because, it is not only history. As I said, both in Estonia and (especially) Latvia this place it's role in politics, relations with Russia. the situations of all the lost lands were practically the same, detached by same power at similar time at same circumstances. In all cases states reconises themselves to be same states as were in the interwar, and all what occupational governemnt done is considered to be against laws as they according to this view had no right for that. In Lithuania the role in politics is less of course, but still because everything happened under same circumstances, it is an eligible comparement. Sam eyou could write e.g. an article on Changes of state boundaries because of WW2 in Europe - would be an encyclopedic subject, even though it includes only European countries.
  • Delete and start the article again: under a new name, with new, more balanced views, less POV and more facts. Sorry, DeirYassin, I appreciate your input, but that thingie is simply too POVed and too one-sided. Halibutt 05:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, parts of this article as mentions of former territories may be put into articles Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia. If tomorrow everyone would start counting his lost lands and occupied territories - this won't be good. --Czalex 06:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    Comment - as it was said, POV is not reason for deletion, if someone sees this as POV it might be edited and moved to a new name. While now it seems that there is certain group of people, who wants to deny that these territories belonged to said countries altogether. But they did, and it is said in article which countries looks back to these territories and which countries does not, but the subject is encyclopedic clearly, it influences politics even now in some cases, and even oif it wouldnt, it would still be notable cause that is a real historical thing. DeirYassin 06:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    Also, territorial loss differs from territorial loss; in some cases, as in this one, it is done by occupying power and was done quite recently. In medieval period when everybody was grabbing lands and such is another thing. Also in this case the mentioned territories are important now too; I understand that some people might find terirtorial claims in general to be stupid for one reason or another, or territorial disputes and such, but that does not makes them any less encyclopedic. And there are many articles about not exactly claimed territories which some people imagines as independent state or as part of another state, e.g. Republic of New Africa.DeirYassin 08:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Only Keep. Very good article and very correct name of the article. As I see here, most demanding of "deletion" are polish nationalists which don't like the fact that pre-war Poland was extremely agressive dictatorship state, which occupied and opressed neighbour nations. The spirit of this fascist state still is alive today - demanding of deletions , blockings etcr of otherwise-minded users. Zivinbudas 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Tentative keep, rename and de-POV. This is a notable historical issue I was not aware of. The information might also be merged elsewhere. Martg76 11:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, revise. 66.94.94.154 13:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • wait. I see, that we solve only problems, concerning Lithuania now. Let's wait, what will Latvians and Estonians say. Linas Lituanus 20:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
P.S. Lithuanian part needs at least improvement. The first thing , that Latvian and Estonian position is official, but Lithuania never expressed such official position now as it is described in the article (Lithuania has treatments both with Belarus and Poland!). So, it's incomparable and deceptive. But the fate of the article should depend on Latvian-Estonian part, not on this irrelevant Lithuanian controversy. Linas Lituanus 20:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Exactly right. There is considerable contrast between the treatment of border issues in Lithuania as opposed to in Latvia and Estonia. In a nutshell, Lithuania has officially settled all border claims with its neighbours, while Latvia and Estonia still have some outstanding issues. This lumping of Lithuania with the other two countries, done by Lithuanian editors, leads me to suspect that there is a bit of a hidden agenda here, possibly subconscious. Just maybe the authors are not happy that Lithuania recognised its current borders, and so they want to talk about Lithuanian border issues in the same article as they talk about Latvian and Estonian issues. This might then create the impression that Lithuania is still claiming territories like Latvia and Estonia, which is not the case! Balcer 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
There is an explaination in the article however that "different stances exists towards these territories in different Baltic States", and there it explains differences between Lithuanian and Latvian and Estonian stances. They are all grouped because they were all detached at same time, under same circumstances, by same power (Soviet Union), all three countries are nearby and frequently grouped into one region anyways, shares similar history, shares similar claim that their independence was restated rather than declared, were only countries of former USSR to be indepndent whole interwar period, in all those detached territories russifying was done (not creating Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian schools, etc.), etc. Differences in views towards these territories are explained in the article, and if you want, feel free to add more information about that.DeirYassin 21:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add only, that legally The Lithuanian-Soviet Peace Treatment of July 12, 1920 (including part on border) still is in force. All followed treatmens appeal on this treatment. Our situation is absolutely the same like of Estonians and Latvians - they don't demand of returning of these territories, they only appeal to Peace Treatments with the Soviets of 1920. On other aspects I fully agree with DeirYassin. 85.206.194.118 21:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I dislike this idea very much. Both You, booth Belarusian colleagues look at the situation very formally. Belarus is an independent sovereign state now and our treaties with Belarus couldn't be presupposed with treaties with former Soviet Union (i. e. with Russia presently, which doesn't rule this part of Vilnius region). I appeal to Lithuanians, that they shouldn't make Belaruses to increase this flush of formalities. There are many aspects of every state, not linguistic alone. When ones base the citizenship of Lithuania on being not Slavic, it's rather his idee fixe than reality. I doubt , if Belarusians don't know that census of Belarusians in Vilnius is about 1 percent only? Or that such nationality as Slaves doesn't exist? But they say all this mostly because they are offended and made to defend some ideas. But even such avoidable points are possible to be presented in more acceptable form, than it's in the present version. Don't push others to no-go, at least avoiding being pushed there yourselves. Linas Lituanus 16:43, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
I agree with you that Vilnius nor the part of region which was given back to Lithuania never had significant portion of Belarussians, it was first Lithuanian, then parts of it were polonized. As for the Eastern Vilnis region (part of Vilnius region no win Belarus), parts of it originally had Lithuanian majority, parts of it had Belorussian majority; parts of regions with both majorities were polonized later. The opinion of some nationalist Belorussians is however, that Lithuanian Great Duchy was a Belorussian creation and therefore Belarus supposedly has historical right to claim some territories which were in LGD, and especially polonized Lithuanian territories as it is easier to claim then that those are actually polonized Belarussian territories, because Belarussians were supposedly major nation of LGD. Anyways, I do not support such opinion of course, I rather said, that if this opinion is popular in Belarus (and taht is up for Belorussian wikipedians to say, I haven't been to Belarus so I don't know), it might deserve an inclusion as an opinion not as a fact of course. Both arguements supporting it and arguemens against it would be written, I think there would be more of later, that is my opinion however. There are many such articles on opinons, e.g. about antisemitism - now it is generally agreed that Jews aren't lower than other people, but some are still antisemitic and this had influence in history, therefore there is an article about it. Same for any significant ideas; I don't know if that idea about Vilnius supposedly being occupied by Lithuania is really significant however, or just held by a bunch of Belorussian nationalists. If the it is held by a bunch of people only, it shouldn't be included, because I am sure there are various opinions, even most stupid, which are held by few people, maybe even e.g. opinion that all the world should belong to for example Russia or USA, but those do not merits articles. DeirYassin 17:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete--Duk 22:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted or Rename. Only Baltic states point of view represented => it's not neutral by default. Agree with Mikkalai and Czalex. --EugeneZelenko 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So you should edit the article and try to represent other point of view too if you think that way would be more neutral; no article is perfect from start and it is no reason for deletion that an article is not perfect, it is a reason for improvement. I understand that especially due to former Soviet education probably, which used to teach that each SSR is the sole homeland for all the people in the world of the titular nation, current borders might seem sacred to some people, but that still does not make this topic less encyclopedic. The reason that one disagrees with some territorial claim or such is not the reason for it's deletion. DeirYassin 06:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    I know about point of view of very anti-Soviet and democratic (http://svaboda.org) oriented people that Wilno is Belarusian city, and was given to Lithuanian SSR by Soviet Union away from Belarus. So whose territory is occupied in this case? Why title tells only about Baltic States? --EugeneZelenko 14:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, Vilnius did not have Belarussian majority though, and parts of what is currently northwest Belarus certainly did had Lithuanian majority once (as for real information, in fact up till slavinisation (which happened due to Polish and Old Byelorussian being more prestigious languages at the time than Lithuanian) XVII age more than 50% of what is called Eastern Vilnius region was Lithuanian - I'll agree however that for example Gardinas/Hrodna was not ethnically Lithuanian, at least not in XVII age, I don't have earlier information. If we count what nation lived where historically, that is where claim over that region, or at least big parts of it, might arise. As for XX age between world wars however, you are right that the region around Vilnius was not Lithuanian-speaking - however, that is just immediate region around Vilnisu, regions around Švenčionys and Druskininkai for example were Lithuanian speaking then too, and same for some towns (Lazdūnai, Gervėčiai, Pelesa) in current day Belarus, which were russianised by Soviets and now only some old people speaks Lithuanian in the area (in 70s there were around 50,000). In other words, according to XX age situation Soviets distributed the region with some Lithuanian-spekaing enclaves getting into Belarus, and Polish-speaking areas distributed between both SSRs. However, historically Lithuanians has rights to more territories, theoretically, and has historical rights to all territories of current Lithuania, because in every territory of it once there was a majority of Lithuanian speakers). Anyways, the idea that Vilnius is occupied by Lithuania supposedly, if that is widespread, might be represented in same way: maybe you could write an article about territories which some Belarussian groups (if those are influential groups) considers should belong to their state and such (and reasons for these claims, and opinion about them of other people and various facts). Wikipedia is big, as long as it will be NPOV and tell it as an opinion with reasons instead of a fact, it is ok IMO. Same as e.g. even most radical believes such as neo-nazism are written about, and their views are given, that does not mean showever that teh article about neo-nazism is automatically neo-nazi. And this article is about Baltic States. If there is an article like "History of Europe" someone maybe say "Why this tells only about Europe?" but well, there are different articles in different scopes, you can create an article about Belarus. DeirYassin 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Frjwoolley 14:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This article have a strong POV