Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 1

This is the old name for Template:Cent.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 18:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vectorex

Advert. Non-notable. Sqpds 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • No sign of notability; delete. -- Hoary 04:13, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Among Vectorex customers are federal and state government agencies, defense contractors, large and medium-sized manufacturers, architectural firms, agencies of local municipalities" etc. Not some guy in a shed with a website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So we should have an article on every company that sells product to government agencies or manufacturers? Delete, ad. RickK 20:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK is correct. Quale 05:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Indrian 02:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --MikeJ9919 04:12, 6 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 REDIRECT to computer-aided design. Nothing was merged; feel free to peruse the edit histories for something of worth if that's your fancy. Postdlf 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paper-to-CAD conversion and Paper-to-CAD Conversion

Advert. Sqpds 00:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I took out the references to a particular company. Kappa 01:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough it might be worth an article. Sqpds 01:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sustaining this nomination, and I've added the second article under a variant title. Though it's not an advert, I don't think it's going to be more than a dicdef. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete both of them, non-necessary dicdefs. I think this can be adequately covered in the main CAD article. --Idont Havaname 03:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect Computer-aided design. The issue already covered in nearly the same words in Computer-aided design article by the same anon contributor. Mikkalai 05:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep one of these (I'd go for the one with the lower-case conversion) and redirect. Potential for expansion here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This is but one of applications of image analysis & pattern recognition in CAD. It is a usual practice in wikipedia to cover smaller subtopics within larger articles. If the topic grows, it can be easily expanded into a separate article. Right now it is nothing but a duplication of a small paragraph in Computer-aided design article. It may as well be a redirect there. Mikkalai 17:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • So how about merge and redirect to pattern recognition? Or to CAD? RickK 20:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • There is nothing to merge into CAD: everything is already there. Pattern recognition is only initial part of the job. It still requires a significant manual post-processing. Mikkalai 21:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The problem with the term is that the overwhelming majority of its usage is the name of a particular software service. I can find no academic disuccion of the notion. But probably you are right. Changing the vote. Mikkalai
  • Merge, though if Mikkalai is correct, then redirect alone should be sufficient. --MikeJ9919 04:13, 6 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 MERGE and REDIRECT to Civil rights. Postdlf 05:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil rights history

This misleadingly-named article isn't a history at all, but a highly selective list of political issues such as gay rights, fathers' rights, etc. lumped in with Apartheid and the American civil rights movement. Where's the Magna Carta? Suffrage for women? Tiananmen Square? There might be a good article to be written on the history of civil rights, but this isn't the beginning of one. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Um... You need to read the deletion policy. Lack of comprehensiveness and POV are not reasons to delete, why don't you improve the article? Keep. --Dmcdevit 00:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC) I was hasty, a merge and redirect is in order. --Dmcdevit 05:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Gingerly cleanup, merge and redirect to civil rights, which has plenty of room. Break out a history fork in the future if that's needed. Right now this is an unnecessary and duplicative fork, and confusingly named as at least four of the seven issues listed are current issues, and civil rights is far more historical. Samaritan 01:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing here that doesn't belong in civil rights, and really nothing here to merge anyway. Quale 01:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. BTW, that article is in poor shape. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I almost just rescinded my own m/r on this basis. But let's trust organic growth. Samaritan 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although it's a list now, this article has potential to become a nice article on civil rights history. - Stancel 23:31 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, nothing here that already isnt in Civil rights. Megan1967 04:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to civil rights. First off, a better title for this article as a stand-alone would be History of civil rights movements or Civil rights movements. But any conceivable content in those two articles is redundant with civil rights. Why not lump everything in civil rights until that article grows and sprouts sub-articles? Yay, usability! Feco 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Feco. Shimmin 13:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no history here and nothing significant to merge. Rmhermen 18:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I disagree with Rmhermen...there is at least some information that could be interesting in civil rights.--MikeJ9919 19:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Felmart

Fourteen google pages in English contain the word Felmart (it seems to be a fairly common word in Hungarian). Of those 14, 10 mentioned F.Felmart in passing. Just not notable. Grutness|hello? 00:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 01:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 10:58, 1 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 REDIRECT. jni 10:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial_Decree

transwikied dictdef. Grutness|hello? 00:54, 1 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 User:Tony Sidaway (06:51, 1 May 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "United States of Africa" (Patent nonsense)). Sjakkalle 06:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States of Africa

I don't think that page is a type of disambiguation. Mainly because United States of Africa, is in no way similar or has the same name as the links lsited in the article.

  • SPEEDIED as Patent nonsense. There was nothing in the history to suggest anything coherent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Request expansion (or if it's deleted, request as a new article) to discuss the serious and significant use of the term, notably by Qadaffi (and by Star Trek as an aside?) as a proposed political union of African countries. Samaritan 01:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody gives it some meaningful content. There's actually more on the African Union page than here. — RJH 02:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to African Union - Stancel 23:39 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • expand or delete but don't redirect. Kappa 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate content. Megan1967 04:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to African Union Feco 04:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that it's done I won't disagree with Tony Sidaway's speedying. (The page was an attempt to disambiguate, to the opposite effect, leading to the likes of United States of America and European Union, and only one link actually of Africa, African Union or maybe the OAU, with no context or explanation and it didn't look like a work in progress. Samaritan 16:55, 1 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 REDIRECT. jni 10:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swanny

This article appears to be a dicdef of a neologism. (The word apparently does exist with a different definition, but wouldn't ever be more than a dicdef.) Delete. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • SPEEDIED as Patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism or hoax. Quale 01:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops. By coincidence, recreated today by me as a redirect to Swanndri. All New Zealanders know what a Swanny is. Grutness|hello? 06:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect (of course) :-) -- BDAbramson thimk 06:12, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 23:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lower middle class

No content, and hardly expandable. Also most of the info related to this theme can be found in Middle class .

  • Delete. Nothing to see here. Quale 01:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's really empty, just the signature jen--68.91.131.0 01:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) and nothing more in history. Speedy delete under CSD 1 & 2, but a perfectly good article could exist here in the future. Leave it alone; don't redirect. Samaritan 01:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep organic growth. Important social topic. Klonimus 06:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Martg76 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You really want to keep an article whose entire contents are jen--68.91.131.0 01:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)? This has gone beyond extreme inclusionism and into the absurd. Clearly a speedy delete candidate, properlyly speedy deleted. If you want an article with this title, then go ahead and create one. RickK 20:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess they don't read anything beyond the title when they vote. Postdlf 23:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Souter Code

Uninteresting private cipher. Non-notable (4 google hits on only 2 separate sites, one being an exact copy of the article on LibertyWiki), vanity (the name is a pun on pseudocode and Joe Souter), and would also classify as original research if only it were in any way original. Quale 01:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BZPowerCommunityWiki

I'm sure you think your site is great, but this really sounds like an advert. Lenev 01:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert for a non-notable website. Quale 02:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's all well and good for you to make a reference for your community. Just don't do it here. This is an encyclopedia. R Calvete 02:02, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ugg, this should be speedied and I'll tell you why, if you look at the page the creator seems to go on and on about the site's forum, and then includes a ton of red links to very specific forum events (IE: 10,00 recognition post, April Fools Day Post etc.) my feeling is the author is trying to get members of his forum to post her and create these pages which would create a flood of VFD canidates. Cpuld we handle it? Yes but why not just delete the whole thing now so we don't have to deal with it. Deathawk 02:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In cases like this, it's acceptable to put a "nowiki" tag at the beginning of the article. That way we avoid both the speedy and the horde of duplicate articles. Meelar (talk) 03:02, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • You say "author"... are you implying that this forum perhaps belongs to the person who added this article? If so, I think not. From what I've seen the BZPower community are a very professional and above-board group, and I cannot see that this is an officially-sanctioned action. Therefore if we are flooded with rubbish one of us could post about it on their forums, and leave the rest up to the people in charge. I'm sure they would leave their members in no doubt about the punishments for spamming WP. Master Thief Garrett 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 04:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While BZPower is certainly worthy of inclusion in WP from what I've heard (they even get exclusive sneak peek pictures from The LEGO Company themselves!) I can't see keeping this *particular* article. Seems like someone's cut-n-pasted the non-meta Google search description (you know, where it lists all the links and such the page contains...) Master Thief Garrett 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an advertisement, and a terrible quality one at that. Ben Babcock 18:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Evolutionism

Neologism for a non-notable or nonexistent group of video game fans. Although the article claims usage on Usenet, google shows no group hits for "Pro-Evolutionism football" and "Pro-Evolutionism soccer" and only one web hit. Quale 03:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't actually find the word "Usenet" in the article(?), but that doesn't make the fake any less/more fake. Master Thief Garrett 04:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you're right. The article says "Internet forums". Introducing Usenet into the situation was my mistake. Quale 04:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems a vanity article for a seemingly non-existent group, or a grouping that someone wants to create. Maybe merge a small part of this article with the main Pro-Evolution article, as the majority of it seems to be poorly written and opinionated, without even external references. - Master Of Ninja 11:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 18:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Others commets respect at Manchukuo Finances,Industry and Commerce

Obviously written by a non-English speaker. It is so bad that I imagine it would be easier to erase the article and start from scratch. Although, there is already an article at Manchukuo. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, fork. Megan1967 04:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is unclear even what the title can be. Ideally, the information could be merged into Manchuko, but just extracting the information may be more difficult than starting from scratch. Terrace4 10:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "if others cyphers and analizes why demostrated the enormous interest why poses Japanover Manchoukouan resources since your intervention". This is a cypher no-one will ever "analize", no matter how hard they try. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(Still think delete) The author is rewriting the article under a different title: Dates of Manchukuo Finances,Industry and Commerce. Evidently he has made excellent contributions in the past, but just needs help with the cleanup. Terrace4 16:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect now to Manchukuo (financial, industrial and commercial data). And cut it out with the snide stuff about non-native English speakers. The English Wikipedia used to be a more tolerant place, I think. "if others cyphers and analizes why demostrated the enormous interest why poses Japanover Manchoukouan resources since your intervention" is (are) other figures and analyses which demonstrate the enormous interest which had for Japan Manchukuo's resources, after the intervention. Charles Matthews 17:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Article as it stands reads like an excerpt from Finnegans Wake Klonimus 06:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I have read Finnegan's Wake. I wouldn't dream of using it as a comparison deisgned to offend a valued contributor. Charles Matthews
    • We can keep the ad hominem attacks out of this, both re:the author's English skills and re:whether critiques of a poorly written article are designed to offend the author. Regardless, why keep the article with this title, which will never be searched (what is "commets"?), when another article with the same information and a better title has been started by the same author? Essentially, the information should be moved (which the author has already done) and this title deleted. Terrace4 11:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. That can't be done under VfD rules, though, until we are all done here.Charles Matthews
  • Redirect as above and cleanup. Is there a translated article cleanup template? — RJH 19:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had made some changes to the article under its original title, and today discovered that the same original content has been duplicated under the better title that Charles Matthews reported above. For that reason, I put a notice near the top of the original asking people not to edit it, but rather to edit the new one. This series of articles is turning into a valuable in-depth look at several aspects of Manchukuo. Fg2 03:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 18:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture,Farming,lumber,hunting and Fishing in Manchukuo and Mengchiang lands

