Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 22

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Thomas. Has already been done, so I'm just closing here. Sjakkalle 11:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thom

It is a generic name, 501 articles show up on a search with about 20-30 having Thom in the title.

~~wsloand

• Merge with Tom or Thomas (more likely the latter), put a line in that disambig noting that the names likely derive from the same root. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:41, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Merge per BD2412 works for me. — RJH 18:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Thomas sounds like a good plan. WoodenTaco 21:55, 22 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 Bad Robot Production. It has already been done, so I'm just closing here. Sjakkalle 11:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Robot

Advert page. Alexa ranking of 936300 suggests non-notability. --EvilZak 00:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity and advertising. Article written by User:Badrobot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Sarg below. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: However, Bad Robot is also a production company, responsible for the production of the film 'Joyride' and the very successful series 'Alias' and 'Lost'. I can change the article if a consensus is reached to do so. The present content, obviously, has to go. Sarg 08:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Uppsss... We already have an article about that. So redirect to Bad Robot Production. Sarg 08:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sarg. Geogre 12:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested above, it's what I assumed the article was about when I saw the title. Jon the Geek 16:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Sarg. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Point Therapy

Not sure what to make of this. Looks like email spam. →Vik Reykja 00:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't sell products here. Delete. Harro5 00:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as promotional unless completely rewritten. The article is copied from Handout (PDF file) on the website it links to. Probably not copyvio because poster is presumably the author. Keep in mind that the author/poster may sincerely be trying to help people. FreplySpang (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• The authors IS trying to help people. I took the website off the article, I'm new to Wikipedia and find it wonderful. However I do not know how to communicate with you all who feel it is spam. It was NOT my intent. — (Unsigned comment by 24.18.153.42; user's 19th edit.)
• I have now registered so maybe you can find me through that? Thank you. — (Unsigned comment by Tahomagirl; user's 3rd edit.)
• Delete. Likely snake oil. Not notable, self-promotional. 14 unique Googles for "clear point therapy". Note that User:Tahomagirl added spam of the same nature to Allergy. android↔talk 01:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • It gets better. User:24.18.153.42 has been on a spamvertising campaign, adding links to Grief, Candida, Intestinal parasite, Stress (medicine), Phobia, Anxiety, and List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine. User also created Entity removal, which is also on VfD. android↔talk 01:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• DEL, way too much POV and advertising. Maybe if it were listed on types or brands of cleanser, but this article is ridiculous. <> Who 01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Take them all off. I won't waste my time with people who probably belong to quackwatch. Now I am going to try to unregister. (unsigned comment by User:Tahomagirl )
  • If it ducks like a quack, it is a quack. Spam and crackpottery, delete - candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 14:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like part of a campaign, in conjunction with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Entity removal (and a few others), which android already recognized. --Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Obvious spam. Some of us like our intestinal parasites. Geogre 12:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, no comment needed. Flcelloguy 18:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an ad. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard of Accupunture and Accupressure, but Clear point Therapy is something new. Besides, the article is worth deletion. --IncMan 23:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 17:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Nielsen

Unsuccessful canidate for North Carolina Senate(District 11). No other indication of notability. --Allen3 ^talk 01:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't need an article. Harro5 02:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stub unedited since its origin on 17 Sep 2004. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Dennis Nilsen. Proto 10:50, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karina Hyett

Article does not recite any reason why this individual is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia; looks like pure vanity/advertising. Kelly Martin 01:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• delete because this is a resume Yuckfoo 02:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity at best, advertising at worst. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above Amerika 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No googles for Karina Hyett --IncMan 23:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 17:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West-Side Chopstix

Vanity; non-notable band. Delete. Emiao 00:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable, band vanity. Orphan page and no hits on google. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the band really exists, its doesn't seem to be that great to deserve a place in an encyclopedia. --IncMan 23:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:30, 24 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. —Xezbeth 07:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of galore

Looks like nonsense to me, but I think micronations are supposed to go through VfD. Delete.-gadfium 01:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unsuccesful proto-micro-nation. Kappa 02:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep it, it is of proper revelence, this micronation is struggling and needs support.
  • Comment made by User:203.45.39.53. This is his second edit, and his first is the page being voted on. --EvilZak 02:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable. --EvilZak 02:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. RickK 05:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mirconations cruft. Megan1967 05:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. AиDя01DTALK 05:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Unverified, no evidence of notability. Delete. (And stop vandalizing the VfD page.) - Mike Rosoft 13:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. I too cannot find any evidence. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why do people keep forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. --IncMan 23:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I contacted the Principality and they replied rather quickly, they sent me sources and proof that they are recognised by the Port Phillip Council. I say keep it it is obviously important to them.--sillysodii — (Unsigned comment by 60.230.109.53; user's 6th edit.)
• I deleted various responses and personal attacks that User:60.230.109.53 ("sillysodii") made, which were interspersed with nearly everyone else's votes, sometimes showing up in the code for our signatures. If you want to rebut our arguments, do it succinctly with an edit that is clearly your own, and sign your comments with ~~~~, rather than forging a signature for a nonexistant user. (By the way, "email them and find out" is a laughable way to verify something. I could say I'm the Emperor of Mars; just email me and find out!) AиDя01DTALK 11:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• hello yes i could e-mail you but i'm not going to waste my time. If you Cant find information on the internet all i suggested was to e-mail the Principality and They will send information back! By the way android i could just say on the internet i was the emperor of mars makes no difference whether the source is off the internet or from an e-mail!!! 203.94.135.4 02:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We have various tools for evaluating the veracity and notability of a website; not so for emails, which are easily forged. Also, I can't cite an email like I can a website or a reputable offline source. AиDя01DTALK 02:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I've emailed the Port Phillip City Council. They should know whether or not they've recognised this "principality". — P Ingerson (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it does exist in a marginal manner, still not notable. Donovan Ravenhull 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, At least someone has shown an interest and hopefully this will finally prove that the Principality of Galore is REAL!!!

• Delete even if the city council has in fact recognized this entity, an independant state must have international recognition, and no evidence of this is claimed. Even a peusdo-state should have some degree of notability, see Emperor Norton. DES 17:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Dear all, The Principality of Galore HAS been acknowledged by the Port Phillip Council, There for becoming a new city council, under Australian law a city council (an area/territory) has the right to secede as long as the citizens within that area vote unanimously. That has been done.
  • Asserting it doesn't make it true. Provide some verification. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK i shall prove that Galore has seceded here it is

GALORE IS INDEPENDENT

thats declearation of independece for you

now you cant doubt it fools

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was nothing, but as user pages can be deleted by request, then I'll do it anyway. —Xezbeth 17:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stancel, User talk:Stancel

I'm requesting that my user page be deleted. Please delete. Also, is there any way I can delete my ACCOUNT itself? I'll be using a new account from now on. Stancel 02:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Can user pages be moved? If not, you could probably speedy your user page (edited only by you, except for vandalism and vandalism reversion). You should be able to move your user talk page to a subpage of your new user talk. You should probably keep that around as an archive. android↔talk 02:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand, but I want to know is it possible that I can get my ACCOUNT deleted also? Stancel 02:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Stancel, since this is one of your own pages, you can ask for speedy deletion here. Much simpler than a vfd vote. If you want to you can simply move and redirect it. Moving the page in the same way as an article to the new name - that will make the old "Stancel" pages redirects. If you want to, you can then put the "Stancel" redirects up for speedy - which would effectively remove that account. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wouldn't you want to keep your Stancel userpage, and just redirect it to the user page of your new name? Otherwise, all record of what you have done will be lost. Harro5 03:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's blanked his user and talk pages already. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 15:21, 22 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. —Xezbeth 17:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Shkolnick

Vanity. Delete until she achieves epic glory Denni☯ 02:12, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• Delete. Was a candidate for speedy deletion, deserves nothing less. Harro5 02:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, was not a candidate for speedy. Wish that were the case, and I'd have done it. Denni☯ 15:40, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Delete vanity! Amerika 03:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Kiddie penpal vanity. Geogre 13:20, 22 May 2005
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to give an auto biography about yourself! Its 110% vanity. Delete it, no one is going to read it.
• Delete: My question: Why isn't it gone yet?

(UTC)

• • Unsigned posts by 152.163.101.6 Denni☯ 15:41, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Delete as simple as that --IncMan 23:31, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreate by BrokenSegue. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson Food Mart

This is a hoax article. It has been deleted before. This should be a straight up-and-down delete vote. Harro5 02:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• If it's the same content, it can be speedied as a recreation. Kappa 02:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And...[edit conflict]....I just did that BrokenSegue 02:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 17:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] America's Army controversy

1: Original research. 2: Would be difficult to make NPOV because the very existence of a controversy is a POV. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. Nestea 04:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and might I add that one article on a game is usually more than enough. Harro5 06:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Most of it is redundant with the main America's Army article, so delete. — A.M. 07:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research (and merely the result of personal dispute). Peter ^Isotalo 10:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 05:32, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tir-fly

Non-notable nonexistent band. No Google hits for the band or the lead singer. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It's not even NPOV -- MacAddct1984 05:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, garage band vanity. Megan1967 06:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-existent, non-notable and wallows in self-professed obscurity. --Lejend 13:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:31, 24 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

[edit] European English

Note that the version initially considered for deletion has been completely replaced. A new rounding of voting on the replacement is now underway.