regarding Anti-pole, anti-german, and anti-russian sentiments. For example, the claim that East Prussia should count as historicaly/ethnical lithuanian I found it ridicuous, since it has been under German/Prussian control for centuries and at any moment (not even in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) control of other country. Memel was annexed by Lithuania against the decition of the League of Nations (wich mandate a referendum that could decide the fate of the city) and taking the oportunity that the Republic of Weimar was weak. So at least in this cases, The Baltic state of Lithuania, as a independent nation, took over a territory that did not belong to it. Also, the remarks of facist poles only show intolerance and completely ignorance of the historical picture of the time: If we start talking about historicaly/ethnical territories that should be in control of their republics, then Poland has a historical claim over half of Ukraine or almost all Belarus, and almost all the baltic region. Another example (sort of out of topic, but it helps) could be the claim that Mexico should have control over Texas, Arizona and California, since it has historicaly/ethnical claim to have those territories. Regarding Russia, Vilnus was reestablished as the capital of the Lithuanian SSR, and I believe that the soviets manage to gave some territory to the baltics and remove some others. The USSR is now a difunct entity, and claiming those areas already under russian jurisdiction (at least in my opinion) is something that is not only wrong, but also that in some way doesn't help to heal the wounds that the USSR left. If we start creating articles like this one, then Wikipedia would be overfloded with territorial claims: My country, Peru, could label Tarapaca as Disputed territory with Chile, since they took it over after war or occupation. Lets walk to the futur, and individual claims (if the persistence to have them in wiki is strong) should be on their respective country. This article only shows a clearly xenofobic POV and fail to give a fair treatment to the countries accused. Messhermit 19:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
East part of East Prussia historically had majority of Lithuanians, that was the only thing which was said, and that zone ws not included as an occupied part of Lithuania because ethnicity is not a legitimate reason to consider it occupation, as you said yourself. And Wikipedia has to have info about past as well, not only future, and about all opinions, even radical ones. DeirYassin 20:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict the fact that Memel and most of it was under German/Prussian control for centuries (dating back even for the days of the Teutonic Order States). That the territory is under lithuanian occupation doesn't mean that IT should be in that way, that reminds me of the ill fated attempts by the Soviet Government to "sell" the idea that indeed those were slavic lands. Also, Wikipedia is a NPOV enciclopedia, and not a heaven for radicalism or extreme nationalism: your argument is wrong in that sence. About the past, Wikipedia has indeed a lot, but we must be carefully enought (and not to be fool in some cases) to prevent any attemp to rewrite it. This article clearly modify the history in favor of a group of countries, withouth looking at the hole geopolitical sphere and also disregarding the history of the other countries involved. Once again, I support delete this article. Messhermit 20:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Make it NPOV then. The fact is that whoever supports the opinion, it is still a valid opinion, especially in Latvian and Estonain cases where it plays even a role in politics. That nazism was a bad ideology does not means that we shouldnt write anything about it on wikipedia; your own personal believe sthat we must get over claims and look to future does not means we should ignore claims. As for the easitern part of East Prussia, it was under Lithuanian control at first, during the rule of king Mindaugas in 13th centure the order conquered it - however, yet again I will state a fact, it is not claimed in the article that eastern part of East Prussia is occupied, I know that 700 year old events aren't reason to include it there lol. It is merely explained why it is not included; this article is not about nationalist claims, that's why. It is rather about the real historical events where territories were detached by Soviets, and in 2 out of 3 countries this influences politics and foreign relations even up till now (not signing the border treaty with Russia), therefore it is significant and important IMO. POV is not reason for deletion, and anybody can edit wikipedia and make it NPOV. DeirYassin 21:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, your statements on Klaipeda are completely false. Klaipeda region (Northern part of Lithuania Minor) was separated from Germany after WWI in 1919 by Treaty of Versailles and was designed to unite to Lithuania. Reunion was delayed because of polish intrigues. Lithuanians only pushed this process. It was recognized by Legue of Nations and by Germany in 1928 (German-Lithuanian Border Treatment). Zivinbudas 04:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Trying to sort out "ethnic control" of these areas is a fruitless argument: they were tremendously multi-ethnic for centuries. Eastern East Prussia (including Memel) and western Lithuania had Lithuanians, Germans, Austrians (from the Salzburg refugees of 1731) and Jews all mixed together in large quantities. The big coastal trading cities (Konigsberg, Memel) were more German, the rural areas often more Lithuanian. Go south or east and you add other nationalities as well. Some families intermarried. The Nazis destroyed the Jewish communities, some of the largest in Europe, in the Holocaust. After 1944 the Soviets (and occasionally others) started killing or moving people -- including all the Germans and Austrians -- to create neater boundaries along the lines they wanted. They imported Russians to replace the purged peoples (i.e. in East Prussia) or to "Russify" areas like the Baltics. But for centuries before that it was not relatively "neat" as it is today. Coll7
If you read this article [13] it clearly shows that the french were in charge of the territory so a plesbicite could be realice. The fact that Lithuania used force to control the territory may imply its changes to lose it. Also, ironicaly, it was the soviet who award it once again to Lithuania. [14] This is another page that talk about this. Also, I strongly suggest that if any claim is made, it should be explained in the history of its respective countries. Russia, Germany and Poland should have a voice here too. Messhermit 17:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Just today Estonia and Russia finally signed a pact confirming their borders (see news story). The treaty did not change in any way the borders drawn during the Soviet times between the republics of the USSR. This means that the only Baltic country left whose borders are in any way contested is Latvia. Even there the solution is likely within a few months, with likelihood of any territory changing hands vanishingly small. In short, the case for deleting this article or at the very least renaming it just got stronger today. Balcer 18:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not a reason to delete this article IMO; even if Latvia would have signed it as well, this article is still about a clear fact: territories of Baltic States, which were detached during Soviet occupation. It influenced politics of Estonia and other things were for 14 years, as for Latvia, up until now. There are things like maps with those territories included and such, and in each of states the reaction towards such things is different. Historical disputed, and historical claims has a place in Wikipedia; if e.g. Pakistan, India and China would sign a treaty delimiting borders in Kashmir tomorrow, I don't think that would mean that the information about the dispute should be removed altogether from Wikipedia. History is important part of our life and all encyclopedias. DeirYassin 18:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • What is said is true, but the articles should not be created arbitrarily. The current article must be deleted. Its content must go in two directions:
        1. Into histories/geographies of each Baltic state.
        2. Into Territorial changes of the Soviet Union. This is a very interesting topic. It includes both annexions and redistribution of territories between the Union republics. This happened not only in Baltic states. For example, Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, and now it also a source of trouble. The same happened in Caucasus and Central Asia. IMO all this deserves a single article, from a common perspective; a good addition to the Population transfer in the Soviet Union, still another light on the internal works of this huge empire. Mikkalai 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The comments by Mikkalai above sound sensible and even-handed to me, and I support such a Merge. Current text is too POV. Realistically, these areas were annexed by the Soviet Union as Stalin came back in 1939-45 for border areas they lost during the civil and ethnic wars over the breakup of Imperial and Republican Russia in 1918-21. This doesn't mean what happened wasn't unjust or accompanied by murder and ethnic cleansing, but our anger at those things can't color our discussion of the facts. Coll7
        • Maybe one such article could be made, but I still think there should be articles for each region of Soviet Union too, because the situation was different everywhere. While as for Baltic States, their respective borders were clearly defined in interwar by deals between said Baltic States and Soviet Russia, for example in Central Asia, formerly populated by nomads in many cases, boundaries between SSRs were drawn anew actually, that way including some territories of one central Asian nations to otehr antion's SSR because it was probably impossible otherwise, there are many exclaves too. In Caucasus it was another case also. Another case with Crimea too as Crimea historically was Crimean Tatar, neither Russian nor Ukrainean, it was not the case with territories mentioned in this article and such. So there should probably be such articles on these regions: Baltic States (changes compared to the recognised boundaries of interwar), Ukraine/Belarus/Moldavia (changes compared to boundaries of short lived Belarus and Ukranean states and to the Bessarabia (detached territory of Romania)), Caucassus (smaller nations attached to larger SSRs, history of Transcaucasian USSR, etc.), Central Asia (new boundaries drawn). This article should remain then as the information abot the Baltic States region IMO. DeirYassin 19:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the article about the territorial changes of the USSR can be much more usefull that this one. Also, claiming that the secession of those territories definied the foreign policy of those 2 countries, I found hard to believe: territories go, territories come, that's history. And with the signing of the treaty between the Russian Federation and Estonia is a clear example that this issues are more related with the history of each country rather than for a hole region. Lithuania and Latvia must solve their own borders by their own. Messhermit 20:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Number of articles is not limited though, there can be several different ones as I said above, one about changes in general and others more specific ones; it is this way about many subjects and then sub-subjects. And yes it surely influenced foreign policy, Latvian-Russian border treaty wasn'tsigned exactly for the reason of Abrene region. It is your personal POV that "territories come, territories go" and people shouldn't care: in fact, in the world there are many conflicts over territories, such as Kashmir, Golan Heights, Nagorno Karabagh (probably spelled incorrectly here) and so on, and also many conflicts on small areas, islands and such. All these cases are encyclopedic and has articles about them. Your POV would be good in ideal world where no countries would attack others or annex territories illegally, but currently it is clearly not the case so applying that POV it would be "the one who is the strongest has rights to territories of weaker nations in case he decides the territories should belong to him". DeirYassin 21:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, maybe my POV is utopic for some. but at any moment I'm implaying that it should be stated in the page. My point for using that line was that excusing some of the Lithuan/Estonian/Latvian problems on territories is totally out of the context. Also, you can't blame all those problems on the Russian Federation, in the same way that the Arab states cannot justify their backwards as fault of Israel. Messhermit 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You can edit the article to make it more NPOV where you think it'd be applicable, POV is not reason for deletion. DeirYassin 04:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, your provided "memellanders'" webs are very impressive, especially first with piece of Nazi propaganda "Memel is Free!" Those "sources" are full of falsifications:

Statistic:

Year 1925 (2 years after reunion) (Klaipeda city including) (in percent):

  Lithuanians      50,7
  Germans          45,2
  Others            4,1
  Total           100,0

Year 1932 (Klaipeda city including) (in percent):

  Lithuanians      58,5
  Germans          38,2
  Others            3,3
  Total           100,0

Source: Rudolfas Valsonokas (Jewish author). Klaipėdos problema. Klaipėda, 1932.

Nice try, but accusing me of Nazi pages or something like that is clearly innapropiate and out of the topic. Those sites are locate in the first pages if you search for Memel in Google, and gave stadistic of Memel. As for reunited, you must refer to the Lithuanian SSR, a contituent of the USSR. Also, several history books in the US also teach that Memel was annexed unilateraly by Lithuania, a fact that even you acknowledge to "speed" the proceses. I'm not german, so those accusations of "Lies" or something, disscuss them with a german wikipedist. (Btw, I just realice that link of Nazi something at the bottom of one of the pages I gave, I didn't notice on the first place). Messhermit 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You mix two things: population percentages in city of Klaipeda itself, and population percentages of Klaipeda region as a whole. City of Klaipeda had more Germans, but whole Klaipeda region (with the city itself included) had Lithuanian majority, the percentages that Zivinbudas gave. Same thing e.g. was in Latvia after collapse of USSR when cities had Russian majority and in various other examples. Similar thing was in Vilnius region too to some extend, where Poles also constitued higher percentage in city of Vilnius itself than in Vilnius region. Btw one of the links you gave was actually Wikipedia mirror.DeirYassin 22:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
National minorities inside a country doesn't mean that they should be part of their respective country: another example is the one of Azerbaiyan, wich has a considerable ammount of population in Iran northener provinces, this does not imply that they should be part of the Republic of Azerbaiyan itself. Once again, this proves that this territorial lost should be covered on each of those republics involved, and not in the region. About the link, I didn't known it was a mirror, I just read some info that I considerated to be important. Messhermit 22:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, national minorities inside country doesn't mean that they should be part of their respective country. That is why Polish actions in Vilnius region were occupation, as the eastern border of Lithuania was set by treaty. And that is the point of this whole article, about those detached territories from all Baltic States. And IMO the grouping is needed as events were very similar, practically same, in all three countries, and people frequently consider these three countries to be one group anyways, they has common history and such, so this is a good place for someone who e.g. just recenntly heard about conflict on Abrene region to find out more about this problem and how it is/was dealt with in the Baltic States. And it can be covered in particular country histories too of course. Wikipedia is big, same as there are for example list of various states by both populations and sizes and such, and same as for example there are separate articles for Colonialism in America, Colonialism in Africa, etc. and as well on Colonialism in general; at the same time there can be articles on e.g. colonialism by country such as Spanish Colonialism, English Colonialism, etc. Same there could be articles on this issue - it as included in countries histories, and it as a separate issue. We are not deleting e.g. Colonialism in America article just because all what itsays might be covered in histories of all the American countries.DeirYassin 22:58, 20 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.
  • I don't think that Petseri and the eastern bank of the Narva River - which were part of Estonian territory from 1920-1944, should be considered 'occupied territories.' Estonia and Russia agree on their borders - Russia just refuses to ratify the border treaty because Estonia's preamble to the treaty mentions documents that mention the Soviet occupation. Estonia no longer claims those territories. There are some right wing parties in Estonia that do - but there are some right wing politicians in Russia (Zhiranovsky) that think Alaska really belongs to Russia. They are not of importance because neither has officially disputed this territory. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this week that Russia is willing to sign the agreement with Estonia, so long as there is no political declaration attached. There is no contest over territory.