Obviously written by a non-English speaker. It is so bad that I imagine this should be erased and started from scratch. Besides, there is already an article on Manchukuo. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and give more time to cleanup. It's understandable and informative. Interestingly enough, their agriculture was 34% mice... Kappa 04:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even cleaned and rewritten, the scope of this article is way too broad. Who is going to search for that title? The potential content that's purely historical belongs in Manchukuo. The potential content that's current belongs in Manchuria. Also, it has the smell of a Babelfish copyvio... direct translation of a webpage is a derivative work. Feco 04:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, fork. Megan1967 04:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no one will search for this title as it stands. Ideally, this would be merged with Manchukuo and Manchuria, but extracting useful information from this may be more difficult than searching from scratch. Terrace4 10:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(Still think delete) It looks like the author is rewriting the article under a different title: Manchukuo and Mengchiang (agriculture, farming, lumber and fishing). Evidently, he has made excellent contributions, just needs help with the cleanup. Terrace4 16:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Yes, the shame of it is that I think the author has good intentions, his English just isn't good enough to make anything comprehensible. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think delete here, but the article he's doing to replace this is actually shaping up ok, with the help of Charles Matthews. "All for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds". Terrace4 16:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirect to that. And please do not use VfD as clean-up. And please be very ashamed of your attitude to unclear English. Charles Matthews 17:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll never be ashamed of expecting Wikipedia's articles to be of excellent quality. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Won't the editorial process work more efficiently if shame is not involved in discussions as to the merits and deficiencies of articles? And why keep this title as a redirect, when no one is likely to put in a search for this particular title? The content has already been moved, we should keep the new article and remove this title. Terrace4 11:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The title could be made shorter. — RJH 19:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this version, don't take people to task for wanting to make non-English speakers create articles with intelligible titles and intelligible subject matter. RickK 21:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any useful info can be merged into Manchukuo, if anyone wants to do it. —Lowellian (talk) 01:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original analysis of regional statistics, no references are provided so the stats may not even be real--nixie 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ho ho ho

We read: The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" Yeah, right. It's also the way that Clarence Carter laughs and the start of the US-gummint-baiting chant "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh!" Big deal it isn't. Feeble and non-encyclopedic. No no no. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Santa Claus or else delete. And Hoary, I liked the edit summary ("Ho ho ho, no no no"). Meelar (talk) 04:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Santa Claus doesn't even mention the phrase yet. There is no Merry Christmas! Bah... Keep and expand per Klonimus below, or request creation of Merry Christmas and redirect there. Samaritan 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And yes, I checked and the only reference to Merry in the very extensive Christmas is a throwaway nod to "merrymaking." These are among the most iconic expressions in the English-speaking world and their history and use well deserves to be discussed. Samaritan 17:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, Happy Christmas, and, more extensively, Happy Holidays, are on the rise, since Happy Holidays has no religious or cultural connotations so could be applied to Hanaka or whatnot. So if we add Merry Christmas, we may one day soon need to add Happy Holidays too... Master Thief Garrett 00:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
          • So what if we have to add an article? It's not like we'll run out of paper. R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
            • Is that a Keep Vote? Klonimus 06:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing, I'm just saying there's lots of expressions we don't cover that, by this logic, should also be worthy of addition here. Master Thief Garrett 01:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Quale 04:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. While a redirect sounds plausible, I can't imagine that many people would actually search for "ho ho ho". Master Thief Garrett 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable expression. Klonimus 06:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Santa Claus. Martg76 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete, what Megan said. RickK 21:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Samaritan, else delete but do not redirect. Kappa 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable expression R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for expansion. ElBenevolente 02:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then make into a redirect to Santa Claus. — JIP | Talk 04:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although several people have claimed that this is a "notable expression" or that the article otherwise deserves preservation, so far none has taken the trouble to expand it beyond The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" So what are you waiting for, chaps? I have an open mind, and I'm willing to change from "Delete" to "Keep" if the article is rewritten to be worthwhile -- just as I did in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/In Defence of Marxism. -- Ho ho Hoary 07:21, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • I second that. Come on people, open up our narrow little minds! Show us this is worthy of our deletist leanings! (note the slight sarcasm) Master Thief Garrett 07:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bah-humbug. Leithp 11:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal.
This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal.
  • I have expanded the article. Mwa-ha-ha! — Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh heh. Good work, Smerdis. -- Hoary 22:51, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done Smerdis of Tlön. 165.228.129.11 00:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- article has improved since VFD listing. - Longhair | Talk 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is now a perfect example of why a delete is almost never justified.--64.254.131.77 15:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I should qualify that: a delete is almost never justified for articles that are not clearly vandalism or vanity pages.--64.254.131.77 15:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to Smerdis. Noisy | Talk 12:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions: Pardon me for party pooping, but something here strikes me as dodgy. How is "ha ha" any more "nasal" than "ho ho"? And (cough) is the content of the revised and hugely improved article sourced, or is it original thought (intriguing original thought, but what might in the VfD context be termed "original research")? -- Hoary 13:11, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • keep please its expanded Yuckfoo 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:15, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Harmless enough, has potential. -- taviso 10:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine, fine. Keep. Bah. DS 15:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version by Snidely of Tlön.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Barfooz 23:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Klonimus. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:06 Z
  • Delete. Incorporate the info into the Santa Clause page, if it's needed. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The rewrite turned it into a good enough article. --cesarb 05:12, 7 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 Jinian (nonsense) --cesarb 01:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foxism

joke entry ... Samw forgot to sign this

  • Delete - joke entry ... Samw forgot to sign this
  • Delete -- unfunny would-be-joke entry. -- Hoary 04:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, mildly amusing but not funny enough for bjaodn. Megan1967 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfunny nonsense. Quale 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not funny, just weird. I'd have speedied it myself. It probably doesn't *technically* fit, but if it's not BJAODN-worthy then it probably shouldn't be dragged through the Vfd... Master Thief Garrett 10:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Wikimedia should sell space on the starting a new article page to GeoCities? (Delete patiently; let it wait out the vote.) Samaritan 17:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I would have speedied it myself too if it hadn't been put on VfD. --Golbez 20:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted after transwiki to Wiktionary. jni 10:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meanie

Yet another dicdef. Delete. -- Hoary 04:43, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 04:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dicdef. Master Thief Garrett 10:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)transwiki to Wikitionary. I can't believe they don't already have it! Amazing! Master Thief Garrett 21:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing there already, so might as well transwiki to Wiktionary. Extremely widespread slang. Samaritan 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 04:06, 2 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 to send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Samaritan 17:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

[edit] John Colautti

Local-political vanity, unencyclopedic, addressed to the wrong audience, likely copyvio. In a word, Ugh. (And if I feel like biting a newcomer just once in a while, you'll have to indulge me or ban me.) Delete. -- Hoary 04:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Keep this need alot of work, but I think aldermen for major cities are notable. Klonimus 06:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You are (and anyone else is) very welcome to work away at it. I'll revisit it later, whereupon I might change my vote. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. All reasons given by Hoary plus non-notable. Klonimus, you should read the article more carefully. John Colautti is not an alderman. Colautti is Executive Constituency Assistant to Councillor Sylvia Watson. He has been involved with the Parkdale Village Residences Association, and he lost a municipal election in 2000. Quale 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since you say it's misleading. Oh and even if it's not it's still bad as per Hoary. Master Thief Garrett 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a copyvio, so I'm sending it there rather than VfD. (By the way, for an executive assistant to a Toronto city councillor notable for a prior job: Anthony Perruzza.) Samaritan 17:16, 1 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. Postdlf 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin and Bean

Not notible. "Kevin and Bean" yields 4 kiloGoogles. I seem to think this is a bad precedent. Plus it's a substub. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Non-notability not established. It seems to be a popular Los Angeles radio morning show, and has connections with both Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla. Besides, being a substub is not a reason for deletion. An article can always be expanded upon (unless, of course, it's deleted). R Calvete 06:31, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I think Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla are vulgar Klonimus 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I dont think this show is anymore notable than other breakfast programs that have been deleted in the past. Megan1967 07:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per R Calvete. Kappa 08:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. If it's deleted, someone can always write a better article later that explains why this particular morning radio show is notable. Quale 08:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, still keeping a few fans aroud [1] - Svest 09:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Megan and Quale. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Merge and then Redirect to KROQ as per below. Master Thief Garrett 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a redirect to KROQ would be appropriate? Average Earthman 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Good plan... but how many people are *actually* going to search for that keyword and expect it to be on here? Probably not many... Master Thief Garrett 11:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep/expand. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns - if a radio station is so iconic their annual countdown lists are notable, their longtime morning show should be notable too. I've never heard it and I live in Eastern Canada, but I've heard of it, frequently, from casually following the radio and music scenes. Samaritan 17:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — completely redundant with content on KROQ page. The pair can be summarized on their radio station page, unless there is a ton of content that can be added. — RJH 19:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable radio hosts. Capitalistroadster 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to KROQ. When I lived in LA, I used to listen to them, but I don't believe any local-only radio programs should have their own articles. I see no problem with mentioning local-only radio programs in the articles about the stations they're from. RickK 21:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand.--Prem 06:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant stub content for radio shows that Klonimus thinks are vulgar, then Redirect to KROQ. Barno 15:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to KROQ, though I wouldn't cry over deletion of this substub. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kevin & Bean is very, VERY well known..my google search for "Kevin & Bean" came up with 3000+ hits. Singer Tori Amos even wrote a spoof of the song "Whoomp There it Is" that incorperated their names; they have released a vareity of charity albums as well, mostly Christmas Themed. This is another case of something being regionally significant but people arguing it to be not so because it's not global. Pacian 08:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with KROQ as above. ESkog 18:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I don't know how long a vote usually runs but this one has been running for 9 days now and the votes are Keep: 8, Merge: 3, Delete: 6, so I guess the vote is to keep it. As such I have begun an expansion of the article (which IMHO also displays more clearly the notability of the subject.) When is it acceptable to remove the VFD tag? Pacian 07:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
8 to 6 ain't a consensus, bro. Vfd'ing is about consensus, not majority rules. It's not exactly a democracy. Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
First, not your bro, sweetie-pookums. :) Secondly, a consensus is a general agreement or accord: a decision reached by a group as a whole. There is no way that decitions at wikipedia VFD could ALWAYS be determined by an actual consensus because then it would mean EVERYBODY has to agree on one outcome. As far as I am aware VFD is is supposed to last for around five days at which point an action is supposed to be taken based on the GENERAL consensus of the votes accumulated, and in this case, the majority of the votes indicate that the article should be kept. An 8 to 6 to 3 vote is as close to a consensus as we're going to get, unless you forsee some way to FORCE everyone to vote one way and one way only...?Pacian 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
From the "guide for votes for deletion": At the end of a period from when the nomination of an article was listed, known as the lag time, an administrator in the VFD cleaning department reviews an article's VFD discussion, determines what the rough consensus is, and closes it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and although this mechanism is named "votes for deletion", the votes are a guideline only to administrators. Pacian 04:13, 10 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 9 keep, 3 delete, and 8 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough consensus on what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to O Holy Night (Mariah Carey single). Robert 23:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with O Holy Night, or the Mariah Carey Christmas album. Jkelly 03:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But this really shouldnt be here. It was already put on the VFD before and it survived. OmegaWikipedia 04:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Last VfD ended in "No consensus". You can renominate such articles a second time. By the way, I suggest a merge to the Mariah Carey article, with a mention at the O Holy Night article. --FuriousFreddy 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous arguments. Kappa 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the album it's on. Failing that, delete. Not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with O Holy Night Joaquin Murietta 07:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, individual songs have to be exceptional to justify their own article. I would suggest adding this information to the albums in the future. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote merge and redirect for this one. Again, might have voted for weak keep if the infobox wasn't half of the article. Need more content and/or notability for me to change my vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with O Holy Night. Extraordinary Machine 11:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because it was released as a single. Would you nominate other singles' articles for deletion? Alensha 11:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • ...if they didn't make siome sort of important impact to warrant writingg an encyclopedia article about them, yes. And especially if they are covers of Christmas standards. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Friday (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete outright or merge. Pop-music-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible.Mczelda 04:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an official single release by Mariah Carey, and is part of her discography. It will be kept. Winnermario 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It will have done whatever should be done with it. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Anittas 21:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Musicpvm 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. The article as it stands will easily merge int othe article on its proper album. As this is a Christmas song, with likely dozens of succesful covers over the years, it does not stand to reason to retain it as a seperate article. --FuriousFreddy 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with O Holy Night. -- DS1953 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Who here is requesting for deletion because they don't like Mariah Carey? Certainly not I; serveral of her songs are among my favorites, and she is a great singer. This nomination has nothing to do with whether or not I like the singer or not; it has to do with the neccessity for an article. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Carey's version of "O Holy Night" is notable.
    • Previous unsigned comment is by User:WScott. It is also his seventh edit. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 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 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 DELETE. jni 10:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yamamory Noodles and Il Posto