[edit] Version as of 22 May 2005

Personal project of an SAP consultant named David Jacob, a project whose entire existence seems to be a wiki here and a web page here. It appears to fit "Problems that may require deletion" in a couple of ways:

• Original research, with too little progress or evidence of significant support
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Idiosyncratic, and not in the same category as the other entries on the List of dialects of the English language

66.167.253.48 05:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (Anonymous contributor of hundreds of new articles and edits since May 2003; see User contributions For 66.167.49.31 for my first day's contributions)

• Delete Original research. Strong Keep after the changes made by User:Nobbie. BlankVerse ∅ 05:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect it's a promotional article by the originator of the scheme. Beyond this and the web page of the project itself, I find no real discussion of this scheme elsewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 06:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research please. Harro5 06:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising/announcement and original research. I was almost interested in the title, though, as there is something unusual about the phonology of English in Europe (excluding the UK). The continental vowel schemes result in a broadened and deepened pronunciation that ought to be studied, as it appears that it is becoming standardized, but then that study needs to be summarized here and not conducted here. Geogre 13:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very odd 'OR'. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obvious linguistic OR. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks to me like this is a legitimate project. I found a professor writing on the implications of European English for the EU and Europe in general[1], and a google search for "European English" and EU returns just over 2,000 results. It doesnt seem to be a personal project to me. (unsigned comment by User:WoodenTaco)
• Delete I don't know how legitimate the project is (even if it is, it doesn't fulfill the criteria to be a wiki article), but the author is trying to use wikipedia to promote his research. Thats certainly not acceptable. Delete and Merge to Euroenglish --IncMan 18:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• delete original research, unfactual. -Pedro 13:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : European English DOES already exists de facto. In a meeting in Paris, with French, Spanish, German and Italian speakers speaking English they will use some words and expressions that are not the same as in similar meeting in London, or New York with real native english speakers. For native English speakers is it only bad English, but for these European peersons it is European English. I admit that the European English PROJECT is pretty new, and has only little support for now compared to esperanto, but this is not an original research, this is a project to improve this existing European English. Meanwhile I understand your critics, I should not talk mainly about my project. European English should be define in Wikipedia as it is existing today. But do you mind if I mention my project to improve European English ? davidjacobchemla 27 may 2005
• Keep : European English does not exclude UK ; European English does support British English : in Europe we prefer the suffix "ise"(UK) than "ize" (USA) ; In Europe we prefer "colour"(UK) than "color"(USA). There is no reason to delete this article, and to censor European English. User:migueule 27 may 2005

[edit] Version as of 27 May 2005

I've rewritten the article. I removed the original research and added three possible meanings of European English. It's a kind of disambiguation page now, but a little bit more than that. Nobbie 07:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: With the drastic changes made by User:Nobbie, I suggest everyone should revisit the page and reconsider their vote, because it is no longer the same article that they voted on. It is such a drastic change I would even suggest that maybe there needs to be a new vote. BlankVerse ∅ 10:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep teh rewrite. Grue 15:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. DES 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as rewritten. Original research. Neologism: while google search ("European English" -wikipedia) gives a huge number of hits, most of them do not refer to what article writes, with a notable exception, which I loved. The sole external link in the article does not use the term. Not to say that IMO there is no such thing as European English, while there are lots of kinds of Spanglish, Runglish, Franglish, which is how it is. Also, I suggest y'all to look into "Euroenglish". mikka (t) 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • LOOL. I also loved it. :o) -Pedro 23:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, and possible rewrite some more. Kappa 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Nobbie 09:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as rewritten (neologism). It could be the start of a new section under English language or a new article (English language in Europe ?), but to call it European English implies it's on the same level as British English, American English and the others, which it is not. 66.167.137.130 09:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (the one who submitted the original article to a vote).
• Delete. This is still OR. There is no European English, any more than there is one single "British English". There may be an American English--the language that is taught in classrooms in the United States--but it would be wrong to assume that such standardization applies meaningfully in other countries. It does not. English is too fluid a language to be pinned down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a translator, I know perfectly well that there is such a thing as European English, although the article as it is now doesn't do it complete justice. What one has to understand is that English is used as lingua franca across a continent which shares a vast amount of legal, educational, technological etc. concepts, which differ from those in real English speaking countries. That's why there are a lot of English expressions used in Europe which aren't used in the UK or US (e.g. "external arrangement" for, roughly, "landscaping"). Zocky 11:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• neutral it is much better now, but I dont know if it deserves an article. The EU style guide can be something that can be useful. But I dont think we should confuse the English used in Ireland and the UK (these people's native language and their main vehicle of expression), with the English used in mainland Europe (just a learning language). Maybe European English article would be just for UK/Ireland and English language in Europe for the use of English in the EU. But please include only factual information (use of data from the EU is a good source). probably, a conversation between a French with an Italian or a Spanish with a Portuguese, etc. will not be in English, but in a sort of a mixed romance language. Eastern Europeans speak Russian, it is their lingua franca. English seems very popular in Germanic and Scandinavian countries, there could be a section about that. It is not that popular in Latin countries, elder people dont like English, while younger people like it. In fact, the use of English/French/German in the EU is a declared weapon in Portugal for the supporters of the "no" in the EU constitution referendum, which the government and the president are keen to make, even after the French earthquake.-Pedro 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• How is European English any different than UK English? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is English spoken in countries where is it not a native language, e.g. Germany. Kappa 15:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The article does not describe how it is any different than UK English and does not cite any sources. At this point, the article is not encyclopedic and unless some sources can be produced it is not verifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep, but this requires a tremendous amount of work to make it acceptable even as a disambiguation stub. Nobbie should be commended for his/her work thus far, but there's still a very long ways to go. As for the "comedy" at the link mikka noted, I couldn't help but notice that in year 1 "c" would be dropped from the keyboard, but by the end, it was still there (in "ech" (for "each)). Now, in the interest of REAL euroenglish, let me transliterate: kíp, bat qis ríkwàyärz a trämèndas ämàunt av wärk tä méik it äksèptibäl ívän éz a disémbigyúêixän stab. Nábí xud bí kämèndid fär hiz/här wärk qas fár, bat qér z stil a vérí lógh wéiz tä go. Éz fär qä "kámidí" ét qä ligk mikka notid, ái kud nt help bat notis qet in yír 1, "c" wud bí drápt fram qä kíbord, bat bái qí end, it waz stil qér (in "ech" (fär "ítx")). Náu, in qí intrist av stápigh känfíwzigh pípäl, ái l djast stáp raitigh... :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can convince me the term is really widespread in these meanings. The rewrite is much better, but it still smells like a neologism to me. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott e^iπ 21:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Revolution

Yet another crystal-ball N-Rev page with absolutely no information that wasn't made obvious by the game's title. --EvilZak 05:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable (yet), final fantasy cruft. Megan1967 06:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not really enough info yet. Might've jumped the gun. Delete for now, if after or closer to release there's more to say, then reconsider. Nateji77 07:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the revolution article. --TimPope 08:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I admire the ambition of the person adding all these myriad games hours after they were confirmed, but this is really not useful, not even as a redirect. If anything, it should be Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles (tentative title). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles on valid topics should be expanded, not deleted --Cynical 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• The only information the article gives is that Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Revolution has got something to do with Nintendo, so the only scope that I see for this article is that its Merged with Nintendo or some other related article. --IncMan 23:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a stub until more information is released. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just leave it as a stub for now. Thunderbrand 02:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge untill it is not a crystal-ball article. Vegaswikian 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Leave this article as a stub for now. When more information is released about this game, just add it to the page. Its that simple. There is absolutly no reason to delete.
• Delete per crystal ball clause. Radiant_* 10:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename it to "Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles (tentative title) as suggested by Master Theif Garret, and mark it as a stub for now until more info is released on it and it can be expanded. I see no reason to delete.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Kept and marked for cleanup. -- Scott e^iπ 21:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comunleng

I can't find any references to this on the internet that don't seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The French and Spanish versions of the page are much more extensive, perhaps too much so for an encyclopedia but it leads some credence to its existence. There are also a lot of web pages that link to one or more of the language versions. On the other hand, I could not find any pages unrelated to Wikipedia either. Failing independent verifiability, I agree for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Unless verified, delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your own research. Harro5 06:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. After a quick Google search there is nothing to suggest this isn't just another linguistics student trying to re-invent Esperanto and using Wikipedia to promote it. --Fazdeconta 12:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a well-recognized auxlang name. 24.4.127.164 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Here. Check this out: http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_comunleng.htm 24.4.127.164 11:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The site that you posted gives Wikipedia as the source of the information. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a useful article, even if the language is not very widely known. -- BRG 18:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why must VfD be a popularity contest for more obscure topics? The language is only five years old. The article exists in two other languages on Wikipedia. Surely it's no more harmful to keep this than to keep Europanto (which is a little bit more popular, granted...) --cprompt 23:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you show me some sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't. I only translated (well, cleaned up Babelfish output of) a portion of the original Spanish article. The author there should be able to support it. Under the interpretation of Wikipedia:No original research that Wikipedia should not host "primary sources", I really can't defend this article. --cprompt 22:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • So does that mean that you are changing you vote to delete? Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Lack of expertise on this, flag for clean-up if it survives VfD, perhaps it should have had a dispute instead of a VfD in the first place--Tznkai 01:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - just another conlang promotion article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - conlangs are a special case IMHO. Bacchiad 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CryptoDerk 04:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The first part of the article would benefit from a more neutral POV, though. Ar 15:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Keep. Three interwikis? Definately notable. This page definately needs to go through a cleanup.Almafeta 19:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Ummmm, those articles are also completely unreferenced. It's possible to submit made-up articles in multiple languages. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup, three interwikis for a conlang implies notability. Kappa 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto for you, Kappa. Saying it exists because there are interwikis is very lazy. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But three interwikis is also three places where it has been regarded as notable enough to survive a VfD. F'rex, take the French wikipedia: although the article was started by 83.134.150.* (here) as an article very similar to its current English state, it has been expanded by users unrelated to that original poster. There's an audience for this language. Almafeta 17:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can provide an external reference. If this was notable it could be verified right away. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (damn edit conflicts) No references that did not originate with Wikipedia. The article doesn't even give the name of an inventor(s). The is the very essence of non-verifiable information. (and multiple interwikis does not imply notablity, hoax articles have been interwikied before) func(talk) 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interwikis =/= automatic good article. – ugen64 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This is looking like a close vote, so I'd like to make a point for future voters: Even if this article survives the current VfD, it will ultimately be sent back repeatedly, because it doesn't answer even the most basic questions of notability and is in no way verifiable:
  • Who created it? (I'm guessing it was the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
  • Approx. how many speak it? (I'm guessing 1, the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
  • Where is the source of the information contained in the article? (not including Wikipedia or our mirrors, "recursive sourcing" is not allowed)
  • So before voting "keep", perhaps you should see if you can answer any of the above questions first. func(talk) 19:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If more information (most notably, the creator) cannot be found, instead of outright deletion, perhaps summing up the article in a sentence or two and listing it under "Esperanto reforms" in Esperantido could be an acceptable compromise. Almafeta 18:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with this last proposition. I discussed with the editor of this article (I don't remember in which language) and it has seemed to me comunleng is known by an only guy and it is not possible to know more about. --Arno Lagrange ✉ 22:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I did that; it's ready to be redirected. (The Esperantido page is a little rough, but it's growing, and help from the esperanto Wikipedia community is being enlisted, so.)
• Comment. OK, I'm just baffled here. This is like some kind of jury nullification going on. ArnoLagrange has just stated that this comunleng is "known by an only guy", ie: it is an original creation of the Wikipedian who first wrote it, ie: it is original research, and we don't do original research. func(talk) 15:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless func's questions of 2 June above can be answered in the article to show verifiability and some kind of importance. I have indeed seen it in lists of conlang names, but I was unaware that it is known by only one person. Google shows no web presence outside Wikipedia. One recent Usenet reference indicates "some use", though based on Arno's post above that writer may have been mistaken. --Cam 16:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant to say no web presence outside Wikipedia and various lists of conlangs. -- Cam 16:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As an example of a salvageable conlang article: Ceqli, which survived deletion, is a language with a known author, Web pages with full grammar and vocab, a Yahoo group which has had multiple participants over several years, and a history of discussion about it in the conlang/auxlang mailing lists and newsgroups. -- Cam 16:42, Jun 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. —Xezbeth 18:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramm Plumbing

Advertising from a new contributor. DJ Clayworth 06:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not advertising. I don't own the company. I just though that since this is an encyclopedia it would be nice to have something about Ramm Plumbing up.