My opinion on the article is this - it should include information on Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - the eastern front of Operation Barbarossa from World War II, and it should discuss the territorial shifts in those four states in the aftermath of World War II. And that's that. It can be linked to a larger article on Operation Barbarossa, or Soviet Empire, or whatever. The information deserves discussion, but only within the larger context.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Street Fighter characters (non-cannon)

Consists of nothing more than a list of articles that will most likely never be created, plus canon is spelt wrong. Orange Goblin 17:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with List of Street Fighter characters and delete. Nestea 18:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Using a cannon if necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge non-canon (fanfic) characters. RickK 22:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • These chracters appeared in official Capcom games. They are not fanfic characters. Nestea 01:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Nestea points out, they are real characters from real arcade games. Kappa 02:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete - I think (IANAL) that simple lists that have no content of their own can be merged and deleted. There is absolutely no reason to have this as a separate list. -Sean Curtin 04:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of Street Fighter characters. Megan1967 06:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Radiant_* 13:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nemo-NY

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nemo-NY&btnG=Search 500 hits, but most don't seem related to band. Judging by name of user "Nemo-NY", this is obvious self promotion.

Lotsofissues 17:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is also a copy violation, copied from here. If this band was to be written up in the future, it should get a mention in the Nemo disambiguation page. —Tokek
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity, copyvio. Megan1967 06:11, 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 14:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zurbrt

19 hits, mostly mirrors

Lotsofissues 17:57, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carson nimmo

vfd added by User: Samw, who did not create a subpage or give any explanation. Doesn't look notable though - possibly a vanity. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: He hopes to run "2 flat." He's a HS runner. He is not yet a notable figure. Plus, there's Geogre's Rule ("If the last name starts in lower case, the article's bound to have problems"). Geogre 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculative. Gazpacho 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as speculative vanity. Kelly Martin 00:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed above, unless something comes forward that is this individual's unique and interesting claim to fame. Which is unlikely. Mr Bound 01:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:46, 20 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 14:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lo' Down

First off, it needs quite a bit of attention, and read so much like advertising copy that I slapped an NPOV on it. But that's not the point.

The concern is that, reading the history of the article, that it's being used for a "rapper's war" instead of an article. I can't find anything significant on "Lo'Down" or "LJ" (except for the name of another artist) or anything of the sort on the web...or, for that matter, anything in regards to a New Mexico rap scene. Comments like "growing up in a Christian home" and "was the 2005 champion at Mortal Kombat Domination" have no real bearing on the article. Also, there are a lot of quotes listed, and there's no article references of any kind.

I find it enough to remove the NPOV and attention tags and am sending it to Delete. --Mitsukai 18:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not clear that it's anything but a piece of fiction. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If their claim to notability is that they are a champion at Mortal Kombat Domination, then merge that if you can. This could serve as a redirect to an article on the WWE tag team Lo' Down if such as article exists (the tag team was D'Lo Brown and Chaz), but otherwise delete it. Hedley 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The Lo' Down here has no relation to any other "Lo' Down" (at least two others, when I checked) on WP. --Mitsukai 17:17, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rtss

No doubt someone will know what this is about, but it's not me. Deb 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Orphan page and the article does not say what the heck it is. Although a careful_google_search reveals it is a Real Time Strategy Shooter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are certainly some games which fall into this genre, such as Battlezone and the two mentioned there already, Natural Selection and Savage. There doesn't seem to be much use of the term "RTSS" to describe the genre, however. Even if it is kept, it should be changed to "RTSS" and obviously needs some serious work to even be a decent stub. Doozer 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Radiant_*
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Magnet High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 19:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Good grief. Non-notable. I mean, it was established in 1988. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable school. --G Rutter 20:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Kappa 20:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Question. When you vote in this manner, are you indicating a willingness to expand the article yourself? Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I usually try to expand school articles, and I know other people will too. Kappa 21:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 20:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absent indication of notability and merge info to location. Gazpacho 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 21:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article doesn't establish notability. ESkog 22:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, more or less NPOV, reasonble topic. Kelly Martin 22:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:56, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, New and non-notiable, instutional vanity page. Gmaxwell 00:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. R Calvete 02:08, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I can only imagine that this is part of some kind of campaign to remove articles about schools. Perfectly good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into North Charleston, South Carolina and delete - Skysmith 08:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into North Charleston, South Carolina. --Carnildo 17:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please stop wasting our time with this. Oliver Chettle 19:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This was an amazing school article; it was so jam-packed with important facts that I read it several times, then e-mailed the URL to everyone I know. Wikipedia is useless without this kind of crucial information; SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH. Oh, and Delete. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let this stub grow. --Zantastik 19:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to expand. High schools should not have to pass a notability test. --BaronLarf 22:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 00:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge where applicable and Delete. Please stop wasting our time--adding this to WP in the first place. Master Thief Garrett 03:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm flabbergasted that Schools seem to get VfD'ed while articles in category:Electric power transmission systems are immune from attack. Surely the article for this school is more important than that for Nelson River Bipole? (Don't get me wrong, I'd vote to keep those articles as well; I'm mentioning this only to try to instill a sense of balance in this school deletion craze.) linas 23:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutrality, have you tried match.com? There are people out there. —RaD Man (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We could launch WikiSingles and pair off amongst ourselves... keep the intelligence genes in circulation... Master Thief Garrett 08:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a well-written article about a school. keep all (well-written) high schools. Sensation002 02:13, 20 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 14:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Springs High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have come round to the view that all secondary schools are inherently encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not paper. This may seem a rather drastic inclusionist view, I am not always a drastic inclusionist, but it does encourage young people to get involved in the Wikipedia project. PatGallacher 17:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable secondary school. Quale 17:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable secondary school. --Modi 18:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As mentioned above, definately non-notable (unless some evidence of notability is provided, of course.) Young people have many more ways to get involved in Wikipedia other than touting their own schools.Shutranm 18:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The natural thing for many young people is to look up their school, and create an article for it if it doesn't exist. If they then find it gets deleted, it might not give them a warm impression of WP. Kappa 22:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Young people also create articles about the bands that they and their friends play in in their basements. Your "give the young people a warm impression" argument applies equally to keeping articles on such bands. Uncle G 02:32, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • delete. Not notable. Dunc|☺ 19:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Proof of existence is not proof of notability. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per PatGallacher Kappa 20:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absent indication of notability and merge info to location. Gazpacho 21:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 21:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. ESkog 22:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:57, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional vanity page. Gmaxwell 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. R Calvete 02:09, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since it does not appear to be noteable. This nomination points out the need to get some kind of a policy to deal with all of these schools. Earlier today someone started posting a bunch of schools because they claimed that all schools are now acceptable. Notability was established in one article by listing someone's user page. As a short term solution can these be put into a category while a policy is created? At a minimum they should all have a complete info box and the school district and town links should work. Vegaswikian 05:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The second in a series of robotic listings for deletion by the same editor. I am utterly mindboggled by this strange, oddly savage campaign --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Winter Springs, Florida and delete - Skysmith 09:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, yeah! You could write how big its gym is, and how many classrooms it has, and who the dinner lady is and whether she washes her hands or not after she goes for a shit. And take up 32kb with such garbage! Expand?!? anyone who votes keep needs their heads expanding! Fucking hell. Kill All School Stubbs 15:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Winter Springs, Florida. --Carnildo 17:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please stop wasting time and contribute to Wikipedia instead. Oliver Chettle 19:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How can people be voting delete??? If the Florida Department of Education had rated the school a "C" since its opening, maybe I could understand it, but it has rated it as either an "A" or a "B"!!! Obviously a truly noteworthy school!!! And the sports teams are named "Bears"; why, they're probably the only school in the country who has thought of such an inventive name. Oh, and delete. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I find your reasoning amusing but not particularly persuasive. Kappa 21:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • No-one is here to be persuaded. All we have left is amusement, such as it is. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Heheh fair enough. Kappa 23:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. High schools are inherently encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not paper. --Zantastik 19:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have seen encyclopedic articles on other schools as well; they should be part of Wikipedia. Flcelloguy 23:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteJessicab 02:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable/distinctive for any encyclopedia worth the name -- which is a perfectly good criteria despite the invoking of a peculiar interpretation of a Jimbo Wales opinion. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • keep Give up. Please. Lotsofissues 11:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This school is ranked #231 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 thimkact 15:04, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 00:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surely this article is more noteworthy and notable than the useless unencyclopeadic trivia compiled in Category:sitcoms? I'll change my vote to delete if someone VfD's all the articles in Category:sitcoms first. linas 19:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist. Bad faith nominat(or|ion). —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep acceptable topic RustyCale 22:38, 20 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 15:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addison School