NN restaurants in Dublin. Rl 07:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Uninteresting reviews of non-notable restaurants. Quale 08:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pending proof of notability of course. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, not notable. Megan1967 10:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki into Wikicities. Zscout370 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salem vs Madurai

Plenty of cities have rivalries with other cities - there is nothing inherently notable about this one. The link in the article goes to a newspaper article which requires subscription. I managed to find a cached copy at [2] however it doesnt even mention Madurai. Article fails to establish notability. The anon editor which created the article in all fairness must not have a good grasp of English. JamesBurns 08:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Of course were this kept, it would need a redirect from Madurai vs Salem — how do you decide which city gets named first in these feuds? Quale 08:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd go for the city that "cast the first stone" although that is even harder to decide upon! Master Thief Garrett 10:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', does not appear to be notable. Sietse 09:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notability can be established. Master Thief Garrett 10:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A news or gossip item. I'm not convinced this is capable of being encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently created by the anonymous user as part of his joke at P Anandha Kumar, which I have just listed here as well. ESkog 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waleed alrowsa

Vanity Svest 08:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 09:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sietse 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, he should just make a user page. Hmib 00:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rage Shenron

Utter tripe. silsor 09:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

note 1: the original author of this page removed the Vfd header so I re-added it. Master Thief Garrett 23:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tripe—uh, I mean, Delete. Master Thief Garrett 10:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC) --UNLESS Merged with Dragon Ball GT characters or Shenlong (Dragon Ball) or similar. Master Thief Garrett 23:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 11:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN Klonimus 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fancruft. Also see Naturon Shenron and Oceanus Shenron Nestea 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that! I added these to the header. The characters are of similar non-notability to this one (or perhaps they are evolutions of the same character like Megatron->Galvatron?), so it's only fair that they should be dealt with on an "all or nothing" basis. If one goes, they all go. If one stays, they all stay. Simple. Master Thief Garrett 23:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC) oops, someone else already Vfd'd them but didn't add that tag within the page! I've now done that. So go cast similar votes on the others. Master Thief Garrett 23:31, 1 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 TRANSWIKI to Persian Wikipedia and DELETE. (I think I did this correctly)[3] Postdlf 05:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Najafabad

This is apparently an article in Persian about a city in Iran. It has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks, but no one has translated it in that period. I think it should either be deleted or moved to the Persian Wikipedia. Sietse 09:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not English. No translation in 2 weeks. --Wtshymanski 17:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

      • Delete or transwiki to persian WP, and let them deal with it. Klonimus 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Persian Wikipedia and delete. — Ливай | ☺ 00:13, 5 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. Postdlf 04:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi

Vain, an advert, non-notable, etc. Master Thief Garrett 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "phenomenally successful"? This thing nets me 651 Google hits. If that's what you call phenomenal, then what's Homestar Runner? It gets 371,000 hits. Need I say more? Master Thief Garrett 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Withdraw vote, until I can get a better idea of the minimum notability that the webcomics project requires. I'd say if it meets the webcomic minimum then it's a Keep for me. Master Thief Garrett 11:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Harg 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I doubt you've checked the DeviantArt page's stats as well...(The official page's only a showcase, the pages are also put up to DeviantArt.)
    • I'm not very "up" on all this art stuff, so no I didn't know to check there... Master Thief Garrett 10:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • So did it pass this time? (To know if I should spend time on expanding it) Harg 10:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, golly, I haven't checked. I have no idea about how to do this stuff! You should probably check on it yourself. Or wait for other Vfders to cast judgement. Or something. If you think it's fine you could expand it, but you should maybe wait a day or so to see if the Vfd's gonna mercilessly slay your hard work. Master Thief Garrett 11:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Well there IS a Wikiproject on webcomics and I just wrote an addition to "Our home planet" which made it to the top of the importance list in spite of being much shorter and crappier that this one. So I think I'll finish it anyway. Harg 10:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 12:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd put Our Home Planet on VfD too, if I weren't feeling so lazy... ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought of doing that one myself, but I'm not that brave and foolish... maybe by lunchtime I'll have the guts to... Master Thief Garrett 21:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete. Non-notable. (Merciless Slayer), Quale 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh geeze, what would you need to make it "notable"? The DA site pockets 10,000 pageviews a day, the artist inspired more fanart than any webcartoonist I see on the Webcomics project. Don't worry, I won't struggle to put it back. It just seemed sort of odd. Harg 8:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment / Abstain. All I know is that it updates only twice a month but the art is VERY good. Is it popular? Has anyone heard of it? No clue. I rearranged the links to make it easier to find the actual comic, though, so maybe we'll get a bit more response. Marblespire 23:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's actually weekly though there had been a few omissions. I suggest you click on the "has ... pageviews" for the number of views for the last mont and "Watched by"'s complete list on the DeviantArt page. A five-minute google search gave a

bleedman fanlisting, a17th on thewebcomiclist.com, 57th on the Buzzcomix Top 100

mentions on Digital Strips as well as other comic pages. I also suggest you take a good look at the Wikipedia webcomic project before throwing your weight around. Harg 10:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. And is it a vanity article if it's not made by the person who actually writes the doujinshi? Ketsy 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • "phenomenally successful". Now while that isn't automatically POV of its own accord, this particular comic doesn't get nearly enough Google hits to be "worthy" of such a claim. Master Thief Garrett 02:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed that part as soon as you drew my attention to it. If that's the problem you could have simply edited it instead of terminating the article as a whole.Harg 8:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm not Vfding it because of grammar and wording, that would be stupid! No, wording doesn't matter, but it's still the noteworthiness that's the problem. Master Thief Garrett 09:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
          • "powerpuff girls doujinshi" gave me 1,900 hits actually...(which is less then it would if 'Dojinshi' didn't have a dozen ways of writing "doujin" "doujinshi" etc.) and if you type "powerpuff girls" the comic's right on the first page...("bleedman" gets 4,490) Harg 10:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment. You fools. Let the article blossom into a noteworthy and interesting piece, rather than killing it preemptively. The series hasn't even gotten into its full stride yet. Give it some time. And you all know my views on the Google test. That isn't even the most comprehensive search engine out there; just one of the most popular at the moment. 24.54.208.177 03:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no time to wait. The article must be deleted. It may never become noteworthy. Marcus2 12:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy enough. Marcus2 12:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it certainly won't blossom into an interesting piece if all the good bits are edited. Whatever, just let us let it go down the toilet. Harg 15:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really, there are four deletes, two keeps, and several abstains, so it may fall under "no consensus". The article as rewritten is probably fine (compared to what it was like when I nominated it), but I still can't work out how these noteriety tests work... Master Thief Garrett 23:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I got some VERY mixed results for webcomics I've searched on Alexia. Megatokyo 12,382; RPG World 64,890; PPGD 84,436; Bruno the Bandit 123,448; It's Walky 132,247; Newshounds 361,229; Irritability 475,064 etc. (all are picked from the already existing articles)Harg 8:09, 6 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. Postdlf 04:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boo Koo

Back-o-the-Can text (or website copyvio? will check) but even so non-notable promo/ad thing. Master Thief Garrett 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

keep, real energy drink. Kappa 23:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC), informative article, useful example of its type. Kappa 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge if not a copyvio. Meelar (talk) 17:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I typed it all out without copying directly from anything, and I state that I got extra information from their website (without copying straight from) and the can. Which part of my article is copyright violation? The part that I wrote myself? The nutritional information? You're a bit delete-happy I think. Mrd00d
  • Delete. 236 unique Google hits for "Boo Koo" +drink. Let's not create articles based on who gets paid millions of dollars to endorse their products. RickK 21:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Search "BooKoo Energy" or "Boo Koo Energy" then you would only get 85 page results. I tried to find proof if Shaq is really promoting their product. I can't find it on Google. The only website that I'm getting is Bevnet saying that Shaq is promoting it. --Chill Pill Bill 22:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Energy drink. Klonimus 07:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo for commercial product with no notability established. If S O'Neal is proven to have endorsed the product, that adds no encyclopedic relevance, in which case my vote will remain delete. Barno 15:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a question. How is this a promo for a non-notable thing. How is this a promo? Are you putting up deletion notices for the other energy drinks listed? No. They aren't promos, they are encyclopedic articles detailing what these drinks are. These drinks are all known. These drinks are all popular. And they are all real. What is the relevance of it being endorsed by Shaq or not? It is a popular drink. It didn't have an article made yet, and now there is one. This isn't a promo, it is an informative article on a drink. Mr d00d! 21:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it too please Yuckfoo 00:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Any particular reason why? -- Hoary 03:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • We read that it is mainly consumed by those people wanting to get extra hours into their day. Rather than "those people", how about "gullible people"? Oh, but then it would diverge from the company line. In effect if not intention, a promo. Merge anything notable within and redirect to Energy drink. -- Hoary 03:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Your vote is valid, of course, but I am curious why it should be merged to the energy drink page. Should the rest of the energy drinks that are linked to from the main energy drink page going to be merged as well? If yes, merge it. If not, leave them all on their own individual pages. Is it necessary to do these things on a case by case basis? Do with one drink as is done with the rest. It is given a separate page because there are separate pages for many other energy drinks. Mr d00d! 04:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If you don't like it as is, why don't you edit it so that it is valid and neutral, non-promo. I see it as neutral, and not a promo, so maybe someone else should fix it up so that it fits people's needs without needing to merge it for no reason. Mr d00d! 04:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I tend to think these all these so-called energy drinks are just minor variations on a (snake-oily) theme, and could all be merged into Energy drink. Unless, that is, there's something about these drinks (either in general or in particular) that has escaped me. I can't easily add to the article, even if I wanted to, as I've never heard of the stuff. There seems to be an assumption that the reader is in some nation where dollars are used; I'm not (we use yen here), and though I'm vaguely aware of a few so-called "energy"/"sports" drinks here (notably the divinely named "Pocari Sweat"), I really don't think that this one is for sale here. What I think is encyclopedic is medical and similar info (see this for example). Or again, the main article says energy drinks today are commonly associated with the image of a hacker or IT professional, sitting up late at his computer trying to stay awake. This is not an entirely inaccurate picture; if somebody who's interested in "energy drinks" has the, uh, energy to write more, how about a clarification of this (to me) extraordinarily woolly statement? (Does it mean "Much of the sales of energy drinks are to people who want to stay awake and alert", and if not, what does it mean?) Incidentally, the "energy drinks" sold in the Czech Republic have more explosive names. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Yes I did notice the dollar values it gives. I suppose if it said "USD$" or similar that would be OK.
No I doubt you'd find this product over there. I looked around here (in NZ) and other than being swamped in Red Bulls and Vs, there's no Boo Koo.
Does Pocari Sweat actually *taste* like sweat, or is it just a horrendous Engrish misnomer? I've always wondered that since my Golden Axe days... hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Red Bull Super Charged Delete. Patent nonsense. Unsupported medical claims. Vanity page. Commercial page. Not encyclopedic. Not factual. Not notable. Not wikified. Copyvio. Creator registered on wiki for sole purpose of creating this page. Probable sock. Spammed my email inbox, too. — Xiong 熊talk* 06:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Keep But it needs major improvement or rewriting. Why delete it when it is a real product. The article needs to be improved, thats all. --Munchkinguy 18:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The product is real, but is it notable? "Boo Koo" gets ~85 Google hits. "Red Bull Energy Drink", a rather narrow keyword to use, still gets 19,400 hits. Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's misspelled. Searching for "BooKoo" or "BooKoo energy drink" would be a better comparison. FreplySpang (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Still the same, page result numbers "86 for "BooKoo energy drink" --Chill Pill Bill 19:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real drink, why not have it up?Xyphon 04:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why delete it when it is a real product. -- Is this a door we really wish to open? We cannot get rid of the fancruft. Do we want an article for every can, jar, box, and bottle on the aisle at the local supermarket? — Xiong熊talk* 08:27, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
    • Also note the first edit Xyphon has ever done is a vote for this. --Chill Pill Bill 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It is spelled "Boo Koo" if you are looking at the website or can. Maybe the other websites cant spell. Xiong, I didnt mean to send you an email, sent it to the wrong person. One message isnt spam. It is factual, it isnt commercial because im not with them or advertising, no medical claims are made, and not a copyvio. Those are all the ones Im bothering to adress. Mr d00d! 04:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Not factual -- non-notable, commercial, fraudulent, and a patently nonsensical medical claim. And yes, one single instance of Sales, Promotion, Advertising, Marketing = SPAM. Perhaps it is not a copyvio -- if you are the copyright holder of the can label. Almost certainly a violation of federal Pure Food and Drug Act. — Xiong熊talk* 08:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Explain the nonsensical medical claim, and if you mean "energy stimulance", then you better argue with all the other drinks. Which makes no sense. Also, my email wasn't SPAM because I didnt market anything. I sent an email to you ACCIDENTALLY thanking you for your KEEP vote, but you probably hadnt even seen this page yet. I went to someone's talk page and saw your email there, and assumed it was that persons, because it just said "email me here". I didnt advertise the page or promote it to you, I mistakenly sent you a message that you werent meant to get. You are wrong, sir. And are all people that get nutritional information from a food product, and list a slogan, violating a copyright? No. You are being unreasonable. You are wrong.Mr d00d!