• Delete nn ad blah blah - but how is Robert supposed to "unexpectedly" die later this year? That sounds pretty damn expected to me. --EvilZak 06:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• It still sounds like an ordinary non-notable backstreet plumbers far away on the other side of the herring pond. Anthony Appleyard 06:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 06:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Advertising. Geogre 13:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

OOps I mean to write November 5, 2004. And I guess u guys r right. Robert was my grandfather. I did not realize though when I wrote this that a business (non-notable) could not be part of wikipedia. I thought that the site was for information about anything. Sorry

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hostilix

I have serious concerns about the notability of this distribution. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As it is, it's advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• It detects file type and before lunch it, emulates Dos/Windows -- yeah? I do that before breakfast. Delete. Ben-w 08:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no instance in which an encyclopedia article should use a first person plural pronoun outside of a citation. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't want any distribution to lunch my file types. I may need them later. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Geogre 13:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this encyclopaedic? Lack of NPOV, product plug, personal opinion of the author? I think not. --Lejend 13:30, 22 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. —Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut Butter Fish Crackers

No encyclopedic potential that I can imagine. PlatypeanArchcow 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Better for Wikibooks/cookbooks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say transwiki, but there's not really a recipe here. Nateji77 07:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a recipe - cant move to wikibooks, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... there isn't a good reason why this should be here. IcePenguin 01:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Puerile article of no real encyclopaedic worth. 21:31, June 1 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected. -- Scott e^iπ 21:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Longbottom family

I suppose it's meant to someday be some information on characters in the Harry Potter books but that info is well enough covered in Neville Longbottom and as it stands now, it is a ugly subsubstub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Neville Longbottom, maybe Redirect as well. Nateji77 07:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom: seems like someone's betting that in the next book Neville will turn out to be pivotal. Not a bad bet, but let's wait to find out. Geogre 13:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom, create a separate article later if needed. There is hardly any content in this article, but the topic is encyclopedic enough. Sjakkalle 08:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• I note that since nomination, this article has been changed into a redirect to a new article (Blood purity (Harry Potter)) which is a discussion and list of so-called Pure-blood wizard families in the Harry Potter series. It seems like a good solution but I wish the contributor had talked about his plans here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:28, 26 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. —Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Edward Davis

Google search [2] brings up no relevant results; article seems to be vanity -- B. Ramerth (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've been on TV in China; it doesn't make you notable. Nateji77 07:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and also appears to be a personal attack, although he does sound like he'd be good fun on a night out, "cad, raconteur, street-fighter and seducer". I can think of a lot worse things to be called. Leithp 09:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:34, 23 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. —Xezbeth 18:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CAU and I)ruid

Vanity page about a website with 383 Google hits and an Alexa ranking somewhere in the 4-million range. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I've added I)ruid to this VfD. Delete both. RickK 07:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both; articles do not establish notability --TimPope 10:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Mr Bound 13:42, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott e^iπ 21:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ongar Chase

If it's a real place, with a real community of interest, then I'm all for keeping it here. But Wikipedia is not a site for real estate agents to tote their wares. This could probably be rewritten by someone who knew the area, but as it is now it's real "4 b/r, all mod cons" material. Grutness...wha? 08:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio [3] DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the article to a stub. - Mike Rosoft 10:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence of notability (less than 30 unique hits for "Ongar Chase" - [4]). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a real estate listings service. Geogre 13:09, 22 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. Sjakkalle 10:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chyawanprash

Seems to be quasi-advertising. Claims unsupported by evidence. Not encyclopedic. Ben-w 08:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree. I also notice it is identical to [5]. Which article came first? DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • utcursch's edits have significantly improved this article to the point where I change my vote to keep. However, I think the Benefits section could still use cleaning up, even with the disclaimer. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I disagree with the view that the topic is not encyclopedic. It is a popular aryuvedic commodity and is widely used. Plus, the product has also been mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. --IncMan 12:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Lavish claims that look like a snake oil boast. If rewritten to NPOV, it might vanish altogether. What is it? Has it been clinically examined? If it's a historical entity, then that's all we'd need. Otherwise, this really looks like "Buy my panacea." Geogre 13:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep and edit It is true that in its current state the article is not neutral. However, it would appear that this may be an actual folk remedy. If this information can be verified it should be kept but edited to conform to NPOV standards. note: if it can be verified that it is used or exists folklorically, not necessarily the truth of the medical claims.

Above message left by 68.77.242.127 --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Just visit Dabur.com(Dabur) where ull notice that Chyawanprash is the company's top selling product and the site contains useful information on the topic (beleive me one cant clinically examine the uses of all herbal items. Ayurveda, is a science within itself but differs from modern medical science ). I'm not trying to advertise it, but the product definitely deserves a mention because of its uses and usage (the product is widely available in the Indian market).I have removed the unnecessary content from the article. --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Vuvar1 23:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Need scientific basis for claims. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the claims are true this article comes across as advertising. Megan1967 05:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_* 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep, seems not to be an ad for a brand, but a description of a type of drink. Radiant_* 11:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If people call this an ad, then may I know what is an informative article in their view. --Marqus 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work to make its claims less POV, but google seems to indicate that this herbal remedy is notable. For an Indian remedy, google finds many pages in English. Quale 03:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. JamesBurns 10:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Leanne 05:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is not an ad, because Dabur is not the only company which sells Chyawanprash. Chyawanprash is not a patented tonic or something. It is ancient Ayurvedic formula, most popular in India. Please do a Google search with alternative spellings Chyavanaprasha, Chyavanaprash, Chyawanaprash etc. before voting delete. I've removed copyvio content from [6] and added some more information. utcursch | talk 11:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It still needs to be improved, including using some of the information from this VFD (such as listing the alternative spellings), but there is no reason as the article is currently written for it to be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The idea that ancient Ayurvedic texts specifically mention antioxidants, protein synthesis, Vitamin C etc is screaming at me, not that they would claim these effects similar to this, but that they would use the language like that. For example in claim that It also works as an antioxidant, thus slowing down the ageing process. I'd suggest that the Ayurvedic texts would claim they were anti aging, but the idea that they would claim this stuff is an antioxidant, a very western idea, seems wrong. The Benefits section looks like a modern interpretation of older claims. Until it is seriously cleaned up...No vote Sabine's Sunbird 20:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I can tell you atleast 15 inventions which were invented in the East years ago, but were believed to be western ideas. There are several yoga aasans which anti-oxidise the human body and it is clinically proven. Do you think Vitamin C and anti-oxidants is a modern concept? Just tell me, will a common westerner understand a Sanskrit word for anti-oxidants or Vitamin C? So hence using mordern terms to describe the effects of these ancient medicines does make sense. There is no legitimate reason to clean up the article. --Grubb 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't about dissing the East. This tonic may indeed have been used to treat these conditions effectively, in which case they made the link between symptoms and cures. To say that they made the jump to understanding the mechanism of nutrition, oxidation etc you need to provide proof. Sabine's Sunbird 22:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• What kind of a proof do you require? Just do a google search and read several articles on its composition and effects. I suggest that you read a book on Acharya Shrishti(i'm not very sure about the name), one of the founders of Ayurveda. U'll realise that how advanced their medical science was. They had carried out human surgical operations in 150 B.C..--Grubb 19:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article is informative and deserves to be in a encyclopedia. --Grubb 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep An encyclopedic article on an ayurvedic tonic from the east. deleting this would only further systemic bias. I've improved the article by adding something and wikified a couple of words. --Idleguy 15:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 The Empty Child. Sjakkalle 07:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Constantine

This character is too minor to merit an article. See The Empty Child for full episode details, this article adds nothing. TimPope 08:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: appears in The Doctor Dances, however total screen time over the two episodes is about 15 minutes. The episode synopsis for each episode cover his role. --TimPope 08:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. It appears that all this info is already contained in the article The Empty Child. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep fictional character which are too minor to "merit their own article". Kappa 09:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, whocruft. Martg76 09:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no-one is going to look for the character outside the context of the episode, the article for which already gives as much information as is here. -- Guybrush 10:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. GraemeLeggett 11:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, put into some kind of minor characters list. --GingerM 12:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per DoubleBlue. --khaosworks 13:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect the character has little merit in being mentioned, but it may be searched. --Lejend 14:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Blue. — RJH 18:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Empty Child. Megan1967 05:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Table for 7 days, to see whether he is pivotal in the resolution of the story-line. --Simon Cursitor 07:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Empty Child, unless he is pivotal in the story-line, which seems rather unlikely. If the article is deleted completely then someone who does not belong to Wikiproject Doctor Who might create it again. If it redirects, then they will know the information already exists in another article. --bjwebb 09:16, 28 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. -- Scott e^iπ 21:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khairul

I'm not entirely sure about this one... Only 20 google hits for "Khairul Ariffin rap". Looks like vanity. It is true that they appeared in MTV Asia, but imho that is not enough to warrant notability. Sarg 08:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- B. Ramerth (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC) - Withdrawn
• Keep, featured on MTV, passes the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Kappa 09:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Passes WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Appearance on MTV gives indication that record may have been hit which would have met WP:Music guidelines. However, there is no evidence of such a hit or any of the music guidelines. Article needs cleanup. If we can have some evidence of notability before expiry of period I would vote to keep. Will vote to delete otherwise. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable claims - there is no evidence there was a hit. Megan1967 05:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. Leanne 05:35, 25 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. —Xezbeth 17:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JAKQ