Three-sentence, two-line substub on an elementary school. Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; although I'm no longer a delete-school-articles person, I am still a delete-small-useless-articles person. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge info to Palo Alto, California. Article does not refute non-notability. Gazpacho 20:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. ESkog 22:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Palo Alto, California (unless significantly expanded by end of VfD, of course). JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have expanded the article to show what a little work can do to even an ordinary elementary school. I have no ties to the school and have never even been to California. Just collected info from the internet. Plenty more info could be obtained by others. Schools are encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three cheers for DoubleBlue for an excellent demonstration, by expanding the stub, of why school stubs should be permitted to grow organically. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank you for the excellent rewrite DoubleBlue. Pcb21| Pete 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, excellent rewrite, now an asset to wikipedia. Thank you DoubleBlue. Kappa 08:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 09:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable & NPOV, looks fine to me. -- Lochaber 12:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and Merge with Palo Alto, California. Article contains a lot of trivia. --Carnildo 17:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please stop wasting our time. Oliver Chettle 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Much ado about nothing. And please stop wasting our time trying to save useless articles by adding even more trivia to them. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let this stub grow instead of killing it off. --Zantastik 19:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A California elementary school? Not notable/distinctive for any encyclopedia worth the name -- which is a perfectly good criteria despite the invoking of a peculiar interpretation of Jimbo Wales's post. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but only because DoubleBlue expanded it. Let's see what it can become instead of shutting it down. Ordinarily, though, I would question whether many elementary can really qualify as encyclopedic. I can name dozens of Illinois high schools, but outside my own immediate area I can only name two elementary schools - Francis W. Parker School and The Latin School of Chicago - and both of those go through grade 12 as well. DS1953 04:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The rewrite by DoubleBlue has made this into an encyclopeadic article, which provides an excellent example of what can be included for elementary/primary schools.--Takver 05:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Adding trivia and fancy boxes to an article does not make it encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia != Triviapedia, infinite storage does not change our charter. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 06:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Lotsofissues 11:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 00:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Improved, yes, but Delete I'm afraid. Nothing really jumps out at me as making this school rise above the pack. Master Thief Garrett 03:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Merge as applicable. Master Thief Garrett 07:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You know, I haven't voted keep on a single one Neutrality has nominated? This shows me one of two things. A: I'm a biased deletionist B: he's doing a damned good job. I'm going with the latter. Master Thief Garrett 03:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is no longer the three sentence substub that it was when VfD started. Dshaffer 06:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • 50 lines of unencyclopedic trivia still isn't an encyclopedia article. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll change my vote to delete only after all of the WP articles on Hip hop music have been deleted. Surely this elementary school is more important and notable than the reams of unencyclopeadic trivia on assorted non-notable flash-in-the-pan hip-hop/rap music artists that WP contains! linas 19:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is no longer a stub, and the original argument no longer applies. See Deletion Policy:
The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies.
If somebody feels like adding it again as a VfD, fine, but clearly someone cared enough to try to improve it. Ealex292 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Now what did Jayjg just say? That's what I say too. Master Thief Garrett 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, if somebody wants to re-add it, go ahead, but the original listing no longer applies, so this VfD should be closed. Open a new one as "unencyclopedic trivia" that doesn't deserve to stay, but the current reason isn't applicable any more - it certainly isn't two lines. Ealex292 00:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. LOL. —RaD Man (talk) 07:44, 19 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 15:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Algonquin Regional High School

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 20:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, valid stub. Kappa 20:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 21:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ESkog 22:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Article could use some cleaning up, though. Kelly Martin 22:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:59, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 01:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. R Calvete 02:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Utterly mindless savagery. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, school cruft. Megan1967 06:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Northborough, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Northborough, Massachusetts --Carnildo 17:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop wasting our time. Oliver Chettle 19:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, a school that has students, and the teachers aren't so happy. No wonder this article needs to exist, this school is so different from every other school in the world. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid stub, no need to delete. --Zantastik 19:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --AlLucider 21:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep DS1953 04:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Lotsofissues 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lets keep this in perspective: surely this school is as important as any article you could dig up in category:Dams? Why are schools getting mass VfD's when they are every bit as notable as, say for example, John Day Dam? I mean, really, folks, think about it a bit. linas 00:00, 19 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 15:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Saints' Academy

A private school of 350 students from kindergarten to grade seven. Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 20:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • As I read it, the school is K-12. It used to be K-7. Abstain. Gazpacho 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, nontrivial, notable enough Kappa 21:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ESkog 22:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. For a K-7, this has some interesting history. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep, I feel it's notable enough. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non-notable instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 00:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. R Calvete 02:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tend to agree with Jimbo's opinion on verifiability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, school cruft. Megan1967 06:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live near this school and I have never heard of it. If it's not notable locally, it certainly isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: While you personally may not have heard of it, a Google News search on All Saints' Academy polk shows recent entries on the websites of Hernando Today and The Ledger. A Google search shows that the Assistant Principal of this tiny school is the Florida High School Athletic Association's delegate elect for one of its 32 public high school divisions--this body is officially recognised by the Florida State Assembly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The fact that local news organizations mention a local school is hardly worth noting, and neither is the principal's participation in a standard state public school organization. Gamaliel 17:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I happen not to live in Polk County, but if I'm looking at sports fixtures for Florida and notice the name of the school, I think it should be possible that an encyclopedia as good as Wikipedia has now become can tell me something about the school. That's what encyclopedias are good at--distilling public information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Polk County, Florida and delete - Skysmith 09:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools, certainly notable. Seems NPOV to me, as well. -- Natalinasmpf 09:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Polk County, Florida. --Carnildo 17:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please do something useful instead. Oliver Chettle 19:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Less notable than most of these, and that's saying something. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't running out of space. --Zantastik 19:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't worth the storage space, no matter how low disk-storage costs have gotten. --Calton | Talk 03:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • That would be great. keep Lotsofissues 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lets keep this in perspective. Surely this article is as important as anything you might be able to dig up in Category:Poland geography stubs? No one is doing a mass VfD on the articles on Polish Eastern Orthodox Basilicas. How about Szczecin-Goclaw? Is this school less important than some polish Nowe Miasto? linas 00:11, 19 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 15:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anfield Community Comprehensive School

Entire content is "Anfield Community Comprehensive School is a secondary school in the Anfield_(district) area of Liverpool." Substub on non-notable subject; delete. Neutralitytalk 20:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Comprehensive schools are more than notable enough for an unlimited, open encyclopedia. Kappa 20:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ESkog 22:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Anfield (district), that would deal with two substubs by turning them into a reasonable stub. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity.
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Liverpool and delete - Skysmith 09:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anfield (district) --Carnildo 17:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please stop wasting our time. Oliver Chettle 19:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this particular sub-stub exposes the essential mindlessness of all these "keep" votes (if the cut and paste nature of the comments hadn't already made it clear enough). Delete. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a lousy stub, but a good article could be written here. --Zantastik 19:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand - Jersyko 00:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete. Yet another school of no particular note. Hell, the Liverpudlian I just talked hadn't heard of, so what makes it worthy of an article? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the Special Olympics. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I just expanded it, mentioned something unique about it, and added a citation Lotsofissues 11:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if this stub's accuracy is not disputed. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting it. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Gamaliel, Calton, etc. OR merge with schools in (districtnamehere). Master Thief Garrett 03:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll change vote to delete after all WP articles on Manga have been deleted. Surely this school is more notable and important than all the manga ever printed, put together! linas 19:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless, not notable. CDThieme 01:23, 20 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 15:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishop Chapelle High School