Since its been way more than 5 days, Im removing the up for deletion notice, especially since there are more keep votes. Mr d00d! 05:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Do not remove vfd notices--nixie 05:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Kappa 07:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems like after 12 days, they havent succeeded to delete it, so they want to extend the deadline or something. I don't really know. It's 7 days over! Mr d00d! 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sometimes they take a while to close things, it's not a conspiracy. Kappa 18:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Seems that way sometimes! Hahahaha.... Mr d00d! 00:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Quick eyeball tally 7 to 5 keep -- not an overwhelming endorsement. If I were a deletionist, I'd be angry; it does look like this bit of commercial advertising will survive -- for now. — Xiong熊talk* 03:22, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

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

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

  • 21:37, 1 May 2005 RickK deleted "The Melvin House" (recreation of multi-deleted article)

Sjakkalle 07:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Melvin House

Looks like a vanity page to me. Delete. Firebug 10:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Image:Melvinhouse.jpg must be deleted as well or it will become an orphan.
Note 2: Image:Melvinmorpheus.JPG must be deleted as well or it will become an orphan.
  • Delete, hooo yeah, that there's some classic vanity there! Master Thief Garrett 10:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, obviously. Phils 11:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But at least it's well-written vanity... Quale 16:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Thunder Bay and have not heard of it until now. Ben Babcock 18:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. This is about the fourth recreation of this article. I've warned the user to knock it off or I will block him. RickK 21:41, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and DELETE to Mondial de l'Automobile 2004. Postdlf 04:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venturi at Mondial de l'Automobile 2004

This confusing article was apparently created from a link at Mondial de l'Automobile 2004. If that auto show article was way over a reasonable size due to the sheer mass of text and pictures, I wouldn't complain. But creating a new, virtually non-sensical entry while the main article is almost empty is not the way to go. Rl 11:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and delete into Mondial de l'Automobile 2004. The main article is poorly set up. It has redlinks that will create a bunch of these xxx at Mondial ... articles. Instead these should be subsections unless there's substantially more to say than is displayed here. I admit that I don't understand Venturi at Mondial de l'Automobile 2004, but if the text is put in the main article maybe someone will fix it up. Quale 17:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete into Automobiles Venturi. --Pc13 16:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete into Mondial de l'Automobile 2004. --Marianocecowski 12:07, 10 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 Tony Sidaway (Superfluous (created by bad move)) --cesarb 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinsey (disambiguation)

There are only two meanings for this at the moment, Alfred Kinsey and Kinsey (movie). Alfred Kinsey already contains a disambig link pointing directly to the movie, and so I moved this page (originally at Kinsey) to its current location and edited the redirect at the new Kinsey to go to Alfred Kinsey, the primary topic. This disambiguation page is superfluous and it would only waste the reader's time to send him there. Not much history. delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Forget it. Realised I can move this back over Kinsey and just edit in the redirect, and we retain the (small) amount of history and don't have to waste time in VfD. Apologies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 1 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 leave as REDIRECT to Alessandro Cardinal Farnese. Postdlf 05:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alessandro Farnese (cardinal)

Empty page --TheParanoidOne 12:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Empty pages are speedy deletion candidates, oddly enough. Deleted. Xezbeth 12:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know that, but have now seen the speedy deletion policy. Thanks. --TheParanoidOne 12:57, 1 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 MERGE into List of Dragon Ball characters. Postdlf 05:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naturon Shenron

More Dragonball Z fansplurt.

Pan tries to blast Naturon Shenron out of the ground by firing energy blasts into the ground. But Naturon Shenron is so deep in the ground that the attacks have no effect on him at all. Pan then stuffs Giru into her backpack. Goku and Pan rushes to the city to help everyone. Goku powers up to Super Saiyan 4 and tries to stop an office building from collapsing. Pan rushes around picking up people all over the place to a safe area. When a road was going to crash into the sewers, Goku went underground and stops it. Goku then emerges from a subway station. Naturon Shenron emerges from the ground to admire his handiwork but was furious when the city looks like the earthquake did not affect it at all.

silsor 12:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 13:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 13:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Having seen Supersaiyanplough's excellent rewrite, I'm gonna remove my Delete vote. Keep or Merge depending on how notable this character is in the series. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, toilet or otherwise. Kappa 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. One person's PoS is another's dedicated hobby. — RJH 18:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 18:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rambling. Klonimus 19:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep per Kappa and RJH. Samaritan 20:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless Merged into Dragon Ball GT characters or Shenlong (Dragon Ball) or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, I have cleaned it up and removed most if not all so-called "fancruft". You can't merge it as all the characters get their own article so why is Naturon different. Yes Dragon Ball is my dedicated hobby. Supersaiyanplough 2:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How notable is this character in the series? For example, I've merged absolutely everybody and everything into The Legend of Zelda series characters and similar grouped pages. Every single character is in there except for the hero, the villain, and the princess. And Zelda is *my* dedicated hobby! So could you do something similar for yours? Master Thief Garrett 02:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, and expand.--Prem 06:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Supersaiyanplough. Sjakkalle 07:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Grue 18:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. jni 10:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanus Shenron

More Dragonball Z fansplooge.

The villagers comes to collect the fish but run away when the woman attacks two of the villagers. The boy identifies her as Princess Otto but the woman reveals that her real name is Oceanus Shenron. When Goku asks her what wish she was created from, her face turns red with anger and she shouts "THE GIRL'S UNDERWEAR!" This also enrages Pan. Goku then remembers that it was Oolong's wish for underwear. Oceanus Shenron is angry that such a useless wish was made with the dragonballs. Goku fires an attack at her but she deflects it with an invisible barrier.

silsor 13:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unbelievable. Phils 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and send it to whatever 'Bad Jokes and Other etc' is called this week. I like the phrase an invisible barrier.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd be enraged too if people went around shouting "THE GIRL'S UNDERWEAR!" at me. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep per WP:FICT or similar thinking Kappa 15:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny, though. Quale 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Amusing yes, but it is a cartoon series so what do you expect? — RJH 18:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 19:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Incoherent rambling. Klonimus 19:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, *unless* Merged into Dragon Ball GT characters or Shenlong (Dragon Ball) or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 04:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete the girl's underwear!, per WP:FICT. Barno 15:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 00:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fancruft. Grue 18:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guiltfomercial

Non-notable concept, I assume it's a neologism. It's not listed in dictionaries and Google returns just two hits. Sietse 13:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. Quale 16:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; no inbounds. "A guiltfomercial is a commercial that guilts people into giving money. Often for charity and during telethons." Samaritan 17:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe redir social psychology 'cause this is totally the sort of thing we'd investigate, but that's a tenuous link at best. Also have no idea if there IS any empirical data. IF evidence THEN redir, ELSE delete Wikipedia Is Not original research. Marblespire (hi, I'm a psych major ^_^)
  • Delete all neologisms. I also doubt there's evidence... Master Thief Garrett 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just like any other neologisms. It's obvious from the Google hit count this one hasn't made it into everyday use. --Idont Havaname 00:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Jusu Hena

Possibly a vanity page. Google gives zero results for the name. --TheParanoidOne 13:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Sietse 15:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Quale 16:55, 1 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 REDIRECT. Postdlf 06:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colt government model

V. short, contains nothing which isn't already in the article for M1911 and is, as far as I am aware, not even correct in its single assertion; although there was an official 'Colt Government Model', sold from 1970 to 1983, the phrase is generally used as shorthand for any military-style 1911.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. What Ashley Pomeroy said. Quale 17:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to M1911 Klonimus 19:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Seems like a likely search phrase IMO. - Lucky 6.9 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to M1911 - Skysmith 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Add AP's information (above) to M1911, then delete this incorrect article stub, then redirect this title to M1911, based on likelihood of being used as a search phrase. Nothing here merits keeping in edit history. Barno 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 18:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philippe Garrel

The article contains only a few words of text. It should be deleted as no effort has been made to prepare any information for an encyclopedia topic. - Master Of Ninja 14:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Perfectly good stub, easily capable of expansion (which is perhaps what some of us should be doing instead of listing stuff for VfD). I now know I can find out about M. Garrel by going to imdb--which I didn't know before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMDB shows he has directed a bunch of films from 1964 to 2005, and has a tiny trivia section about it. Notable and definite possibilities of expansion. Quale 16:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway and Quale. Samaritan 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Minimal but useful stub. Andrewa 18:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Award winning French director with over 40 year career. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. RickK 22:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, just needs to be expanded. SteveW | Talk 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have expanded this article adding information about his awardwinning films and his 10 year relationship with Nico. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (block-compress error). – ABCD 15:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Cracking Force/Release History

Second nomination for deletion. This is unencyclopedic--just a massive dump (495066 bytes) in an ideosyncratic, space-filling format--and has already been moved to Wikisource during the course of the last VfD. delete from Wikipedia article space, use soft redirect instead if required. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Link to first VfD discussion