Vanity page for some non-notable band. Most search hits for JAKQ are not related. Rl 09:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Band vanity. They formed a year ago. No evidence of gigs, much less records or reviews. Unverifiable and not notable. Geogre 13:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:46, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VanGuard Van Hire

This is probably a hoax, and certanly not a notable business. It is supposedly "online" but various Google searches fail to find it. It is also not in the Bristol Yellow Pages or on yell.com. It also does not have a visible presence on the streets of Bristol. rbrwr^± 10:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Hoax. Any time you see "the most popular," we're in the "Amy is the hottest girl" territory. Seems like someone fond of his old van. Geogre 13:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it was true this would still be advertising. Megan1967 05:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One would expect the "most popular" van hire business to have more than zero google hits. Hoax. Sjakkalle 08:14, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peyman nasehpour

This seems to be vanity (written by the author about himself) -- B. Ramerth (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Peyman nasehpour has been moved to a user page - delete (reposted material, vanity). No vote for User:Nasehpour. - Mike Rosoft 10:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 13:36, 22 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. —Xezbeth 17:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W class cab controls

This merits neither a page nor a redirect to W6 class Melbourne tram. One Google link. B. Ramerth (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Does this article tell us anything at all, let alone anything of possible interest to merit its few kB on Wikipedia's servers? --Lejend 14:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I wouldn't have blinked if someone had speedied it, this article is for all practical purposes empty, and even if it wasn't, I can't see that it would be anything encyclopedic. —Stormie 20:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 wikibooks. -- Scott e^iπ 21:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) keep. -- Scott e^iπ 05:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common phrases in various languages

Wikipedia is not a usage guide nor a a travel guide. This article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, nor is there anything to stop it from growing indefinetly. A home might be found for it at Wikibooks or possibly Wikitravel.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

The alternative of moving it to Wikitravel is apparantly not an option due to incompatible licensing. It'll have to be Wikibooks then. Thanks to Cjensen for pointing this out.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being an inexperienced klutz, but I should've included common phrases in constructed languages in this vote as well. Are there any objections to including it in this vote?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

My delete/transwiki vote counts for that one too, but I'm afraid it's a little late to extend the VfD. — mark ✎ 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Needs to go to Wikitravel. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• I was surprised at how very complete it is, and suspicious of a copyvio, until I went to the history page and saw that the page has been around since December 2001. In other words it's one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia. So keep out of a sense of venerating one's elders. --Angr/_comhrá 16:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I notice that you're not disagreeing with the fact that it's in obvious conflict with our policies. Were they around when the article was started? Did Wikitravel exist back then? I also had the impression that VfDs were supposed to be about the articles themselves, not the people who have contributed to them. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • No matter how flawed the reasoning behind a vote is, it's still valid. You've made it well known that you think these votes on these bases are bad, stupid, whatever. Now, it's bordering on harassing the voters. --Node 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move out of a sense that elders can be wrong and it should be at Wikitravel. Superm401-Talk 16:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• In my opinion, it should definitely be moved to Wikitravel, or maybe even Wikibooks. Jotomicron 19:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikitravel. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wikitravel. Megan1967 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 05:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move. After spending hours wikifying the Hindi section, I just see this now. Oh, the bitter irony! Now I won't feel guilty for not starting the Urdu or adding IPA tonight. Perhaps I'll cut and paste into the Wikitravel Hindi/Urdu phrase book? It was sparse and full of errors. So not all was a waste I suppose. I also don't get the copyvio issue. Languages are public domain, right? Unless some dacoit is copying verbatim, it isn't preposterous that the contributer is a native speaker or student, right? Anyway, I do see the point for deletion. If languages don't evolve, they die; such it is here. Though having many related languages and the same phrases together is fascinating to compare on a theoretical linguistics level. Goodness gracious me, I just wish I hadn't of overlooked this article's pending status! As my first wikibution, it was good practice at the very least. Khirad 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see this article as a waste of time at all. It just happens to be in the wrong wiki, and I think this list could be of immense value to Wikitravel. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hedley 16:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki both Common phrases in various languages and Common phrases in constructed languages to Wikitravel or Wikibooks or whatever might be appropriate. — mark ✎ 19:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Why should everyone be so delete-happy? Just leave it, what can it hurt? It's useful, and trans-wiki-ing is stupid bullshit. If I want to find something, I'll look on Wikipedia, I don't want to have to search a million different "wikis" because that makes me want to shoot the person who invented the word "wiki"--sébastien 05:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's really not that difficult. If you lost your tourist phrasebook, you would have to go to Wikitravel to pick it up. In fact, you should reconsider your reasons to look for it on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase. — mark ✎ 07:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment only. This cannot be moved to directly to Wikitravel due to licensing differences (Wikitravel is CC-by-SA licensed). If moved there it will be immediately VfD'ed as a copyvio. Individual contributors who are interested are welcome to come to Wikitravel and work on the various phrasebooks. -- Cjensen 07:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not terribly unhappy with it, but it's probably better to transwiki to Wikibooks. It would be useful if appropriate Wikipedia pages linked to it however. / Alarm 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This could be incorporated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, as one of the standard external links, just like the ones to Ethnologue.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or move (as is without risk of deletionism), definitely not delete. – Kaihsu 15:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Keep The article is not really that useful for tourists (anyone fancy a trip to Anglo-Saxon times?) but is of considerable interest from the linguistic point of view, in showing how a few common phrases are treated differently in different languages, and thus complements the various other articles of a linguistic nature. I would say this is eminently encyclopedic. If it gets too big it could be split up, perhaps by language family: constructed languages already have a separate article although Esperanto somehow appears in both! rossb 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree, being a linguist myself. The most important reason is that phrases and snatches like this are by far the least interesting from a cross-linguistic point of view. Look at the article: most listings are language-specific phrases lacking any grammatical embedding. Greetings for example are often fossilized scripts that are not comparable cross-linguistically — incidentally, this 'article' does not even succeed in spelling out any of those scripts (it only contains the English 'hello' and 'goodbye' and and their loose equivalents on other languages). Demonstrative phrases like 'that one' and 'this' are either not interesting to compare because they're not really phrases, or they are impossible to compare because of missing (sentential) context. Additionally, the very few full sentences that there are are not glossed and thus are still useless for a linguistic comparison on a morpheme-by-morpheme basis. — mark ✎ 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This sounds like an argument for improving the article and putting it on a more scientific basis, rather than deleting it! rossb 20:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. It is unsalvageable, starting with the title. My general point is precisely that common phrases are the least interesting data from a linguistic point of view. — mark ✎ 20:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Mark, this page provides samples (however representative or unrepresentative they may be) of languages, often with IPA representation. That alone is of enough linguistic value to me, especially since many of the phrases are repeated again in different languages and so can be used for comparison. And if it were intended as a phrasebook, I doubt it would use IPA as most tourists won't know it and most American tourists won't be willing to learn it. --Node 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Move it to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is a better medium for that sort of tutorial content, don't you think? Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a tutorial. By the way, is there a better way to place a vote than by editing? A better method would be helpful and more efficient. Perhaps a forum such as the one presented by the [www.antimoon.com] website?
• Keep, long established and thorough. Should be grandfathered. Definitely too useful to delete. Xoloz 17:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no strong reason to delete, and it's awfully useful, even encyclopedic. Basil Fawlty 00:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's "useful" it's a usage guide, if not it can only exist by the use of original research; both clearly violate our policies. Could someone voting to keep please present a single motivation that is not related to age, prestige of the contributors or completely unassociated VfD-politics? You're giving inclusionism a bad reputation here. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's pretty bad logic. Anything that's useful is a usage guide? Well, I find Wikipedia useful. Thus, you're all wrong and Wikipedia is a usage guide! And since I find cellphones useful, they must be usage guides too!! And sex is useful, that must be a usage guide as well. Hmm... I never realised so many different things were usage guides! --Node 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Whom are you trying to fool? The only argumentation given is that it's "useful" or old, and not a peep about the thouroughly unencyclopedic character of the article. You even admit yourself that it's unencyclopedic, and then blame me for being illogical. Again, I think you're giving inclusionism a very, very bad reputation. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • "If it's "useful" it's a usage guide". You said it. I responded. Duh. --Node 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ℬastique▼^talk 14:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's kind of useful to get an impression of the various languages. Too useful to delete. Holger Finken 22:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to "My hovercraft is full of eels". (alternatively delete). Edits to this vote are Holger Finken's sole contributions, btw. --Bishonen | talk 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Amazingly Strong Keep. Although encyclopaedic this article is not, it's also not full of snot. It's much much too useful, and you're much much too abuseful, for this article to go to pot. --Node 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, non narramus "interwiki" cando dispiagher sas pàzinas in su Wikitravel. Wikitravel non est unu de sas wikis de su fundatzione Wikimedia. --Node 04:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Och jag har en folkpartist i örat. / --Peter ^Isotalo 19:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's all well and good, but that seems more like something you'd say in a doctor's office than on VfD. --Node
• Keep. This article is very useful (though probably in need of cleanup), not only for the interested reader, but also as a merge destination for various foreign-language phrases that occasionally get added to Wikipedia. This is also a good merge destination for "List of x phrases" for languages that may not be as notable or large as List of Latin phrases. --Deathphoenix 12:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep It's been of great use to me; I refer to it from time to time. It serves as a comparison of other languages. --Chris 02:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this definately falls into the class of articles of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.--nixie 02:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- pne 08:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- this is exactly the sort of thing I used to enjoy browsing encyclopedias for as a kid. It's not harmful, it's factual, it's interesting, it's widely linked, it's still being actively edited and used. People are adding sounds to it! Moving this to Wikibooks would be a shame. — Catherine\^talk 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Lumijaguaari 05:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeod

We don't even have an article about the Dragon Riders game. What's the point of an article about a single random character from it? Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If a page on the game can be created, however, I fully support incorporating this article into it. Mr Bound 13:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be related to Eragon (character), and so perhaps should be merged into a "List of characters" section on the Inheritance (trilogy) page? I'm not sure. — RJH 18:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 05:50, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatnicks

"band formed offically in late 2004". "We make more songs than we do covers, and they're better, and harder to play than the 3 note AC/DC songs. The Beatnick's hope to get into some live shows over the 2005 summer, and are interested at putting out an album, but, will take some time.... We have a sound that is so old, yet it is new compared to all of these stupid punk @$$ bands, who's music sounds like feces. ROCK ON!!!" Righto. Band vanity, NN. Rl 11:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment:The article has been rewritten by the creator. VfD notice had to be reinstated. Rl 07:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity, no tours, no album deal, so no article. Average Earthman 11:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: They hope to perform but haven't. This is a few steps prior to bandvanity. Normally, I wish them well, etc., but, given the juvenile gushing, I'm not sure I do. Geogre 13:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Superm401-Talk 16:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. carmeld1 22:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Leanne 05:36, 25 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 ambiguous.