Despite its location in my birthplace, it's still non-notable. Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, NPOV, notable enough. Kappa 21:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absent indication of notability and merge info to location. Gazpacho 21:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 21:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, perfectly rational topic. Kelly Martin 21:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lupin 21:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete again. ESkog 22:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. Chipmunks rock. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 00:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools R Calvete 02:15, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable. Plenty of room for organic growth. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, school cruft. Megan1967 06:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Metairie, Louisiana and delete - Skysmith 09:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Metairie, Louisiana. --Carnildo 17:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep How can you think this is a worthwhile contribution? All you are doing is wasting other people's time. Oliver Chettle 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly! Precisely my opinion of this article! --Calton | Talk 03:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you think this is a worthwhile contribution? All you are doing is wasting other people's time. Did you even notice that its school colours are green and white; those are extremely notable colours. What's more, it has a chipmunk as a mascot! Chipmunks are very, very cute!!! Only a rabid deletionist/little fluffy animal hater would vote to delete it. Delete. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We should err on the side of inclusion. --Zantastik 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep passes the Holy Sponge test. Klonimus 20:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand - Jersyko 00:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. [T]he mascot is a chipmunk! Cool! Useless! --Calton | Talk 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • keep A hopeless effort. Lotsofissues 11:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand when the deluge of school deletion attempts gives us a chance to stop voting and start contributing to articles. --BaronLarf 18:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then do so. Find some notable things about this school, and I'll change my vote. Something beyond the usual desperate trivia about the ethnic breakdown of the students and the name of it's mascot and the most popular candy bar in the snack machine. Something that makes it different in a significant way from several million other high shools. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • We work by consensus. The consensus seems to be heading for much less stringent requirements for an article than the ones you suggest. Personally I see no reason why all school entries should be somehow especially distinguished. It is possible to give useful information about a school without seeking out a famous alumnus, an unusual history, or the like (which are really as superficial as the chipmunk when all is said and done). A SAT results table, a list of curriculum subjects, and so on would quite useful to someone considering sending a child to a school or attending it themselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The current "consensus" is that there are about a dozen well-organized school inclusionists in Wikipedia who vote without considering either policy or article content, and that's really all it takes to save almost any article. As for "less stringent requirements", why only for schools? I see no reason why all biographies should be somehow especially distinguished. It is possible to give useful information about a person without seeking out notable achievements, interesting occupations, unique abilities. There are 6 billion people in this world, and they're all special and different in some way. Maybe we could have an article about every one of them. It would be useful for someone considering marrying off their child, or buying insurance, or ... Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll change my vote to delete only after all the articles on Star Wars have been deleted. Surely this school is far more notable and important than George Lucas and Obi-Wan Kenobi combined. linas 19:17, 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 - kept - SimonP 15:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asheville School

Non-notable boarding school with less than 250 students. Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge info to Asheville, North Carolina. School articles should indicate school's notability. The alumni names don't show up on Google. Gazpacho 20:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV (now) DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, schools with over 200 students are plenty notable. Kappa 21:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable - SimonP 21:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until Wikipedia starts running out of space. Hundred+ year-old high schools = inherently notable. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable instutional vanity page. Gmaxwell 00:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools R Calvete 02:16, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent topic for an article. They're called stubs for a reason. "Wikipedia is a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia that is written collaboratively by volunteers. You can't expect the first person to write a whole encyclopedic article every time!--Unfocused 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm beginning to think along the lines of WP:POINT here, seeing all these deletion listings that, for the most part, obviously have no chance of succeeding, unless by wearing out VfD participants. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Asheville, North Carolina and delete - Skysmith 09:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, most schools are not notable. Cedars 09:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. --Zero 13:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Asheville, North Carolina. --Carnildo 17:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep More timewasting. Please stop it. Oliver Chettle 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Bbpen 19:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but alter. It's too much like a press release now. --Zantastik 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This school passes the Cod Liver Oil test. Klonimus 20:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Asheville School has now begun to move forward into a new era of education. Cool, a non-notable advert. Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep again, please stop
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 22:30, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll change my vote to delete only after all Pokemon characters have been deleted first. linas 19:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 08:09, 19 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 15:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Hall

Possibly notable but notability not yet established. Delete or show significance at the end of the five-day period. Neutralitytalk

  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Demi T/C 21:34, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. ESkog 22:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 23:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent subject for an article. Needs to start somewhere, that's why we call them stubs.--Unfocused 03:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub. Give it a chance to grow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Charleston, South Carolina and delete - Skysmith 09:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. --Zero 13:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Only all-girls college-prep school in a state with four million people? I think that's a good enough reason to Keep. Mike H 16:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We don't owe you anything. Please stop it. Oliver Chettle 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Only all-girls college-prep school in the state? That's a hell of a lot more notable than some of our star wars articles! --Zantastik 19:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a school. It's notable. Klonimus 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Charleston, South Carolina. --Carnildo 21:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Charleston, South Carolina unless expanded before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 21:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. At least it has the possibility of being notable, but this article fails to establish it. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the only girls' college-preparatory school in the state If you draw the boundaries narrowly enough you can tack on as many superlatives as you like. Delete unless some actual notability is demonstrated. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely notable. DS1953 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete Wikipedia != Triviapedia, infinite storage does not change our charter. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 06:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I want a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country please. Grace Note 06:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has a rich history dating back to 1909 .[15] and has been attended by many significant women in South Carolina and America's history, including Barbara Bush. [16] I'll add this information to the article as soon as I'm done voting on the scores of other schools up for deletion. All high schools are notable, but this one especially so. --BaronLarf 19:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 22:30, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment With the usual cavaet that secondary schools are inherently notable, this school has a number of significant alumnae: Barbara Bush, former first lady [17]; Madeleine L'Engle, author [18]; Josephine Humphreys, author [19] and Alexandra Ripley, author [20] --BaronLarf 18:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep linas 18:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist. Bad faith nominat(or|ion). —RaD Man (talk) 07:29, 19 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator following the establishment of notability.. Thanks.

[edit] Avans University (page still at Dutch name Avans Hogescholen)

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 20:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC) NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Neutralitytalk 22:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Verifiable [21] and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and NPOV. Presumably a high school, and thus highly notable too. Kappa 22:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Or keep even more if it's a university. Kappa 23:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. ESkog 22:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this obscure university, as Wikipedia already has thousands of articles on obscure universities. Consensus has been that institutions of tertiary education, even obscure ones, are inherently notable. Uppland 23:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Article fails to establish notability. It's so non-verifyable that even the inclusionists can't tell if it's a high-school or a university. Gmaxwell 00:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Being an inclusionist doesn't automatically make one fluent in Dutch or whatever. Kappa 02:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a certain language difficulty here but my inclination is it's a hybrid of high school and university, perhaps like the CEGEPs in Quebec. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A university in the Netherlands. 18000 students. Created by the merger of two smaller facilities. Needs a cleanup, not delete. --Unfocused 03:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made a redirect at the English name and added it above to make clear what kind of institution this is (although the Dutch name actually seems to be Avans Hogeschool, in the singular). A hogeschool in Dutch is a false friend for English-speakers; it is an institution of tertiary education, i.e. the equivalent of a college or university, just as its cognates in German, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. I would be grateful if the delete-voters clarified whether they think non-notability should be a deletion criterium in the case of tertiary institutions or if they just misunderstood the name of the institution. Uppland 05:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 06:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expand. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into 's-Hertogenbosch and delete - Skysmith 09:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly notable when compared to thousands of articles about US high schools and colleges. Martg76 11:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. --Zero 13:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if "Hogeschool" translates into American English as "University". --Carnildo 17:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The worst of the lot. Oliver Chettle 19:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are the high-school deletionists out to remove universities too now? --Zantastik 19:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A University with 18,000 students is notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's an actual university, then of course it must be keep. --Calton | Talk 03:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pardon me for being slightly OT but is anyone here related to the place? If so, you might tell them that I'd like to stick a clear-up tag on the university's own website, for miscellaneous misdemeanors in web design. The main page in Dutch won't display in Konqueror (even the DOCTYPE is wrong), there's a lot of pointless Flash gimmickry, and there's little content. -- Hoary 09:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more - it took me some effort to work out any meaningful content from the web site and it didn't display in Mozilla either.--AYArktos 10:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. -- Arwel 12:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. Also, all teritary institutions were judged worthy of inclusions years ago. James F. (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Since when did colleges and universities get caught up in the massive deletion of schools? An American school with these qualifications would be kept; let's not have double, anglophile standards. --BaronLarf 19:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "x"-taur