Comment
This is a sample of the article content for anyone who may have tried, and failed, to download the whole thing:
1994 Release List
 ±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±    
 ±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±ÚÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ¿±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±
(A few dozen lines of this kind of stuff, followed by:)
 ±±±±±±ÚÍÍÍÍ¿±±±±³   ÜÜÜ   ÜÜÜ     ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ     ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ   ³°°±±ÚÍÍÍÍ¿±±±±±±±
 ±±±ÚÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ[ 1 9 9 4 ]ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ¿±±±±
(and then vast amounts of this stuff:)
 ±±±³ PKP51UCF.ZIP    82294  04-04-94  Pkpress 5.1           *REGISTERED* ³°°±±
(Thousands and thousands of lines of it.)
Repeated for each of ten years. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let the voters review the article for themselves, since it quite clearly already suggests which font to use (Terminal, 10 point, or Code page 437) to view this list. IMHO, it's unfair to intentionally excerpt ASCII art borders and exclude the content when the majority of the article is content and not ASCII art borders. —RaD Man (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to stop the reader doing this...except the document size, which makes it almost impossible to view without broadband. Also the fact that the document requires special arrangements just to be viewed properly is in itself a strong suggestion that the document is unencyclopedic. Your claim that I omitted content is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • agree Delete. can't we speedy this as a recreation of already deleted content? I didn't check the history - it was taking longer to load than this page. . . . Soundguy99 17:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. This isn't a recreation. The article was transwikied to Wikisource but not deleted from Wikipedia. Very odd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and also the United Cracking Force page, neither of which has any encyclopedic content. Martg76 19:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this, and nominate United Cracking Force for vfd. -- BDAbramson thimk 20:28, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Keep, as before. This is a reference for United Cracking Force. I don't see a problem with keeping this in Wikipedia. We have many other lists, this one just happens to be in ASCII. Rhobite 21:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • If so, then the page should be reformatted to meet wikipedia conventions for making lists - get rid of all those promotional ASCII headers! -- BDAbramson thimk 17:29, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • Delete, of no encyclopedic interest whatsover. I don't even understand why it's on Wikisource, but especially since it's already there, just put a link to it in the main article. RickK 22:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the main United Cracking Force article is debatable and a reasonable argument could be made for keeping it due to that organization's influence within the warez community, but this is just a warez file list. Not only does it have no encyclopedic value, it has the potential to draw unwanted attention from copyright holders. Firebug 22:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said last time, there are possible legal reasons not to keep this here, and its encyclopedic value is marginal at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh come on, a list of cracks isn't illegal. Rhobite 03:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • 100% completely absolutely untrue, this is not even a potential copyright issue for the following reasons: 1) not a link to crack files. 2) not a link to the original copyright holders programs. 3) does not contain any "illegal" material as per current US federal regulations.  ALKIVAR™ 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but keep the main United Cracking Force article for now. — JIP | Talk 04:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Not the place to say keep or delete the main article - this is the not the vfd for United Cracking Force. Not meaning to pick on you, JIP, but no one should have the impression that a decision is being made here on anything but the page in the vfd title. -- BDAbramson thimk 17:38, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • keep, i'm really sick of people consistanly re-vfding stuff because they were upset at the previous result.  ALKIVAR™ 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I have had nothing to do with this article or its earlier VfD. I noted that you had it transwikied and thus we have two copies on WikiMedia's servers (and it *is*, as it happens, the largest article on Wikipedia at present,at nearly 500KB). Normally after transwikying to wikisource I would expect to have the Wikipedia version deleted. I don't want your file to be removed from WikiMedia's servers but this physical duplication is clearly unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's been transwikied already, and it's original source material. United Cracking Force already has an article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, no matter what size it is, no matter what its VfD history is. The group seems (barely) notable enough to keep the parent article, but there's no way content like this belongs on WP. None of the content appears suitable even for merging into a History section of the parent article. And it's all been transwikied anyhow. Barno 15:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a uniquely formatted and encyclopedic list. (\/)OO(\/) 17:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Above vote is by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#GRider_sockpuppet_theatre. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By "uniquely formatted", do you mean "including hidden stuff, such as obfuscated keys to cracked software so people can use Wikimedia servers to work around legal responsibilities"? Even if not, this encyclopedia does not welcome uniquely formatted lists, and is not a list repository. Barno 18:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Who says so? This encyclopedia is community built. If the article is incorrectly formatted according to some manual of style, just fix it. (\/)OO(\/) 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The article is not formatted according to any style guide; it's an ASCII data dump with tons of non-text and some filenames and attributes. WP is for facts, like the description and history in the parent article, not for huge raw files. Even if the half-megabyte were edited to a hundred-line list of just the names, it would not be encyclopedic no matter how it was formatted. Barno 20:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: this is computer scene history. Also I don't get the point of re-VfDing. We had this discussion before. --Avatar-en 19:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • When the previous discussion was held, the consensus was to transwiki, which was done incompletely (removal from the WP side wasn't completed). This VfD exists to implement the previous decision. I'm only adding policy reasons why the content shouldn't kept on WP in case the resolving admin thinks this copy should be kept. Barno 20:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • To clarify, in the previous VfD (linked above by Tony S), the votes were approx. 7 Keep (or transwiki-and-still-keep) to 15 for Delete or Transwiki-without-specifying-Keep. The consensus is at the edge of clear deletion, but the admin treated it as consensus to "keep" (an overbroad interpretation of "no clear consensus -> keep by default"), and did not delete the non-article. Barno 20:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • What seems to have happened is that Alkivar unilaterally said that he had transwikied. Then the VfD closer chose to disregard all votes made after this announcement. A little odd, but I won't dispute it. But clearly there is a good argument to be made for deleting a redundant copy of an extremely large, unencyclopedic file. I don't care what intrinsic value it has, even if it's the contents of George Bush's brain it doesn't belong her if it isn't an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I have to summon all my Wikilove to avoid making a sophomoric wisecrack about the last sentence. I'll at least wikify one: "WP is not paper, but can we spare one whole byte of storage?" Barno 15:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep like last time Yuckfoo 23:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per various above. This is just ASCII art bragging taken from warez .nfo files. This is basically a Google keyword list, someone could use the ZIP filenames here to find gigs of illegal crap, and it could be seen as being our "fault". I just tried one now, and I got hits that would likely lead me to the download. It's enough to know that a warez group has cracked 500+ titles, without giving out the exact filenames of the cracked versions. WP is not a warez release list. It's easy to find warez, sure, but we don't want to be seen as helping that process in any way. Master Thief Garrett 00:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep and delist. The armchair lawyering here is fucking hysterical. —RaD Man (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource and delete. -Sean Curtin 00:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is this an encyclopedia article? How could it ever be one? It's a subpage, even... something that has been discouraged since long before I showed up. Isomorphic 00:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. On Wikisource--no reason to keep it here. Niteowlneils 03:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, it's raw data. This is not a place to dump your raw data. Even if your raw data were really useful or of wide and encyclopedic interest---which this isn't---it doesn't make itself into an encyclopedia article. It's huge, it's ugly, it's wankery, and it barely even belongs on Wikisource. grendel|khan 14:45, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article. At the very least move it to a more appropriate title, one that isn't a subpage. —Xezbeth 14:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep on the condition of setting the fonts to something that makes the logos look like they should (e.g. the Eternal Dreams font) //Gargaj 19:15, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can keep this on wikisource, if we really need it.Mgw 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as non-encyclopedic. Wikisource might make sense; I don't care there. Brighterorange 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Redundant, non-encyclopedic. 141.211.138.85 23:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. —Lowellian (talk) 01:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This information has already been transwikied to a more appropriate location. There is absolutely no reason to keep it here anymore. Indrian 02:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Once the rest of the Internet goes down and everything can only be found with a wikipedia:// address, this information will be wanted and needed. Don't banish it to the darkness. --Jscott 04:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not being banished to the darkness. It is already on wikisource, which is part of the larger wikimedia foundation. Your comments make no sense. Indrian 07:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article changes massively. The information given here is basically incomprehensible in its current form to anyone not active in the cracking scene. The article requires more background information. The ASCII art should be stripped since it doesn't contain any informational value. Furthermore, I would put the release list in a real HTML table. Anyway, can you give me a reason why all releases of a distributor (legal or illegal) should be put on wikipedia, no matter who it is? It's not exactly something that interests more than 20 people in the world. The computer world is a very fast living place. Nobody knows the programs that have been released in 1997 anymore, although this was only a few years ago. Why did you even care, please explain? -- Paniq 08:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 10:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a file storage area or data dump. Gazpacho 08:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely no encylopedic value (along with obnoxious formatting). -- taviso 10:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire. DS 16:24, 5 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 Tony Sidaway (Patent nonsense (Jürgen Klinsmann's article with "Tim Barnwell" substituted)) --cesarb 01:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Barnwell

This appears to be the article for Jürgen Klinsmann but with the name Tim Barnwell substituted in. The IP address that created this, 194.46.79.119, also vandalised the Daniel Greene page in a similar fashion [5]. Qwghlm 15:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
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 was splat! Let's pretend 9 November is here already; speedily deleted as a context-free NN bio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conor Smith

I think this article should be deleted, for there are not articles for each individual professional irish dancer; only the main dancers have articles on Wikipedia. --Breadsticks.rock 19:08, 25 October 2007 (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 delete. – ABCD 15:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord 101

Delete since it's a non-notable music group and posted by the user (203.147.0.9) advertising across WP for SAE Cburnett 15:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 16:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability yet. They now have a few days now to provide it. According to the webpage, SAE offers programs for degrees conferred by the University of Middlesex, so it may possibly be notable itself, although our article currently mentions only Dubai as an offshore campus. Andrewa 18:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lübeck-Siems

Does not appear to be a valid article. Elde 15:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Needs a lot of work, but this appears to be about a major substation serving the Baltic Cable. (See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/GK Wien-Southeast, and note this debate has closed, although some of the housekeeping is outstanding as I write this.) Andrewa 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: And I've now done the housekeeping, correctly I hope! No change of vote. Andrewa 17:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and barnstars to Andrewa. Precedent for very high-volume electric distribution infrastructure is good. Samaritan 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/question: I don't think I understand. The article name doesn't reflect the content. How about Merge with Baltic Cable then Delete? Quale 18:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment/another question: How would you propose to then preserve the page history, in terms of the GFDL? I'd probably support a rename, assuming that there is evidence for the new name and that it's not just a guess. Everyone please note that renames are not encouraged during a VfD discussion, but they can be discussed here or (probably better) on the article's talk page, for action afterwards assuming the article is kept. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, is Lübeck-Siems the name of a town or region of a town as well as a power substation? If the substation is the only thing given that name, fine. If I look up "Greenwich Village" I don't expect to read about infrastructure that happens to be located there, and I don't want a disambig either. Quale 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: These are good questions and good points, but not IMO relevant to the decision as to whether or not we keep this article. See talk:Lübeck-Siems. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Establishment of precedent for very high-volume electric distribution infrastructure is good. Klonimus 19:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 21:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as real place, but move most of the content somewhere else. Kappa 00:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 04:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a valid article. Maybe it needs a better title. Mirror Vax 09:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least merge; appears to be a cut-n-paste job ofLübeck-Herrenwyk; should be merged in.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Andrewa (Reposted material, CSD general case #4) --cesarb 01:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mephion