Most of the "delete" voters clearly expressed an opinion that a new entity can not generally be encyclopedia-worthy the day of its launch (or worse, the day prior) and that more time should be allowed before the decision is made to include it. The "keep" voters were less consistent in their reasoning. By strict vote-count, I count 20 "deletes", 20 "keep as is" (though ten of them had to be discounted as either anonymous or so new that they were indistinguishable from sockpuppets) and 6 "merge". Since the "merge" votes count as a variant of "keep", the decision to delete fails to meet the necessary concensus even though there is a clear majority (20 to 16) in favor of deletion. There is, however, an overwhelming concensus (26 to 10) that this should not remain as an independent article. Accordingly, I am going to call this one as a "merge and redirect". Relevant content has been merged with Kevin Rose per the recommendations below. (If anyone thinks I missed an important detail, you can view it in the page history and can merge it yourself.)

This decision should be considered binding until there is clear and convincing evidence that Systm is independently encyclopedia-worthy. That is usually taken to mean that the entity has been around long enough and has had enough general impact on society that a verifiable article of greater than stub length can be written and that the topic is widely enough known that we can expect the necessary critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article neutral. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systm

A web videozine released tomorrow. Not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Just keep it for the release and then decide from there. The site is slashdotted and I came here to find out about it. If it flops then this page can go, if it accounts for 90% of the world's bandwidth consumption tonight :D, then probably keep it.
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A thing hasn't achieved notability if it hasn't even come into existence yet. Advertising. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 12:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete-- It will be recreated anyway! I think some people like to edit an article, rather then create it from scratch. --204.210.111.63 13:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If you recreate it, I again edit it with another VfD nomination. Come back when you're in fact encyclopedic, not 3 days old. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete The Systm... -- In the mid to late 90's The Screensavers on ZDTV/TechTV became a phenomenon that has spun-off MANY web-based shows with The Systm being one. If you remove The Systm you must also remove TWiT and The Broken. Don't remove any of these !!
• Keep -- A videozine released tomorrow... so just wait for tomorrow. Surely you can wait ::calculates time:: 7 hours to see if it's worth keeping. --TexasDex 20:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Mrmiscellanious 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- No point deleting it, it is released in a few hours. Why delete it when The Broken and This Week in Tech are allowed? It is already famous and many people know about it. 202.173.180.85 23:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The anons (socks?) want to keep it. That's a good reason for deleting it. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am not involved with the creation of Systm, I am a regular Wikipedia user but can't get into my account (Peter McGinley) because the retrieve password feature is not e-mailing me a new password. If I did have access to my account, I would be logged in on it. 202.173.180.85 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this show is looking to be quite popular. We have an article for Friends, don't we? Popular TV shows are worthy of an article. If this thing flops, we can consider removing it, but espically in 4 hours, there'll be a lot to say about systm. --Oreckel 00:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Friends was a popular sitcom syndicated over the world, seen by roughly a third of a billion people. Systm will be lucky to see 10,000 viewers. This should be regarded as nothing more than an amateur podcast that gets its article deleted every day from this encyclopedia. Nothing differs from the two. And, if you want to combat it, please - shed some intelligence. --Mrmiscellanious 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't The Broken and This Week in Tech be deleted too, if they are amateur videozine/podcasts according to you? All three of these are very popular. 202.173.180.85

Definitely. If someone would put up a VfD, I'd sign it. --Mrmiscellanious 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what number of viewers would constitute this as encyclopedia-worthy? --Oreckel 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Systm is not an average radio podcast. It is a professionally-produced series of videos, from some very well-known TV hosts. --taestell 22:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this is huge. If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle 11:14PM EST, May 23rd 2005

Exactly. How about entries on under-performing in ratings TV shows be deleted too? 202.173.180.85 03:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad/spam. CryptoDerk 04:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a large videozine and deserves a page here on Wikipedia Salvag 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, sockpuppet parade. Firebug 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a videozine with a notable cast, and it seems like the demand for the first episode was fairly high.--Matteh (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This "show" so far hasn't impressed me, and contains some less then truthful content, but such is the power of the internet, and it's no reason to get rid of the wiki page. 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote by 24.226.90.228 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I just watched it, and its kinda dissapointing, but the next ones should be more promising. In anycase, Wikipedia should be based on the diversoty of content. This is a real topic, and therefore, it should be allowed to exist!--Buickid 11:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC) — (Buickid's 2nd edit.)
• Delete vanity. It doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article simply because it exists, we need evidence of notability, particularly as it has only existed for one day. sjorford →•← 14:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising, sockpuppet invasion. AиDя01DTALK 14:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is NOT a web guide, also sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose, unless people want that one deleted too. Average Earthman 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. With all due respect, Wikipedia chronicles notable things, it does NOT exist to help things become notable. As for this: "If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle", please attempt to factually show that this webcast will have a similar effect on society as say, television. If you can't do it, don't make ridiculous claims.

-- Scimitar

• Keep -- As stated above there are already similar entries that are already accepted. More importantly than that, given Kevin Rose's existing fan base and the quality of the show, Systm may very well define how the online TV format should be done. I think it has huge potential of being a very significant topic. In my opinion people come to Wikipedia for information on non-mainstream topics like this if they wanted a standard encyclopedia they have many other choices. -Ferg
  • Saying something has been "already accepted" is a fallacy; everything contributed to Wikipedia is accepted. Regarding "may very well define," "huge potential," etc.: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when this webcast becomes notable, it might deserve an article. AиDя01DTALK 17:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all in Videozine. Attack of the 50 feet sockpuppets. Oh, and I don't think this is notable enough to deserve its own article, but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article. Sarg 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Kevin Rose, a popular TV personality, just left the G4 television network to work full time on this program and The Broken. --taestell 19:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose until it gains the notability to stand on its own. --InShaneee 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it achieves notability. RickK 19:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No credible third party references to support notability. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose. The reason the show is important is because of Kevin Rose. Until the show gets popular enough to warrant its own article. Best merge it to Kevin's article. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 00:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. And kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it becomes a cultural phenomenon, then we'll talk about including it. Xcali 23:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 10:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why Delete? If you think this article is unimportant, go look at Hide and Q. I am sure I just offended some of the Star Trek: The Next Generation fans. It is a piece of TV, and a piece of Star Trek. The Systm is part of the internet, and one of the greatest forms of media. if I deleted Hide and Q, surely some Star Trek fans would get mad, but it is just a fraction of the star trek NG episodes. "but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article" Why dont I just merge Hide and Q to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article? " Wikipedia's credo is "the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Shouldn't an encyclopedia contain everything? --Neo123195 10:08 (UTC), 27 May 2005
  • No. sjorford →•← 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose, he seems to be the main reason for it's importance at the moment. Falcorian 22:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose (for now). As Falcorian stated, Mr. Rose is the main basis for its popularity. Until it becomes notable on its own, merge it. iKato 05:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-06-1 T 02:09 Z
• Delete One episode and hardly any information available on its distribution/popularity. It doesn't deserve an article just because it is a side project of some D-list celebrity, and it doesn't have enough of a cult following (or content for that matter) to write about. Definitely watch for new developments, should this change. -- uberpenguin 02:50, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Merge with Kevin Rose. On second thought, this would be better since it will add more content to that article but still keep the mention of it around so a new article isn't formed until there is enough information available to merit one. -- uberpenguin 02:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete, insignificant. -- Hoary 05:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is big from Kevin Rose and I think videozines are something that will change media distribution, now that we know the Internet is able to help people get their message across faster. It'll be recreated at some point in the future, so what's the point in deleting this article? This isn't pointless "newb" stuff! People will want to know what Systm is and what the background of it is. Just keep it. ..... added at 01:26, 2005 Jun by 69.230.167.162
• Delete drini ☎ 01:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a review of the article and the referenced websites reveal them to be a combination of advertising and vanity posting. It's not notable. Tobycat 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable as The Broken. siafu 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep definitely worthy of Wikipedia AyrtonSenna
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia a moment ago specifically to look up Systm, and that's how I saw the VfD. I think that alone — the fact that I expected WP to have something to say about Systm — is reason to keep. For now. --TreyHarris 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shulei

"Shulei is a famous model from Osaka, Japan. She was born Eiko Yata on December 14, 1951." I have failed to verify any of the facts stated in the article. Unverifiable, it seems. Rl 11:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: At least in this form, it is unverifiable. It is possible that there are two names involved and that the latter would kick up some hits. However, wiki.en should have what .en speakers need in cases like these. Geogre 12:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:52, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Arrogant Bastard Collective

and also Sportskid, Churchburner, The Groin

Apparent nonsense, apparently unverifiable. Google gets zero hits for this. -- The Anome 13:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are a fool. It's also spelt "apparently". Learn more about wrestiling -- Jonbo 14:24, May 22, 2005 (BST)

• Great, now can you give me a cite where I can check the validity of your articles, please? -- The Anome 13:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prestone It's also spelt "site" -- Jonbo 14:31, May 22, 2005 (BST)

Nope. It's "cite", as in "citation".

• Comment: Please, remember to refrain from personal attacks, such as calling people fools. Mr Bound 13:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the four of them. Non verifiable, looks like a hoax/joke. And wih the addition of personal attacks! Sarg 13:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only 2 results returned for criteria "arrogant bastard" in forum search. Opinion: the entire collective is fictitious. --Lejend 13:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Should this be a speedy deletion candidate, then? -- The Anome 13:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doubtful. I think the VFD path is probably the way to go here. And could someone please reformat this conversation? My eyes are bleeding trying to follow it. Mr Bound 13:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• The Arrogant Bastard Collective are better than you. -- Jonbo 17:51, May 22, 2005 (BST)
• Delete all four, self-promotion of non-notable wrestlers. —Stormie 20:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all four: Whatever they are in real life (non-notable wrestlers, if real), the presence here is that oldest of trolls: Evil Clown attack. Geogre 02:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, not notable. Megan1967 05:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yo' mama! -- Jonbo 11:38, May 29, 2005 (BST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 with a very large axe. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mishing

Dictionary-like definition for a process that seems to be either nonexistent or only recognized as this from a very small group of people. Google search for "mishing" turns up results on unrelated things. Mr Bound 13:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP IT! Keep keep keep.