Seems to have been made up on the spot. Orange Goblin 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the furcruft. Kelly Martin 20:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pretty much the same as Taur, so redirect. --Conti|✉ 20:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • No point in a redirect - there's nothing on google, so I doubt anyone would search for it! Orange Goblin 20:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Right, delete then. --Conti|✉ 21:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • no reason for existence delete - Algebraist 20:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and remove new link from taur. No source for the term. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnotable furcruft. Nestea 22:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost a speedy, owing to the illiterate nonsensicality of the use of the terms body and torso (both words refer to the same thing). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge content to Furry if not already there 66.94.94.154 13:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's 1) an invented term exactly equivalent to Taur and therefore 1a) has nothing to say that doesn't belong in taur. (disclaimer: I helped create the taur article.) —Muke Tever 02:04, 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 - deleted - SimonP 15:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sayeret_Matkal/Temp

Some sort of temporary version of the article Sayeret_Matkal, which contains the text on this page. --Tabor 20:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: this temp article has not been updated in months --Tabor 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems to have been forgotten about after a copyvio debate. see [22] DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer required. Megan1967 06:21, 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 15:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocktoons

No potential to become encyclopedic, possible advertising or other spam

  • Delete - The Rocktoons site is cool, but I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Rangek 20:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. Page history consists of who's cool and who's a fag. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:21, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 15:08, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lingayat_survey

This article unnecessarily duplicates the existing article at Virashaivism. Propose that relevant content be merged into the existing Virashaiva article and then delete Imc 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Should be merged, not deleted. Osmodiar 22:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, then. Radiant_* 13:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Delete- I think this should be deleted.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RSS_survey

This article unnecessarily duplicates the existing article at Rashtriya_Swayam_Sevak_Sangh. Merge content into the existing article and delete. Imc 21:47, 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 - deleted - SimonP 15:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swunk

Roundabout way to create a vanity band page, by defining the band's style as a neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Swunk Brothers. Their music can be a part of the article about the band. -- Saksham 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Band would be VfD'd for failing WP:MUSIC guidelines if created. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:16, 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 15:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surprise sex

This is per its own defintion not different from rape.

  • Delete. Not enough information to convince me that it's any different from rape. Doozer 22:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plus there's no indication the term is used anywhere except northeast Scotland. Rlw 22:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to rape. -- BD2412 thimkact 22:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rape. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless verified, never heard of it - and I'm Scottish. I don't know that a redirect to rape is appropriate - whether 'sex without consent' is always rape has been a contentious point of law in Scotland and elsewhere. --Doc Glasgow 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This debate is discussed in the rape article. -- BD2412 thimkact 23:09, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete not merge, nothing here worth merging. Gmaxwell 01:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons--Heathcliff 03:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect, no merge. --Angr/comhrá 04:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge or redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable Klonimus 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stancel 18:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete GeeZee 23:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sex. Jessicab 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rape. I'm willing to accept that I don't know the Scots use this term in the way it's described, but I don't think there's enough difference to separate them. --Unfocused 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: If this is unnotable or unverified - then does it merit a redirection anywhere?--Doc Glasgow 09:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to accept that the original poster may have information about which I am currently ignorant, for the tiny cost of a redirect. If it weren't so similar to a current article, I'd also say delete, which is a result here that would not disappoint me. With all the VfD spam re: schools, I don't have the time to research my foggy recollection of a recent news article regarding non-consensual sex being defended as something other than rape. --Unfocused 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Begin article removal. For those who don't know, "article removal" is removal of an article from Wikipedia. It is often confused with deletion. Article removal is simply the removing of an article and its history from wikipedia following a vote on the issue in which a consensus to remove the article is made. It is a colloquial term used only by R. fiend. -R. fiend 21:48, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was} Speedy Deleted by Inter (untrue article). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gunnaraasen

First, the article is untrue. Gunnaraasen is NOT a big mountain. Additionally, I think the place isn't notable enough to be mentioned. I think the page should be deleted. Gwydion1 22:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this article on the basis that it is untrue. Inter\Echo 10:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville fatigue

POV original research near-nonsense. It was tagged 'speedy' - but removed by someone - and I'm not sure whether it justifies it (no-obection if someone thinks otherwise)--Doc Glasgow 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. oh so many reasons. POV-laden essay, fan-cruft, original research, pseudoscientific neologisms, misrepresentations, humor that commits the unpardonable sin: not being funny. - Nunh-huh 22:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 00:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's actually a pretty accurate description of the current state of Smallville (TV series), but it's a non-encyclopedic essay and certainly not NPOV. Quale 01:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

-What a crock. You are treating this site with so much disrespect, ironic considering how much Smallville TWoP boarders critisize the morality of characters. You cannot honestly justify this article serves any other purpose than to get a laugh. Just look at these quotes.

"If the Wikipedia people don't care to share and inform others about the growing danger of SFS, then fuck 'em. They'll be doing the world a disservice by not educating us about the health hazard that is Season Four."

"I think the Wikipedia people just wanna keep their cred as some sort of "legitimately educational" source. But really, how seriously will we ever take something that starts with "wiki?"

"Okay, if the person who posted the Wikipedia definition of SFS lurks in these forums, show yourself. YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS. I laughed for at least ten minutes after reading that."

"Some snobbish jackasses over there have taken issue with the biased nature of my research, asking for the entry to be deleted. I argue that, while I am somewhat biased, the condition of SFS is indeed real and documented, therefore the entry still keeps its core integrity, which is simply providing the nature, etiology, and symptoms of SFS. Hopefully the good people at Wikipedia will understand this."'

"Man, those people who post on the 'Pages for deletion' area are assholes."

"They don't even like, "Assclown." Who doesn't like, "Assclown?!" I just heard it on "O.C." last week!"'

Retrieved from "http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=2228538&st=1890"

  • Delete. Personally I would have speedied it but since it's here, vote for termination with extreme prejudice. Sjc 05:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did put it up for being speedied the moment it was made, dunno what happened to that. Absolute nonsense Drak 06:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only do they make a article for the sake of their own juvenile amusement but WE'RE the jackasses for objecting." VOTE FOR TERMINATION WITH EXTREME PLEASURE. Usni
  • delete. I love this atricle and think it's spot on, but unfortunately this is simply not the right place.--198.93.113.49 16:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make it speedy. DreamGuy 16:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with kryptonite, no potential to become encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a criticism site. Barno 19:17, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Simple Path

not the right place for this info. maybe wikinews... Delete. THE KING 12:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • As you can see this was listed a long time ago. Right now it is useless so Delete unless a rewrite of the article is done. Falphin 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title and article don't seem to match; the news is old, anyway. Jaxl 5 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
  • Merge the scant information to appropriate article and redirect. 'A simple path' is a phrase with some relevance to the Tibetan government-in-exile. Pedant 2005 July 5 19:08 (UTC)
    • Its also a book by the current Dalai Lama. Falphin 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Day by day cafe

Small cafe that has no real notable figures attached —Mulad (talk) 23:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like an ad for the cafe/vanity Terrace4 00:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 06:25, 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 15:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJO

Vanity, not encyclopedic -- Barfooz 23:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not every web page and gaming community needs to be in the encyclopedia Terrace4 00:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Aside from the insignificance of the group, this is an ad. Advertising is out, and we don't host the welcome pages for clans. Geogre 03:49, 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 15:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honorific