This page is back after having been deleted before, previous VFD referenced below. Looks like some mythology has been invented to pad the article and try to save it from being deleted again, but I can find zero sources to back up the claims that Mephion was a mythological dragon. Delete on the basis that it is unverifiable and a bad attempt at hiding bandcruft behind something purportedly more inclusion-worthy. Arkyan 16:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criterion #4: Reposted material. This archive page should probably be reverted to its former state when discussion originally closed, but I'm not sure where to document this recreation and redeletion. Andrewa 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This sentence from Google is why: "Your search - mephion "santa clarita" - did not match any documents. " "Mephion" by itself got 269 results. -You can also probably speedy it under "recreation of deleted material". -Idont Havaname 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Done, see above. Andrewa 17:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mephion

Currently fails to pass the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 06:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A 3-month-old band? Is that a new record for VfD? android↔talk 07:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plug piece for new, non-influential band with no major commercial success. 3 months is nothing, we had one band put up about three days after they were founded. As I said then, bands that new are only notable if they have someone very famous in them. Average Earthman 16:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Smithfarm
  • Delete as bandcruft. I think the record for the newest band with a vanity article was for a group less than three days old! I got a chuckle out of that one. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Looks like Average Earthman remembers that three-day-old group as well. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

  • 00:02, 2 May 2005 Henrygb deleted "Torrorism" (content starts '{{deletebecause| author blanked page, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Torrorism}}')

Sjakkalle 11:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torrorism

Essay. Rant. WP is not a soapbox. Rl 17:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: Author blanked the article. Reverted. Now someone put a speedy tag on that page. Rl 20:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if not speedy it. Cburnett 17:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Ben Babcock 18:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. KFP 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not suitable for speedy. Delete. Nearly userfy but there is really nothing there remotely suitable for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and I propose the criteria for speedy delete be expanded to include personal, non-encyclopaedic, hopelessly POV rants. --Golbez 20:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need here: it was blanked by the creator. (History) That's been accepted as CSD 7 in the past, and perhaps 2. (All edits other than by the author pertained to deletion tags or the NPOV tag I threw on.) So it should be speediable now. Samaritan 20:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. However, I ask that people use the proper reasoning for speedy requests (i.e. "db|author blanked page" rather than "db|rant"). Thanks. Rl 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WTK

I've never heard of this toolkit; there's no link to it; and a google search for wtk and "vision pim" turns up nothing. The article offers no information about the toolkit except that it is a "web gui toolkit". Delete Vircum 17:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't seem to exist and writer says ("will be") no applications have yet been developed using it. Not even one. Zilch, nada, Zip. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many similarly named real gui toolkits; to keep a bogus one invites confusion. Quale 18:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shannon Alexander Szukala

Transwikied from wiktionary. Vanity. Quite a few Google hits, but none seems to establish notability. Rl 17:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Vanity, chap with an ambitiously named website that doesn't return content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Quale 18:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. José San Martin 21:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BZPower

A BIONICLE forum, Alexa rank 34,000. Not really popular enough for an article. Also very possible risk of vanity; see above vfd on the BZPower forums. Meelar (talk) 03:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good write-up of a large, active specialist forum, eighth hit when I type bionicle into Google (in the UK), and the third forum in order (after the official site bionicle.com, Alexa ranking 681,845, and maskofdestiny.com, Alexa ranking 124,907 ). Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 34000 is a pretty good Alexa rank, and BIONICLE is arguably too full to merge this in. Keep. Samaritan 18:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable forum Klonimus 19:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep above reasons. R Calvete 19:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and we have hundreds of articles with lower ranks. N-Mantalk 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-known and important fourm. Wikipedia's coverage should be as wide as possible, and that can't be done by removing articles of important web sites! --65.102.168.16 02:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backstage in the greenroom

This article is pure vanity/promotion --Cromwellt | Talk 18:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 18:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many Christian ministries are notable, but not this one. Paradiso 05:26, 2 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 MERGE into List of Dragon Ball characters. Postdlf 05:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haze Shenron

Another minor Dragonball Z character. silsor 18:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE into List of Dragon Ball characters. Postdlf 05:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syn Shenron

Another minor Dragonball Z character. silsor 18:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Quale 18:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — or at worst merge into List of Dragon Ball characters — RJH 18:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 19:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per WP:FICT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep fictional entities. Kappa 04:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 05:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete that pls. Grue 18:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mattandthat

  • Non-notable site, vanity page Rmhermen 18:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Quale 18:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons R Calvete 19:40, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:07, 2 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. Postdlf 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Praça

Dicdef. I see no chance of it growing any further than this single line.--Nabla 18:57, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Transwiki it to wiktionary.
  • Okay, I just transwikied it, in case you want to change your vote. --Dmcdevit 04:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 05:07, 2 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 move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket until such time that a Portal: namespace is set up. – ABCD 16:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As discussed with ABCD, the above message was added when a Portalspace looked as though it was going to be made imminently. Instead, the page stays at Portal:Cricket until Portalspace is created. See also Wikipedia:Portalspace, jguk 05:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Cricket

Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cricket (portal), which was based on slightly different premises, but deals with the same issue.

This page represents a new idea - a portal for Readers. (We do have WikiPortals, but these are for editors and live in Wikipediaspace - this one is for readers.) A lot of hard work and consideration has gone into it. The aim is to allow readers interested in a particular subject, in this instance cricket, to easily navigate between the various pages - or at least the good, well-developed pages. This is why it has been place under the title Portal:Cricket. It makes it clear that this is a different type of page, neither Wikipediaspace (which is purely administrative) nor a normal article page.

However, some people wish to kill this idea to promote Wikipedia at birth. After the farce at the VfD page for the original Cricket (portal) page, I am therefore rationalising the discussion by opening it with a clean slate here, jguk 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep An attempt to improve Wikipedia for readers - experiments like this should be encouraged to help Wikipedia improve, jguk 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still not an article. A move out of the main namespace would be acceptable, but by no means necessary. Requiring a second parallel vfd is a frankly astonishing show of bad faith, the sort we normally see from anons trying to preserve their vanity forum advertisement. —Korath (Talk) 18:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • You yourself suggesting opening a parallel VfD. I'm astonished that you now accuse me of bad faith for following your own suggestion, jguk 19:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and still an invalid VFD (should have waited for someone else to nominate it or something). --SPUI (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to the Wikipedia namespace until there are special namespaces for portals and lists. Delete the redirect. Angela. 07:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does this mean you are also saying that all lists should be moved to Wikipediaspace and no reference should be made to their existence in the articlespace? jguk 08:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that, but I would prefer if lists were not counted as articles. I don't see that as a reason to move the existing ones though. Angela. 08:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a great idea. And until the self-references issue is settled, moving it to the Wikipedia namespace will make it off-limits to readers, ruining the whole point of it. If there is no reason to move the existing lists, then I don't see a reason to move the existing portals. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Once more with feeling. Am I correct in summarizing the status quo as follows?
    • The main namespace is reserved for articles, with the exception of
      • The unique Main Page;
      • Redirects, which are a technical aid and ideally invisible to readers;
      • Lists, which serve as ways of ordering either
        • Pieces of information that merit no separate articles or are factored out from articles (the appropriateness of which is disputed by some); or
        • (Possibly nonexistent) articles by other means than category and title.
      • Disambiguation pages, which are hybrids of article content and pure navigation.
      (Note that some of this contradicts Wikipedia:Namespace, but that only describes what should be the case.)
    • The Wikipedia namespace is reserved for internal Wikipedia affairs, including all editorial processes like Wikipedia:WikiProjects.
    • The intent of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is
      • To make information as accessible to reusers as possible by not mentioning Wikipedia in a non-factual way;
      • To prevent displaying what some see as an unprofessional image by mentioning Wikipedia in a non-notable way.
  • The reason this discussion (well, not this one, but this is only the perimeter) has generated so much heat so far is because portals are triggering more than one of these concerns. If you believe the main namespace is good enough for anything useful to readers, then you'll get different results than if you believe it's for articles only, and you'll get different results still if you believe that portals resemble the Main Page, which need not be unique. Likewise, it matters to what extent and for what reason you believe self-references should be avoided, and whether a link to a WikiProject in a portal constitutes a promotion to an "internal Wikipedia affair". A separate namespace might be the best solution simply because we can write new rules for a new namespace. JRM · Talk 09:09, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
I think your summary looks good to me. I'd clarify that one of the reasons this is so contentious is the turf war pushes this portal both ways. This portal is intended not for editors but for readers—say a reader is interested in cricket, this is a way to explore different areas of cricket. I personally think it's a great idea. As a page in the article space, some argue that it should be out of the main namespace and in the Wikipedia space. Fine; {{portal}} on Cricket would be a nice way to let readers of Cricket know about the other articles. However, another group say that this violates no self-references and remove the portal tag. (Note that the basis is for this instance, as I understand it, is making accessible for reusers, not the unprofessional image). Those (like me) who think it's a good idea argue that the portal, now in Wikipedia space, is unreachable from the article space, so readers (the intended audience) have no way to get to it, rendering a good idea useless. I feel that in the two wars going on, a good page is getting pushed out from both sides. A third possibility is that a page like this is not appropriate for readers and readers should not be directed to it, which would of course resolve the problem, but I haven't seen anyone suggest this so far. The fourth possibility is the creation of the portal namespace, which would solve the problem, assuming links from the main namespace to the portal namespace are allowed. If not, there'd be little point. Also, incidentally, I am arguing from the point of the portal just featuring cricket-related articles and such; I believe links to WikiProjects would be unprofessional and inappropriate (the second reason for the "no self-reference") — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep I wasn't aware that the other portals are supposed to be for editors only. What a waste - no wonder I can't find them. Oliver Chettle 12:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • New policies and new practices (such as "special-interest portals in article space for readers") should be discussed at the Village pump page, not implemented unilaterally. No vote while admins and editors who use portals resolve whether to implement a portal namespace or find another resolution to the self-reference issue. Barno 15:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If I was interested in cricket, but knew little abotu it, I woudl find a page like this very useful. Perhaps it belongs as an inverse to disambiguation. --Simon Cursitor 20:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move list and Delete the redirect. Megan1967 02:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this is a great idea. RSpeer 04:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems like the only real issue with putting this portal in the main namespace is that it violates "no self references". This really isn't much of a reason:
    • 1) We can trivially style the link to the WikiProject as an external-style link (as is done at Category:Cetaceans). Thus there is no problem for re-users.
    • 2) The original self-reference policy was formulated to avoid things like "Mount Everest is as high as 55 Wikipedias" in Mount Everest. It was never originally applied to things like stub notices.
    • 3) Carrying on from 2). We have thousands of references to Wikipedia in the main namespace. E.g. stubs notices etc... the reason that it is not a problem is that a re-user can easily rewrite the (relatively few) templates to suit their own needs. Often they just use a no-op.
  • Thus KEEP in the main namespace, it is a new, innovative and useful way of presenting information to readers and the problems it raises can be trivially worked around. Pcb21| Pete 13:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Pete. A voice of sanity. I agree totally with this summary, and vote keep. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with having this article in the main namespace is that it's unencyclopedic and, IMHO, has no potential to become encyclopedic. If there were a Portal: namespace, then this would be okay, but there isn't. Move to Wikipedia: namespace and delete the redirect. JYolkowski // talk 22:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What does "encyclopedic" mean in this context? We are just trying to open new avenues to our content. The main page is similarly "unencyclopedic" but that doesn't mean its not useful. Pcb21| Pete 07:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Technical issues and naming arguments be damned, the *idea* is brilliant, and that is what should be voted on. I could easily forsee a portal for US History or Classical Music or Videogames... or even niche sections like Survivor or Pokemon or Zelda or Star Wars or whatnot if each could be made and upkept in an applicable and useful manner. I don't understand what all the arguing is about, but the *idea*, people, the *idea*... the idea is good. Master Thief Garrett 09:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. As for it being reader-oriented and other portals being editor-oriented, I don't see how is it any different from the rest except for being in another namespace. I was the creator of the first Wikiportal at en: and I wanted to make them for both readers and editors. It was never my intention to make only editor-centred portals. And I strongly support a new namespace for portals. Ausir 12:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep somewhere (I don't care what the page name is). I'm very impressed. Mark1 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Cricket Portal provides more coverage of cricket.
For other uses of the word cricket, see Cricket (disambiguation).