Strong KEEP IT! Very informative article!

• The above contribution by 130.88.52.94 at 08:25, May 30, 2005.
• KEEP IT! I myself am a misher and would be offended if this was deleted. Teddy
  • The above contribution by 130.88.84.59 at 12:17, May 29, 2005.
• delete It seems like nonsense. --TimPope 13:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete The term pronounced "mish" is contraction of the word mission, an infrequently used slang term in the north of England. It has little importance in dialectic speech, now being used rarely and mostly amongst children of primary school age. All other information on the page is nonsense. --Lejend 13:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The place to say "the word mish is a slang contraction of the word mission" is the dictionary, of course, which is over there. Uncle G 00:05, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• I now see the apparent additions to the page. "Liverpool Mishketeers" returns zero Google results, and seeing as the homepage of the group is a Geocities page, I think it confirms non-notability. Mr Bound 14:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, very informative, provided enough information, past and present, that can help other bored/frustrated teenagers either take part in their own 'mishes' or to create their own pointless yet fulfilling past-times. -- Ashall bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
• Keep It!!! Is everyone stupid? This is a great page providing a valuble insight into a worldwide teenage phenomonon. It explains in detail why geocities address is used. -- Rob bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
• Personal attack removed by TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib). -- Anon bogus, actually 81.132.114.125
• Keep It!! Well I like it. --User:Tony bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
  • Comment. The last five edits, made by IPs 82.42.229.59 and 81.132.114.125, are, according to Arin [7] both owned by the RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. I suspect that these votes can be disregarded as being made by the same anonymous individual, as the history clearly shows that none of these users was logged in. Also, I would like to remind said user(s) to please refrain from personal attacks such as contending my sexual preferences. Mr Bound 20:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Jolly Good!! Much better than usual articles! Small audience? SOmeone hasnt been to Ukraine.... --User:Joyce bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
• Keep It Does exactly what it says on the tin, top job! User:Terry bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
• Personal attack removed by TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib). User:Beethoven bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
• Ja Keep it ja i really like it. User:Vladimir bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
• ICE TEA Don't knock it untill you have tried it, this is exactly the same, top site guys, if this goes I go! User:John Francis Paul Baird-College Court-Edwardian bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
• Disgusted The complaints and the fact that there is even a discussion board proclaiming the possible deletion of a past time in which I have donated vast amounts of money and time in order to increase the awareness of such a marvelous social gathering. Dr. Jonny Lewis phd bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
• Delete and sentence the sock puppets to six weeks of Lamb Chop's Play-Along. ESkog 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 23:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be only popular amongst socks. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Protestors in this vote really should go play outside. Neologism/vandalism. Geogre 02:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nonsense; wouldn't even have noticed it except for this ridiculous sockpuppet campaign. Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense as quickly as possible, even if it means a sysop "accidentally" bumping Delete This Page *wink wink*. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme anti-sock prejudice. Alai 03:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense (regrettably not patent) and hoax. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have removed the personal attacks placed by the anonymous users, since they contained no arguments for or against deletion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandal supported nonsense. jni 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP IT. In all seriousness, this isn't nonsense! Mishing is an actual pastime and an actual slang term used by Europeans. The article is accurate throughout and at the same time it's funny. The figures cited have a small margin of error and facts presented are indeed true.
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• Do you people have no sense of humour? Is anything that isn't 'academic' enough for you to be deleted? The fact is, if anyone DOES want to know what mishing is, then this page is ideal-not only this, but it's hilarious.
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• Aside from the above - most of the votes for non-deletion aren't 'bogus' at all. They're from different IPs. They should surely be counted. The names are actually the real names of the people who posted. Once again-the sense of humour arguement is coming into play here. Don't you people get it? It's funny and informative!
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• AND OH YES I ALMOST FORGOT...THIS IS NOT A HOAX!!! IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE.
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• KEEP IT! Ok, so some of the points *might* be made up, but the "Mishing" itself actually exists, so it should stay. by John Baird
  • contributed by 217.42.88.181

KEEP IT Not only is it a valid activity but it also encourages teenagers not to use drugs and/or wear hooded tops.

• • contributed by 81.157.133.31
• KEEP IT - on the basis that 'Mishing' DOES actually exist and thus should have a page dedicated to it, explaining the pastime to others.
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• I seriously recommend that this webpage be kept. It provides an insight into a very weird (maybe wonderful?) world of a group of youths in the Liverpool Region of England. Having travelled to Ukraine on a visit to Kiev, (sorry, but i went to see the Eurovision Song Contest), I was informed of the phenomonon of "mishing". Apparently, the original three "Mishketeers", spread the phenomonon through a mutual appreciation of Liverpool Football Club with another small group of Ukrainian youths. However, in the Ukraine, mishing has more of an edge apparently. Mainly because you stand a risk of getting shot. Yours Sincerely, Bally
  • Above is user's only contribution to Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Can I just say thankyou to 'Bally' for that...whoever you are.
  • contributed by 195.93.21.69
• Keep this page! I've heard of Mishing, and it does exist. The page should stay because it is not made up. And on the plus side, it's also hilariously funny in parts. Moreover, I think if anyone did want to know about mishing, then this page is ideal.
• Tenofalltrades, my good friend, I think you'll find I've contributed to other pages as well. Sincerely, Bally.
  • If your first contribution was to this page, that is what is important. And your first contribution was the one denoted by Ten. Mr Bound 20:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without even looking at the article. Anything attracting this many sock puppets must be deleted. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for sure. --minghong 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. carmeld1 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It! not only is this article informative, factually correct, witty AND explains all the quieries from small minded 'intellectual' bigots above, it also provides an invaluble insight into youth culture and a worldwide phenomonon. Perhaps "delete" voters are 'sock puppets' ????? Rob 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually contributed by 81.157.255.215
• Let the old girl stay. Light hearted amusement never goes wrong plus, I ask that some of you go to Ukraine and see the influence of mishing on some of the youth there. Its very impressive. Yours Most Sincerely, Bally.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Mishing"

• • User already voted above, with the account's first contribution to Wikipedia.
• Delete. And send the socks "upon a pointless and seemingly impossible journey on a shoestring budget" to somewhere far away! — P Ingerson (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

it would be an absolute mish if this page was to be deleted

unsigned vote from 130.88.52.65 (talk · contribs) — P Ingerson (talk) 18:00, 29 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. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vindern SF

A team in 3rd division junior doesn't need to be here. Sarg 13:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 2 Google results for "Vindern SF". Also lack of NPOV. Agree with Sarg. --Lejend 13:59, 22 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. —Xezbeth 18:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom and Briggzy

"Tom and Briggzy is a series of Microsoft Paint produced comic-books created by Thomas Burnett of Leek, in England." [...] "According to Burnett, the poor artwork (which often includes things such as stick-figures and peoples heads shoddily imposed onto them) is designed to add to the comedic effect, though some critics deem it to be Burnetts relative ineptitude towards computer based art.". 0 hits on Google for "Tom and Briggzy". Vanity, NN, attack page, or hoax. Take your pick. Rl 13:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No Google results, no citations of web-pages in support, little to no notability to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Lejend 13:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Comix vanity (which is closing in on garage band vanity for most common, I'd say). Geogre 02:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 05:55, 23 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. —Xezbeth 17:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insert Name Here

I'm putting this up for deletion, because, unless someone else has heard of this band, I'm guessing it's just a random group that has created this page for self-promotion. - booyabazooka

• weak delete Their eclectic blend of guitar and drums has won the hearts of literally ten(s) Their own words say it all. Not really notable yet, but links are genuine. The music is all a matter of taste. --Lejend 14:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity qitaana 08:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 by user:Xezbeth who apparently forgot to close the discussion.

[edit] Alshander

This should be deleted. There is no "Alshander" in Norse Mythology, it's not even an Old Norse name. Check any reference work or even the web. This article was created by an anonymous user with just one other edit (to Skuld, also about this purported Alshander). My guess is that this is material from some fantasy story or game mistakenly believed by the editor to be authentic mythology. Haukurth 14:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete. There is little evidence available to verify this assertion. Perhaps the author would like to cite his reference works? --Lejend 14:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax unless verification is provided. --Angr/_comhrá 16:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Historical misinformation. Loki was the ON god of fire (his name means fire). When Loki has an eating contest against fire in the Fooling of Gylfi, it's not against Alshander. The name is not ON. Geogre 02:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Google search points to title as being alternative spelling for Scots name "Alexander" --Simon Cursitor 07:57, 23 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. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Huda Mosque