Random attack by Jtdirl

Unfortunately, Jtdirl is intent on sabotaging any content on Wikipedia that doesn't promote a position he has on addressing the pope with a strongly pro-Catholic POV (including vandalism, WP:Point, personal attacks, VfD abuse, etc). He's also gotten to adding malicious {{VFD}} tag on a different page I created recently (Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics). This particular page was created back on September 2004, long before the survey prompting Jtdirl. However, for reasons I can't quite discern, Jtdirl seems to believe I wrote the Honorific page, and therefore wants it VfD'd just out of spite. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I do not have a position on addressing the Pope, let alone a strongly pro-Catholic POV. I have a stand on using styles. And I don't care whether that style is for the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Prince of Wales or anyone else. But standing by principles of NPOV does not make one "strongly pro-Catholic", whereas you have made it quite clear that you have an issue not with styles but with calling the Pope His Holiness. That is your right to hold that view. But it isn't your right to expect that NPOV entries reflect your POV. And my argument would be exactly the same if the flashpoint on styles occurred on the page of the Dalai Lama, the Queen of the United Kingdom or anywhere else. That it is the Pope is irrelevant to me. You however have made it clear on talk pages that is an issue to you.
Re this page - the issue is already dealt with in far greater detail and far greater accuracy elsewhere. This is a poorly written, inaccurate alternative to a well written accurate page elsewhere that covers the information already. And it was created to give the author of it a place to push his POV on styles. The article qualifies for deletion on three grounds - malicious creation, inaccurate content and accurate in-depth content already on its own page on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless article already covered in much more detail, and with less POV, elsewhere. This article was just created as part of an agenda by one user on the issue. He has created other 'pushing agenda' articles on related topics like this also and it is an abuse of wikipedia to use articles this way. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 06:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:27, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gratuitous VfD. Whig 07:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a good article, but an encyclopaedic subject, I think. However, if the info is covered elsewhere, Merge would be appropriate. Could FearEireann say which pages he thinks already cover this topic? jguk 07:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep valid article --Doc Glasgow 00:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable topic and we now have a good stub on the topic. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Seems as though it will function primarily as a disambiguation page. At any rate, in desperate need of a reworking/rewrite. Exploding Boy 00:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep topic appropriate to include in encyclopaedia; significant number of links to this page; note also comment in article history "(remove redirect, too many non-japanese articles are being sent to Japanese honorifics. Will link from within article.)"--AYArktos 01:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad-faith VfD nomination. --Angr/comhrá 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! I can not possibly see why it should be deleted. I came to this article to find out what honorifics were, and now I do... --Sterio 17:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zocky 15:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't make any sense to VFD this. - Cymydog Naakka 06:19, 21 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 15:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genta

Should be deleted along with an almost identical article by same author, Bitter scent: the case of L'Oréal, Nazis, and the Arab Boycott--neither makes a reasonable connection to its title, and the contents don't conform with google searches, as far as I can tell Terrace4 15:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • deletepointless--Heathcliff 03:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, neither article establishes notability, and I fail to understand the connection between the articles and the titles. RickK 18:46, 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 - deleted - SimonP 15:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Shull

Not notable Terrace4 16:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability not established. C W Merchant 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix 23:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:22, 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expenential Smoothing

Nice article, but title spelled wrong, and author made an identical article under the appropriate title exponential smoothing. Normally, this would be moved to the appropriate title, not deleted, but since the author has already moved the content, this title should be deleted. Terrace4 16:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have just been redirected? It seems a reasonable enough mispelling that someone might get to it. -- Jonel 02:49, 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 15:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bitter scent: the case of L'Oréal, Nazis, and the Arab Boycott

Should be deleted along with an almost identical article by same author, Genta--neither makes a reasonable connection to its title, and the contents don't conform with google searches, as far as I can tell Terrace4 15:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • delete no apparent logic to this--Doc Glasgow 00:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete no connection to title, little content, no documentation, and absolutely no point.--Heathcliff 03:16, 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 15:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics

Random attack by Jtdirl

Perhaps out of inability—but more likely out of malice—when Jtdirl listed this page as VfD he did not list it in the VfD directory, thereby making it hard to find if you were not following the page itself. Presumably, he wanted to be able to "stuff the ballot box" w/o having disinterested editors become aware of the VfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Unfortunately, Jtdirl is intent on sabotaging any content on Wikipedia that doesn't promote a position he has on addressing the pope with a strongly pro-Catholic POV (including vandalism, WP:Point, personal attacks, VfD abuse, etc). This article indeed draws on a discussion that grew out of a WP survey, but should not and need not refer to WP Manual of Style issues, but rather address the outside world's style guidelines. Jtdirl put this malicious {{VFD}} minutes after the page creation.
Editors who were uninvolved in the kerfuffle around WP:MoS policy might want to note that all the delete votes are from other folks who were very vocally pro-style-usage in that survey. I don't think any of them really care about this page for itself, but only hope to make hay about the WP:MoS. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:16, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is nothing but a bit of propaganda inserted as part of a campaign by some users to stop the use of honorifics on wikipedia. It is neither encyclopaedic nor relevant, just part of a tactical gameplan. It is not acceptable for Wikipedians to use articles to fight their POV issues, much less to create them for that purpose. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gratuitous VfD. Whig 06:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Maybe it could have a place in the journalism wikicity, but not here, jguk 07:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Jguk is the other user who has been less than honest about the MoS issue that Jtdirl is implicitly trying to push. That said, Wikicity:Journalism is not entirely inappropriate. However, it doesn't seem to cover the academic/reference usage.
  • Keep This article has potential. Seems fairly NPOV if waffly and difficult to read ATM. The paragraph containing the phrase "peripheral to the scope of this investigation.", is POV (and pretentious). Mr. Jones 10:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POINT. Proteus (Talk) 10:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Proteus, the fact that the article creator behaved badly does not mean the article should not exist. Please reconsider. Mr. Jones 10:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not an article. It's an essay, and a POV essay at that. It's also original research. I see no reason whatsoever why we'd want it in Wikipedia. Proteus (Talk) 10:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be an essay. Rewritten as an article, it'll be a compilation of editorial styles with a summary. It can become purely factual and is thus eligible to be an article. See my response to James, below. Mr. Jones 11:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research (as the article itself discusses). James F. (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • James, that's an abuse of the original intention of the "no original research" rule; it was intended to exclude bizarre physics theories, etc. This is hardly that: it's common sense that publications may have some form of guidelines on the use of titles. It's not original research, anymore than a category or "list of..." page is original research. Mr. Jones 11:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an article that stands on its own. The VfD nomination was made in bad faith by one side of a Wikipedia argument that happens to be related to the article. RSpeer 17:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, undergoing major edits. Neutralitytalk 21:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep valid article --Doc Glasgow 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep topic appropriate to include in encyclopaedia--AYArktos 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. By the interpretation of "no original research" some are using above, none of Wikipedia could exist. This just appears to be cobbling together verifiable references into a single well-assembled entity. ESkog 01:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article seems encyclopedic to me. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of the history of the article (the version that the VfD tag was added to certainly looked like original research) and any improper actions by anyone, the article as it currently stands is encyclopedic. -- Jonel 02:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with honorific, no need for two separate articles here. --Angr/comhrá 04:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmanageable, would have to discuss use in all countries and cultures. Martg76 11:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand to cover use in all countries and cultures. Kappa 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with honorific. Radiant_* 13:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems interesting and valid to me --spiralhighway 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with honorific after pruning heavily. As it is, it's borderline original research. Zocky 15:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Potentially rewrite as Editorial use of honorifics or something, if it's researched to include references to actual editorial policies. Zocky 15:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the Talk page where I discussed a better name for the page. I didn't want to unilaterally change that w/o Neutrality's sign-off (since he did major cleanup). But I haven't managed to get Neutrality to comment (he's probably busy with a million other things). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Kensington

Non-notable. The article says that "his work can be found in Google searches", but it's not so. Delete. -- Mwanner 01:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Maybe if the article said what the name of his trilogy was, we could find out if he's notable or not but just to say that he's got a famous trilogy doesn't help much -Cookiemobsta 21:36, 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.