This would better highlight the existence of the Portal under the name of the article. Peter Ellis 00:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Andretta

Vanity. Also, "he was featured in the Marietta Daily Journal newspaper, where he is nonchalantly reading a Bible magazine at his job" does not make one noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity Leithp 22:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC).

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reyhan

Not notable, probably self-promotion. Thue | talk 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like a typical blog to me, was about to list this on VFD myself. N-Mantalk 20:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Quale 00:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree it is a sub-typical weblog. I have no idea who put it here but i think this page should be deleted. (Reyhan Dhuny)
  • Delete. t3h reyhan w3bl0g is t3h l33t w3bl0g bu7 t3h ar71cl3 i5 t3h suX0r s0 d3l3t3 it!!!!!!111 (b0n)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MOVE TO USERSPACE. Postdlf 05:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "environmental industrialism"

Created by new user; I've dropped a note on his talk page. Delete as original research--it was a term he coined in his master's thesis. Careful now, no biting. Meelar (talk) 20:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (Nothing but a link to an external site) --cesarb 01:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bleikt og blátt

Untranslated and no potential -meekohi

  • SPEEDIED as nothing but a list of external links (of length one). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing but a link.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christofascism

[edit] POSSIBLE COMPROMISE

User:LeeHunter made a very wise suggestion on Talk:Islamofascism. His recommendation was to create a page titled Fascism as epithet, which would describe the use of the term Fascism as applied to individuals and groups who do not consider themselves Fascist. This would avoid all of the interminable arguments about which [[Xofascism]] should have an article of its own. It would also help alleviate the concerns over the Islamofascism article becoming a POV platform. Firebug 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with the proposal. That would equate Islamofascism, which is a real word used by notable people, with Christofascism, which is not. Meelar (talk) 21:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually "Christofascism" is a real word used by notable people. See the talk page for a pointer I've provided to real use by a serious theologian. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The difference, to me, is how notable. Ms. Soelle gets about 200 google hits--maybe not bad for a theologian, but nowhere near 1.6 million for Andrew Sullivan. There's a clear distinction between the two terms in how often they're used and how prominent the users are. Meelar (talk) 02:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I may have been unclear. I'm not saying that every neologism needs to be mentioned in the Fascism as epithet article, nor that little-used terms must be given the same amount of space in that proposed article as ones that see a lot of use. What I am saying is that the use of the term "Fascism" to describe individuals and groups who are not self-identified Fascists is a very well-known phenomenon, and that it makes more sense to have a single article for the entire phenomenon than to splinter it up (especially when certain splinter articles, like Islamofascism, have become POV springboards to attack the groups in question, rather than to focus on the use of the terms as epithets). "Christofascism" isn't as prominent as "Islamofascism" as a term, but what about other uses of "Fascism" as an epithet? What about terms like "Feminazis" (certainly notable, it was coined and used by Rush Limbaugh), "Hitlery", and "Bushitler"? People have been comparing their political opponents to fascists ever since the end of the Second World War. I think we should have an article on the use of the term "Fascism" as an epithet, and have this article encompass all latter-day uses of such terminology, with article space allocated in rough proportion to the prominence of each term. Firebug 23:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, that makes sense now. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that does clarify things a bit, but I still must disagree. IMO, each instance of notable "X-fascism" should get its own article. The problems you're describing with Islamofascism are an argument for watching that article closely and editing it boldly. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the article. An article on Feminazi would make more sense than merging all these disparate articles together, although feminazi isn't as well-defined as Islamofascism. Meelar (talk) 01:37, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • You're a hypocrite. You say "IMO, each instance of "X-fascism" should get its own article." but then you vote delete for a very notable X-fascism term. People have written books and published articles, notable people have used the terms "christofascism" and "christian fascism". Stancel 23:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Firebug, and yet I also agree with Meelar. A bit of each. What I think we need is that if a REAL "-fascism" term (not this one!) comes up it can be merged, along with Islamofascism, into Fascism as (an?) epithet. Master Thief Garrett 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with giving each its own article is that you totally lose the historical context and perhaps the general commentary of people like Orwell re the use of fascism as an epithet. When you see how various groups have used the word to slander their enemies, it is more interesting and enlightening. By the way, the article has been created under the name Fascist (epithet). --Lee Hunter 15:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I, as the original creator of this article, totally support this compromise. Somebody already created this article, it's called Fascist (epithet). Stancel 23:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COMMENTS

Self-admitted neologism. Probably also "disrupting wikipedia to make a point" Rmhermen 20:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure whether or not this is a vote or just a comment. Rmhermen, you can take out my "subcomment" here if/when you move this to a vote section. -t Tomer TALK 07:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I regularly visit the left blogosphere and have never seen this term, certainly not in the main posts. There's a huge differences between major commentators and people in the comments section at Democratic Underground. Meelar (talk) 07:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Meelar, take a look at the article as I have updated it. I included several citations of the use of the term, as well as the likely origins of the term. (Apparently it was invented by theologian Dorothy Soelle in her book Beyond Mere Obedience). Firebug 11:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • A theologian who gets 178 google hits and the comments thread at Daily Kos is in now way comparable to George Will, Andrew Sullivan, or National Review. If notable people were using this regularly, I'd be voting to keep it. They're not. Meelar (talk) 06:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also worth pointing out that you won't see many major commentators using terms like Nigger either, because they are considered to be highly offensive. But we still list them on Wikipedia. Firebug 11:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It's amazing how some people voted to keep Islamofascism but they are so quick to delete this. Perhaps it shows their hypocrisy? If this article is deleted, all other -ofascism articles must be deleted or redirected to list of political epithets. That is my only compromise. - Stancel 2 May 2005 11:16 (UTC)
I removed the historical sections to make the article more about the "term" itself and not about what the term describes. I realized I should do this after I saw that Islamofascism now only concentrated on the use of the word. But if Islamofascism becomes more POV and full of bullshit, then I will concentrate on the historical Christofascism. - Stancel 11:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is it that you don't get about WP:POINT? What you're doing is swiftly becoming WP:Vandalism. As for your persistent insistance on calling people with whom you disagree "hypcrites", please read WP:No personal attacks again. Tomer TALK 22:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LIST KEEP VOTES HERE

  1. KEEP! until Islamofascism is deleted. I am completely justified in creating this article if Islamofascism is allowed to exist. If you delete this, then you are a hypocrite. - Stancel 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Stancel, you're entitled to your opinions, but calling people hypocrites just because you disagree with them is neither professional nor productive, and is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Do whatever is done with Islamofascism. Just as that term has been often used in the right blogosphere, I have often heard terms like "Christofascist", "Jesofascist", and "Jeebofascist" in the left blogosphere. If these articles are kept, they should focus on the epithet itself, not be a list of bad things that Muslims and Christians have done. After all, the ZOG article isn't a list of bad things Jews have done, nor is Nigger a list of bad things black people have done. That's where I think a lot of the problems with the Islamofascism article lies. I can't speculate as to the creator's motive for this article, but it could have been in good faith. This isn't an extremely well-known term, but most people who regularly visit the left blogosphere will have heard it more than once, and a reasonable argument could be made for keeping the article. Firebug 22:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Firebug, I put your vote here, since the Islamofascism VfD failed. Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I see no reason to delete given the existence of Islamofascism. --Axon 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. I see nothing here to indicate this word is anything other that a term used by extremist opponents of Christianity. If this is true then it no more deserves an article than "commie traitors" should be a redirect to the Democratic party. HOWEVER this is a very young article. I suggest that this article is given time, say a couple of weeks, to see if anything substansive is found. If not it should be renominated for VFD. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The idea that theologian Dorothy Soelle, who appears to have coined the term, is an "extremist opponent of Christianity" is pretty funny. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I said there was nothing in the article to indicate it, and there still isn't. Maybe someone should add something about her, and what she meant, and then the article could go from being a meaningless rant to something useful. DJ Clayworth 12:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and the word "Islamofascism" is only used by extremist opponents of Islam. What's your point? Ketsy 19:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Do whatever is done with Islamofascism. This article is an excellent way to point out the fact that the Islamo- one doesn't belong here, either. Ketsy 19:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Keep, unless Islamofascism is deleted. Having one but not the other to me smacks of hypocrisy. JamesBurns 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Keep until Islamofascism is deleted. Agree with Stancel. Iam 11:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Keep and rename it Christian fascism. Unless all me-you-fascism articles are delated or merged all together in Fascist (epithet), this one should be kept. There are books as references to Christian Fascism more than Islamic fascism or Jewish fascism. Svest 12:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LIST DELETE VOTES HERE

  1. Delete all my comments over at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Americofascism apply here as well. Dalf | Talk 20:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete as non-notable neologism. I don't see the parallel with Islamofascism, a term that gets 350 times more hits on google; by your argument any ___fascism article would be allowed. If the term becomes notable, then it will deserve an article. Brighterorange 21:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete, by now it's obvious that this is disruption. Gazpacho 21:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delete WP:POINT —Wahoofive (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delete. A neologism and a disruptive point. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. delete this and islamofascism and any other articles with "ofascism" which would be created.DeirYassin 22:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delete. WP:POINT does seem to apply to X (or Y or Z)-o-fascism stuff in spades. "He's not the Messiah, he's a VERY NAUGHTY BOY!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delete. WP:POINT. RickK 22:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Delete Islamofascism VfD Controversy cruft WP:POINT. Right now the Islamists are batting 0/4 having lost/losing on (Islamofascism, Judeofascism, Americofascism, and now Christofascism). Whats next, Wikifascism? Klonimus 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Doc glasgow tried to modify my vote Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christofascism&diff=13106564&oldid=13106470 Klonimus 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Klonimus: I took out an extra initial "[" in your wikilink, and it appears to be broken...Tomer TALK 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Delete, neologism with minimal Google hits. Now, I'm off to write Wikifascism. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 22:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • That was already done some time ago (and speedy deleted). Firebug 23:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delete This is ever so slightly boring--Doc Glasgow 23:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Delete. Neologism that few if any actually use, and definitely falls under "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point." Isomorphic 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've included some examples with sourcing of the use of this term in an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. Firebug 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Delete, reasons as per above. This crap will just cause edit wars and such if it stays. Master Thief Garrett 23:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Delete. Non-notable. Utterly non-notable. --Mrfixter 23:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. Delete--show me some notable commentators using this term and I will change my vote. Until then, don't compare this to Islamofascism. Meelar (talk) 07:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Delete as neologism. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Delete or redirect to epithets, WP:POINT. The term is barely used; even the article has little but references to a single author using the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. Delete Same as above. DMTsurel 22:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. Delete WP:POINT ObsidianOrder 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. Delete KHM03 20:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Delete WP:POINT Tobycat 03:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. Delete. WP:POINT. And on the question of "Islamofascism" vs. "Christofascism" or "Judeofascism", on Google Islamofascism gets 64,000 hits, Christofascism gets 190 hits, and Judeofascism gets 156 hits. Out of interest I popped over to the second most popular search enginge, and on Yahoo the difference is even more pronounced: Islamofascism gets 82,200 hits, Christofascism gets 99 hits, Judeofascism gets 86 hits. On top of that, Islamofascism is used by a number of significant writers, whereas Christofascism and Judeofascism are used by unknowns and/or cranks. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  23. Delete. Wikipedia is a quagmire of unnotables.--Silversmith 17:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  24. Delete. Just because the offensive term "Islamofascism" is notable, doesn't mean that "fascism" must be attached to every other religious group quid pro quo. There are plenty of other equally offensive yet notable terms applied to various religious and political groups, and it's not up to Wikipedia to create novel terms to even some popular culture "score". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Delete this shite. Grue 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  26. Delete. This discussion need not turn on whether "Islamofascism" is a tool of anti-Muslim propagandists. That's irrelevant. What matters is that said term does exist and is used often by notable publications while the same cannot be said for Christofascism. It is not for Wikipedia to make value judgments or back one side over the other. Non-notable. Period. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LIST REDIRECT VOTES HERE

  1. Redirect to List of political epithets where it should have been to begin with. Tomer TALK 06:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redirect to Christian fundamentalism. --BD thimk 19:55, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Don't you think that's a bit unfair? I am not (to put it mildly) a big fan of fundamentalism, but a redirect of this nature would be clearly POV. If you're going to redirect it to a form of Christianity (a bad idea in the first place) then it should be a redirect to Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. Firebug 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfair? Not really - anymore than my earlier vote to redirect Judeofascism to Zionism... it's not necessarily about what the thing is, but about what people are really looking for in the encyclopedia when they type it in the box. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • I agree, redirecting an unrealistic and extreme group to a real-world conservative group would probably work. I'll reconsider my vote... I think... Master Thief Garrett 08:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. Redirect to List of political epithets. El_C 13:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redirect to Fascist (epithet). Anilocra 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presence Online, Aptrix

This is an advertisement.