Delete. Not particularly ancient, not particularly large. The article makes no claim to notability - there must be a million places of worship like this around the world. Eixo 15:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed, there seems to be many of them named "Al-Huda" as well. [8] but this is a perfectly good stub. Keep but be prepared to make this a WP:DAB. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep or merge into Mosques of Singapore. According to [9], it's one of at least 67 mosques in Singapore, so it quite possibly doesn't need its own article OTOH, it's perfectly valid information. Zocky 15:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• PS: that should be List of mosques in Singapore. Eixo 06:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, these things should all be merged on one page (apart from the really notable ones, of course). Is it still called a list then? Zocky 07:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if there are only 67 mosques in Singapore wp can have articles for all of them. Failing that merge per Zocky. Kappa 18:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you think Singapore is special? Or are you planning on having an article for every single mosque on the entire planet? Better to merge them than to create a large number of small, abandoned articles. Average Earthman 22:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you know it's been abandoned? It's only a day old. Kappa 23:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I mean if we create articles on every single mosque on the planet, the sheer number involved would mean it was quite likely that the vast majority will not be regularly looked at, and could be vandalised without being noticed. Since mosques don't tend to move around much it would be better to group them together. Average Earthman 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
        • This is only one article. Kappa 22:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we plan on having an article on every church in the world? See what happens once the school inclusionists get their way? RickK 23:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accepting one article doesn't imply we plan on having articles on every other thing of that type. Kappa 23:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So when you said above that there should be an article on all of the 67 mosques in Singapore, you didn't really mean it? RickK 04:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't use the word "should". Kappa 22:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable mosque. Megan1967 05:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_* 11:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn MOSQUITOE Klonimus 06:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't make fun of other people's religion. Thank you. Zocky 07:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn as per Rick. JamesBurns 10:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's curious to see some noted school inclusionists vote to delete a place of worship, but perhaps not surprising to see one do so in poor taste. Quale 19:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Leanne 05:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (I STARTED THIS PAGE) While I do agree with Eixo's comment as the Mosque has no relation to notability, I was under the impression that we are maintaining two separate lists, one for famous mosques and one for list of mosques I don’t see the need to break the list for now into lists by countries as the total number of mosques is not sufficient to do exactly that. I’m building a list of all Mosques worldwide on here User:CARPEDIEM does this mean we should only concentrate on famous mosques? Please comment. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 17:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Entry by User:Klonimus should be removed since it's against Wikipedia policy, calling a Mosque, MOSQUITO is very OFFENSIVE & RACIEST - this is Unacceptable - period! --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 17:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I think everyone should just go easy on the PC here, the joke was harmless. In any case, how can a joke about Islam be "racist" (if that is indeed what you are trying to say)? I was under the impression that adherence to the religion of Islam was independent of race or ethnicity. Eixo 21:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Mocking people’s places of worship is a racist remark and it’s unacceptable. Trying to justify it, don’t change the fact his comment was offensive and racist. I’m certain if this was the case against other faith, it would have raised the roof. - Such remarks is in no way going to encourage people of all faith’s to contribute to the development of such great tool like Wikipedia. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 22:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• No, you're wrong. If anyone were to make a pun on the word "church" (can't think of one right now) no one would raise an eyebrow. In the Muslim world there's an acceptance for abridging the freedom of speech that you won't find in the West, and that you shouldn't find in Wikipedia. Klonimus' comment should stand, and anyone who wants to criticize it should be free to do that. That’s how it works in a free society. Eixo 01:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, I've got a few:

• churlch – a really vulgar church (like the Elvis wedding chapel in Las Vegas)
• churnch – a church where they make butter
• churpch – a church for birds
• Churac – a church where the priest decides to fire the deacon to appease the congregation, not realising it’s his guts they hate

That oughta raise the roof. Eixo 11:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I was diaappointed to see Klonimus say that, but I'm sure in his mind he was just making a little joke, rather than being intentionally offensive. Kappa 23:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It seems to me that "mosquito", as the diminuitive of "mosque", would be the term for a little mosque: ie. one that isn't big enough for an article. --Carnildo 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ding Ding Ding. We have a Winner. I'm glad you got my reference. Mosquito is a spanish diminutive of fly, so a mosquito is a little mosque. I'm not against the inclusion of mosque's per se. But in order to get my vote, it would have to be shown that this Mosque is a notable Large Public Object. On a separate note, it's a bit saddening to see people get so fired up over anything that they conceive as being insulting to Islam. To some extent this is a microcosm of the hysteria that lead to 18 people getting killed in rioting over the unproven desecration of a Koran. Klonimus 10:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a good joke, but just for the record it's incorrect. The Spanish word for mosque is mezquita (from the Arabic masjid = "the place of prostration"). So mosquito would not be the Spanish diminutive for mosque. Eixo 13:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:Klonimus has said far more offensive things than this little remark. I don't even know if he intended to offend people with it.Yuber^(talk) 22:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It’s either people are very supportive of insulting Muslim's in the west that some try to come up with new definition to words to justify the racism behind it, or they are just uneducated – as far as the English language is concerned and this is the language used in the topic discussed here, not Spanish or Indian, English, the word used to identify a Mosque is very degrading and insulting to Muslims. MOSQUITO: two-winged insect whose female has a long proboscis to pierce the skin and suck the blood of humans and animals. - Mosquitos: are the members of the family Culicidae; these insects have a pair of scaled wings, a pair of halteres, a slender body, and long legs. The females of most mosquito species suck blood from other animals. Size varies but is rarely greater than 15 mm (0.6 inches). - There’s no justification for supporting racism as some people got out of there way to justify such indecent remark against a place of worship to Muslims. I must have completely failed to see that an INSECT is the WEST is the way to identify with Islamic places or worship – its even more saddening to see others justify such remarks. - I want no association with Wikipedia from this day forward since RACISM and OFFENSIVE remarks are justified and accepted by so called educated-people, rather then being corrected - Good luck to the non racist people. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 12:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 18:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carried out at 11:56, 22 May 2005 by user:Mackeriv (who apparently forgot to close out the discussion.)

[edit] Lescialist

Neologism, self-admitted Samw 15:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty much a vanity article. Google returns zero results. I'll remove the article. No need for more voting.--Kaonashi 15:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. I have nominated Lecialist for a speedy as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Both articles were deleted, according to speedy deletion policies.--Kaonashi 17:18, 22 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. Rossami (talk) 02:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan people

Original research Denni☯ 16:22, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree, it's a personal conclusion. The title of the article also doesn't match its content. Could be speedy-deleted.--Kaonashi 17:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I take back what I said. The article has been completely changed. It has no trace of the version we were debating about just a while ago. It looks pretty decent now, and deserves staying in Wikipedia. So, because of that, I vote keep. I'll also ask all of you to reconsider your decisions.--Kaonashi 02:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. — RJH 18:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever happened to the old send to cleanup option? It would be a valid topic, indeed, I remember putting it on the Open Tasks. --Dmcdevit 20:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And now keep as it has been redone into a genuine stub. --Dmcdevit 03:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pashtun, possibly merge some content into Afghanistan. — A.M. 23:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the improved article. — A.M. 01:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 05:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the Article just needs to be redone. Falphin 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This article should probably be moved to Afghan (people) Falphin 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was going to ask why English (people) isn't at English people, like Danish people, Norwegian people, Dutch people, Swedish people, etc. --Dmcdevit 21:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point, well I suppose it should be the other way around. Falphin 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kaonashi. JamesBurns 10:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You might want to read the article first, as all the other votes came before the rewrite. --Dmcdevit 17:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand from stub, model like English (people). It deserves an article. Oops forgot to sign T.A Stevenson 16:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article doesn't resemble what the vfd was for. How do the votes count? Falphin 02:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. Sjakkalle 08:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above comment. --The Anachronism 13:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - vfd no longer relevant. Internodeuser 20:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now a good article - congratulations to the editors who added meaningful content--AYArktos 00:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as LONG as there is a mention that not all people in Afghanistan consider themselves Afghans.Yuber^(talk) 01:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll put a notice of that on the talk page as something to not delete or alter . Falphin 01:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised article. Nice work, Falphin! Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a useful article Gblaz 19:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just needs clean-up.--Jpbrenna 06:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott e^iπ 05:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kae

Fan speculation on Star Wars game. --Denni☯ 17:27, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• If valid, it probably should be merged into the Darth Traya page. But it looks too much like pure speculation, and so I vote to delete. — 18:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. There is already a Darth Traya article on Wikipedia that includes most of the information on this article. What isn't on the Darth Traya article that is present here, appears to be pure speculation, as I do not recall any mention of living quarters on Coruscant or about Yavin 4 in KotOR II. However, if this information can be backed up, it should be merged with the Darth Traya article. --Nufy8 00:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. Most of this is plausible enough, but so much of it is unsourced, and AFAIK, the only source for these events are the games themselves, and I'm pretty sure that I didn't miss that much of her backstory. So bring in the confirmable details, and rm the rest. --maru 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Darth Traya. Jamyskis 10:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fanfiction, barring some sources. --Scimitar 13:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At the very least, needs some carriage returns tossed into that mountain of text. Wikification and verification would also be nice. 216.158.31.195 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - uglyness is not a reason to delete, but to cleanup. Should be marked {{cleanup}} and merged. ··gracefool |☺ 00:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - This is the coolest article ever! Keep it, and you guys, stop whining about sources etc. just enjoy they article, and stop complaining!

Comment And by that logic, we should let every piece of crap article that some newbie writes stay, because its "teh coolest article EVAH!" Its not a canon source and has no place here.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As far as I know (and I've been playing KOTRII alot lately), there is no actual information on Kae. She's mentioned as one of the Jedi Masters that taught Revan and thats one of the few times she's mentioned in the game. Its believed that Kae is Krea/Darth Traya, but I'm not sure.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This is far too speculative, and cites no sources. None of this is backed up by the game, and can at best be considered only a weak implication.

Comment Again You loser, just get a life. Stop critisizing other people when you don't even know if it is false misinformation. This site would be better without people like you, Kross

• I have common sense - Hey, Kross, just to tell you, I agree with you fully. Well, almost fully. You have made a good point about how newbies should not write fake stuff and put it up. Well, this is actually quite a good article, and if you cant even use you brain for once, it is backed up by the book: 'A guide to Kotor', which is both approved of and congratulated by Lucas Arts as a 'G-Canon'. Anyway, don't call this newbie stuff, the expanded universe is newbie, that load of absolute crap and garbage, so go insult yorself and stop being a low life.
  • Comment. Interesting. The KotOR II strategy guide says little to nothing about Kae's background - which includes lack of information on her supposed stay on Coruscant, as well as her alleged trip to Yavin 4. And, although I do not own the original KotOR strategy guide, I highly doubt it reveals information on a character that wouldn't even make an appearance until the next year. Oh, and a guide to a Star Wars videogame being G-Canon? Maybe that's a typo, because G-Canon refers to the movies, their scripts, the novelizations of the movies, and the radio plays based on the movies. Not videogame guides. Nufy8 04:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be C canon at best, but is most likely S or N. Alphax ^τεχ 10:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 19:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fichu

Certainly a topic worthy of an encyclopedic article. However, after removing the dictionary.com copyvio, the article consists of a number of claims that seem largely unverifiable trivia. Was Jack London obsessed with fichu? Did A. E. van Vogt's wife wear a fichu when they were writing? And who is this Fredrick W.C. Charles, anyway? Rl 17:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have restored a basic definition of "fichu" and reformatted the article. I removed some of the obviously non-encyclopedic material but did not verify the claims which remain. If these can be verified, I vote to keep the article because it does go beyond the scope of a dictionary definition. If the claims are shown to be false, I vote to delete the vandalism. Dystopos 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• The supposed literary references in the article were unverifiable and bore the faint odor of mischief. There's not much left to make it encyclopedic. Perhaps a scholar of costume could make something of it. Dystopos 14:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. At this point there is nothing left of the article but a dicdef. carmeld1 00:16, 25 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 Nyak Tso. – ugen64 19:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Nyak Tso"