  • Delete, advert. Leithp 22:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Quale 00:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete!!! Fie on thou, spamvertiser!!! Thou art condemned to.... Wiki-Hellllll!!!! -- BDAbramson thimk 19:42, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presence Online's Aptrix

This page is an advertisement.

  • Delete it is just a copy and paste of a press release. N-Mantalk 21:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Quale 00:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete!!! Fie on thou, spamvertiser!!! Thou art condemned to.... Wiki-Hellllll!!!! -- BDAbramson thimk 19:52, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recuperation

This should be moved to Wiktionary in case the definition is correct. Svest 21:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay it's a crap stub. cleanup. Recuperation has a couple of meanings that are very encyclopedic, but I'm not going to do it because I'm getting to feel like a performing monkey. Why don't you just take the initiative and say "Recuperation is gradual recovery from illness." And then you just add some "see also" items and you have a useful stub. This an intrinsically encyclopedic subject because it touches on disease, nursing, medicine, health, psychology and whatnot, so it fits well into the organic environment of a Wiki. keep--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This came from the source of its only inbound, Detournement. Google (+recuperation +radical +idea) confirms that this definition is used, and this is the creator's first edit. Keep and let it, well, recuperate organically. Samaritan 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I re-wrote it somewhat, but still needs to be expanded. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 23:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good start. Kappa 00:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A quick look indicates that "recuperation" is only used with the strange meaning in situationist jargon. That's got to be made clear in recuperation or WP is going to help kids fail their vocabulary exams. The current state of recuperation is also bogus because the rare, specialized slang meaning is listed first and the common meanings later. The article for detournement is also a problem — it's simply copied from part of situationist. It seems that detournement should just be a explanation that it's situationist jargon with a brief definition and link to situationist. I'd do this myself, but I have hopes that there's someone else here who knew there was such a thing as Situationist International for longer than the last 5 minutes. Quale 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand focussing on the medical meaning.Capitalistroadster 11:12, 2 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; it was recreated as a redirect, which I shall leave as harmless. Feel free to relist on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if that really irks you and I won't fuss. Postdlf 06:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True ogre

Somethingorothercruft. Nothing links here. RickK 22:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Without any kind of context, it was SPEEDIED as patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this page has been turned into a redir List of Tekken characters. Marblespire 19:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 11:35, 5 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 REDIRECT to MuchMusic. Content was already merged there. Feel free to list it on redirects for deletion afterwards. Postdlf 05:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muchmusic message board

Non-notable message board. RickK 23:01, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect MuchMusic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to MuchMusic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect. Come on, who's actually going to search for "Muchmusic message board" here? Wouldn't they just type in "Muchmusic"? And if anything I'd expect someone to look with the word "forum" which wouldn't help either. Master Thief Garrett 23:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge then delete to MuchMusic. Redirect is not helpful. Quale 00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect without merge. --Spinboy 00:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, before seeing Spinboy's vote I just edited it and merged it in at MuchMusic#Internet community, attributing the original creator in my edit summary. So, well, it's merged. But I'm not that enthusiastic about a redirect... Samaritan 01:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merge whatever makes sense to include in MuchMusic. GrantNeufeld 02:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing left to merge. Megan1967 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Muchmusic (merge is no longer necessary). As Samaritin stated, the material's already been merged into MuchMusic#Internet community. A few months ago, I might have voted delete with no redirect, but after reading Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion, I've changed my mind. GFDL requires that we keep a record of each person's contributions to an article. Since the material's been merged, and there's nothing "harmful" with keeping the redirect (such as, for instance, redirecting miserable failure to George W. Bush), I say redirect it.--Deathphoenix 18:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wacky

Dicdef, already transwiki'd. Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect Wacky Races. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I doubt anyone would expect Wacky to come up with anything at all, let alone Wacky Races. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Wacky Races. Master Thief Garrett 00:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) unless the Vfd flows towards removal, in which case my Delete still counts. Master Thief Garrett 05:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an encyclopedia. Type Wacky and you'd expect to see the word used in a reasonable context. Wacky Races inhabited a time when the word Wacky had traction with 8-14-year-olds, who now happen to be rather mature adults. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, as a substitute result! Thaaaat makes sense. Yes you're quite right. I remember Wacky Races well... hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 00:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. Quale 00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as already-transwikied dicdef. No redirect even though I was a Wacky Races fan, back in the day. If WP were to include cutesy humor when it's not 01-April, I would support the redirect as a sort of "I'm Feeling Lucky"-button adventure, but that's not the case. Barno 15:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Knox

Vanity article. N-Mantalk 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another in a long line of vanity articles of non-notable college students. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE Vilen, and NO CONSENSUS on Rick. Postdlf 18:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vilen and Rick

Wikipedia is not a names database. RickK 23:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting that you say that Rick, since your name is an article on Wikipedia. So if we delete "Vilen", then we should also delete "Rick" and any other names, such as Bob or Jim or whatever names there are listed on Wikipedia. Moosh88User talk:Moosh88 23:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right, that shouldn't be here either. I've listed it accordingly. RickK 23:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen; no vote on Rick. Georgia guy 23:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen; Merge Rick and Rick (movie). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete both. There's nothing to merge. Quale 00:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen; Keep Rick. Rick can be used like other first name pages and disambiguate to people with that name. However, i don't believe that Vilen has the same usefulness. R Calvete 00:30, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Yes: delete Vilen but keep Rick. Jack, Bob and Dave and Joe are all helpful and quite busy disambiguation pages - hey, I just happened to add to each (1, 2, 3 and 4) earlier today. I'm sure there are other meanings for Rick, RICK, etc. this will grow organically to encompass. Samaritan 00:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen but Redirect Rick to Rick (movie) (or just move Rick (movie) to Rick) because the other dab meanings are useless. No one would just search for "Rick" and expect to find Rick Adams or Rick Allen, or anyone else whose first name is Rick. It's wrong to have a stub disambiguation page; either there are two meanings or there aren't. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen but Redirect Rick to Richard, and make it an article about the origins and history of the name. We take names for granted, like there can't be anything interesting or encyclopedic about a name because, well, it's just a name. But names have history, and its often fascinating stuff. -- BDAbramson thimk 04:45, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen, Redirect Rick to Rick (movie). Megan1967 05:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thrilled as I am that you're agreeing with me, Megan, it's actually against policy to have a disambiguating name like Rick (movie) as the page title if that's the only meaning. We should just rename the movie page Rick. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vilen, Keep Rick as a disambig between Rick (movie) and Richard. Remove the specific Ricks. -R. fiend 18:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all first names. More notable than Pokemons. Grue 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Grue, but consider merging Rick with Richard and Vilen with Villick if such an article should be created. Kappa 13:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MTV Jams Playlist For March 4, 2005 and MTV Jams Playlist For March 30, 2005

These used to have a parent called MTV Jams Playlists, which I deleted according to the consensus at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MTV Jams Playlists. Both of these daily playlists were listed there too and consensus was to delete them as well. However, no VfD tag was ever placed on those articles. Hence, as a matter of proper form, I'm relisting them here, with full faith that the right thing will be done. Delete as nonencyclopedic and probably a host of other things. Postdlf 23:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If the parent was deleted, then these have even less right to remain. Master Thief Garrett 23:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 00:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone really, really wants these bits of cruft, I'm sure the MTV website will oblige. - Lucky 6.9 01:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Nonencyclopaedic cruft. Megan1967 04:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles, unencyclopedic, being consistent with the parent article's VfD and its consensus on its subarticles. Barno 15:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per consensus and non-notability, or merge with List of songs played on Q101 during the afternoon block on march 4th. --InShaneee 15:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 18:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelf corporation

POV rant. RickK 23:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, weird. And POV, yes. Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Now that it is un-POV-ised, Keep if Expanded. Master Thief Garrett 03:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to shell corporation. Buying distressed companies to gain legal or investment advantages is commonplace. Gazpacho 00:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not at all similar to a shell corporation. Klonimus 01:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    What's the difference? Shell corporation has a definition from Barron's that seems to describe exactly what are sold as "shelf corporations." Shelf corporations, like shell corporations, are sometimes used to anonymize transactions. It looks to me as if they are the same thing, with a different name to downplay the association with fraud. Gazpacho 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Bravo to Gazpacho for NPOV'ing it; agreed with Klonimus they're quite distinct. An encyclopedic subject on an "even if Wiki were paper" level. Samaritan 01:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. May need a "cleanup" but a valid topic. Samw 02:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rewritten article is encyclopedic and good. Quale 02:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Expand - quickie Google search reveals plenty of companies that are selling "shelf corporations" for exactly the reasons detailed in the article. [6], [7], [8], [9]. --BD thimk 02:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good topic, useful start to the article. It's a complex area but a standard practice. Andrewa 10:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable concept in corporate law.Capitalistroadster 11:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rewritten article good  The Steve  12:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 00:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blender buttons

More unidentified cruft. Nothing links here. RickK 23:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • merge with blender (software)
    • DO NOT PRESS that button that says SQUISH. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with blender (software), NO redirect. Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Delete, WP is not a user manual. Master Thief Garrett 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a software manual. Keybindings in one piece of software are in general not of encyclopedic interest. Quale 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Check that this info is in the appropriate article in Wikibooks and DeleteAverage Earthman 08:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Chop, dice, puree, and delete, in agreement with Quale. Barno 15:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had no idea what this article was talking about until I saw Tony's link above. Seems to contain no information that can't be merged with the blender (software) page. StuTheSheep 20:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Tony Sidaway (Article without context. Too many Pete Reeds to be meaningful) --cesarb 01:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Reed

Not Notable. He + organisation's name give less that 10 googles. (Although I can think of plenty of other reasons to delete.)--Doc Glasgow 23:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • SPEEDIED. No meaningful content or history. There must be a Peter Reed in nearly every English speaking community. I did look at the history--no indication of which person was alleged to be a pedophile. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:02, 2 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.