Personal page. There's content, but should either be deleted or made into an article. Splintercellguy 17:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — it appears to be a valid location AFAIK, but only two or so sentences in the article are actually relevant. The questions and contact information could probably just be moved into the discussion page. *shrug* — RJH 18:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real place. I cut out most of it. Kappa 18:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a real place with quotation marks. The article would need to be moved. Why not just create a new article at the proper location and delete this, since we're already having to strip out the personal matter? Geogre 19:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving a page is easier than making a new one. Kappa 19:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Easier? Have you done any page moves? Given that the content is no longer the words of the original author, we don't have to worry about GFDL preservation of history. Even a hunt and peck typist could recreate this miniscule factoid more easily (or ctr-v/ctrl-p in the editing screen) than go through the move and sit there with a useless redirect. Why try to preserve someone's random litter? Geogre 02:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Nyak Tso and then delete the redirect. — A.M. 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why delete the redirect? It might come in useful. Kappa 23:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If this article should have a redirect with the name in quotes, so should all the rest, and that would be too many redirects. — A.M. 23:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirects are cheap. Kappa 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. And redirects-with-quotes are a bad idea; the next MediaWiki software will likely auto-strip quotes from search queries. Radiant_* 11:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move. Please make obvious moves before bringing to VfD. For one thing, it enables backlinks that show whether this page was wanted or relevant elsewhere. Charles Matthews 12:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Radiant. carmeld1 00:25, 25 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coherence condition

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 17:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is probable that these pages are mostly original research. 'Guilt by association' for this page is not a valid argument. I thought on first sight that this was likely some general point about field theory/differential systems. I suppose one has to accept that after a few months here and no advance, the chances are less. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, here were my explicit reasons: The article states a Lagrangian . The second term would be called the "kinetic term" but its bizarre, a normal kinetic term would be quadratic in s-dot, with no additional factor of s. Thus, right off the bat, we have a formula that needs deep justification, and none is given. Next, we have something that appears to be a variational minimization of this lagrangian: But this expression seems to have missed the s^2 term in the Lagrangian. Why was it dropped? There is no explanation for this. Why is this called a "coherence condition"? It looks like some ordinary variational principle, except a term is inexplicably missing. We also have gems like: "If D²s = 0 then s = b + ax.". I can guess that D is some kind of derivation, but that is not stated in the article. If this is a field equation, its certainly not derived from that Lagrangian. It seems to be saying that s is harmonic, but there are few harmonic functions that take the form s = b + ax. Now, maybe if a,b and/or x were grassman variables, then this last formula might make sense; in supersymmetry, harmonic functions are always first order, since the square of a grassman variable is always zero. But this article fails to use the words "antisymmetric" or "grassman"; it doesn't even mention "Clifford algebra", which the other articles in this series did. Next, we have "the field equation Ds = 0". What happened, why is this not D^2? Subsquent formulas might make sense if the variables were grasmannian, but even so, one would have to assume that they were filled with typos and ommissions. Or something. This might also maybe sort-of make sense if one assumed this was a high-school calculus assignment filled with errors. Should I assume this is a treatment of some kind of supersymmetric classical differential equation? But to extrapolate to that would take a lot of work; and besides, what does "coherence" have to do with it? There's no quantum mechancis in here, much less a "vacuum state". This article seemed beyond repair to me. I VfD'ed it. linas 21:52, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electromagnetic jet

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 17:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article and page describing how to build your own fying saucer. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. I think this one is maybe supposed to be about the four-current, but it is not at all accessible. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extended Yukawa potential

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonlinear Coulomb field

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: 194.44.210.6 was not editing very recently - 22 Mar (not 22 May). The most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. (unsigned comment by User:R. S. Shaw 15:37, May 24, 2005 — Paul August ☎ 21:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC))

  Yes, thanks for the correction. I misread Mar 22 for May 22, apparently. I will add the same note to 213.130.21.162's talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonlinear magnetic field

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Gets some hits on Goolge, but given the other articles: Delete. --R.Koot 21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. This is one of the better of the series, but still nearly accessible enough I think. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W-field

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Particularly alarming is the claim By unknown reason it is remain beyond attention of physicists that exist the classical field which connect between themselves all type of forces. I think the reason is well-known :-) Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 16:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. I think the author means for the w-field to be the four-velocity, which has a more accessible article already. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantization of the pionic interaction

This page appears to marginal and possibly a crank physics page; the text appears to be filled with errors and inaccuracies. The topic is legit; it describes an approach to nuclear physics taken during the 1940's and 1950's, but I beleive would be considered archaic today. The Schroedinger equation that is given seems almost right for a Yukawa potential; however, the use of the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation in a nuclear physics context is rather inappropriate. The solutions given in the article are garbled and incoherent. I beleive this page constitues original research. It may be possible to rescue this page by severe and extensive editing, but it would be a major undertaking. This page appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages, all of which are far crazier than this page: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Careful what you call gibberish. This one actually mostly kind of makes sense. Its not gibberish, it just seems wrong in a lot of ways. linas 21:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Linas you could write a sub for this, describing what you said above? Paul August ☎ 20:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not really; I'd rather see pion enhanced to mention that 1) pions mediate the strong (nuclear) force, 2) that the Yukawa potential is a non-relativistic description for them, 3)the reletivistic equation for pions is the Klien gordon equation. 3) that they are pseudoscalars under parity inversion, 4) they couple to an axial-symmetric current 5) Skyrme's topological soliton aka 'cloud of pions' aka 'chiral model' is a decent model of the nucleon (proton/neutron). etc. No on actually "quantizes" pions very much, its a little more subtle than that since they're made out of quarks. I'll add this list to talk:pion linas 00:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 22:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lorna Nogueira

This page should be deleted because as User:R. fiend states the votes were counted wrong and the person who the page was written about is no-notable and has even contacted Wikipedia expressing that she should not be included because of this. MichaelMoore 18:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. VfD is not about vote-counting — read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy)."
2. She didn't say that she shouldn't be included, only that she wouldn't mind if editors did delete the article on her.
3. Her point wasn't based on a technicality of the voting system.
4. This article has survived two VfDs this year, the last less than two months ago. What's going on here? is there something personal in the air? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• When I asked about this on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Rossami replied:

  "The general opinion in my interpretation was that renominations have to be allowed but that if the article is renominated too soon, it is likely to be shouted down as an attempt to game the system. Some argued that it would take as long as 6 months for a renomination could/would be assumed to be in good faith. The majority opinion was probably closer to 3 months. Inside that limit, the burden of proof is very strongly on the nominator to show why this renomination is appropriate and why the community should consider the question again so soon."

  It's not clear to me that the nominator has shown any such thing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  While as closer I share your disquiet about this prompt renomination I am inclined to let it stand. VfD voters have shown their capacity to take such factors into account, and a substantial discussion of the merits is in progress, so whatever the circumstances of the renomination I don't think it would be appropriate to pull it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Let's see what happens. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I closed the last VfD. The statement that is was closed wrong is a result of User:R. fiend's belief that a 2:1 ratio of votes to delete should result in an article's deletion. For the purpose of closing VfDs, I do not accept that 2:1 constitutes a rough consensus, so I closed the listing--and other votes with similar results--with no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Most admins do count 2:1 as a rough consensus, so if another admin decided to override your ruling would they be right to do so? Who gets to decide this? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency? -R. fiend 16:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Some admins count as low as 66% to be a rough consensus. I don't think admins ever override one another's judgement on closing a Vfd; it isn't in our interests to do so. My closing of the second VfD was well within the consensus on policy; don't assume that there is any significant opposition to administrator discretion on consensus--I think you would find that there isn't any. As a matter of conduct, I never engage in opposition to administrators who think I made an error and take steps to correct it. However such an act in the case of a VfD would be unprecedented and--in the current case--would be seen by most editors as utterly unwarranted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep since it's been kept twice recently. Kappa 19:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• While this VfD is too soon after the last one, Delete as non-notable. She only gets 167 google hits, none of the "films" she's been in are notable, and her fellow "actors" have for the most part been deleted already. —Xezbeth 20:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I have no idea why so many people think that the notability-criterion has to be so high for people when it's so low for everything else. Why the rather snide scare quotes, incidentally? Is this part of the peculiar sub-current that's going on this case, with three nominations for VfD in five months, and defacement of the article? Am I missing something? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT What defacement of the article are you refering to professor? Did someone blank out the page at some point or something? Seeing that neither the person who started the stupid article and the person whom the article is written about both don't want the article gone it is rather stupid for you to insist that it should be kept! Now the article, it seems, can't even be altered or added to unless it meets your approval because you promised to look after the article makes it pointless for it even being around anymore. If you find something offensive such as a photo you proceed to erase it. I can't see the point of this article exsisting any longer unless it's on your user page! Dwain 22:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on recent results. Christopher Parham 21:14, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Keep --Fuzzball! (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please read WP:POINT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. According to the IMDb link, she's been in two direct-to-video B-movies by the same director. Unless they happen to have a huge cult following, I see no reason to keep articles on the movies or the actress. AиDя01DTALK 22:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, it's direct to DVD these days, and you can buy it from Amazon (along with virtually anything else). Not that many people have bothered to, it doesn't make the top 50,000. How many sales is that, and how long would it take to run them off on a PC DVD writer, I wonder? Do the people voting keep with no explanation want articles on all actors and actresses in those 50,000 films with more sales, or are they voting keep on technicality? Average Earthman 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • First, Amazon isn't the only place that people buy DVDs (I've never bought from them, and I buy far too many CDs and DVDs for my poor wallet). Secondly, that isn't how the Amazon ratings work; something can be high one day and low the next (I've watched the sales of my own books go up and down like jet-propelled yo-yos). Thirdly, yes, I'd love to replace all the articles on Pokemon and comic-book characters (and hardware), and radio masts, etc., with articles on real people doing real things, and thus entertaining hundreds of thousands of other people. How many people do you think ever look up KVLY-TV mast, or WKDR Radio Tower, or Nuzleaf? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If you have any proof that the films this actress has been in have entertained hundreds of thousands of people then please provide it. But quite simply there are a huge number of films produced every year, and most of them disappear without making a ripple. Average Earthman 08:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Average Earthman asks: Do the people voting keep with no explanation want articles on all actors and actresses in those 50,000 films with more sales Well that's not what they're voting on. This is about a particular person, not a class of people. It may be that this actress's face looks particularly sympathetic, or that the plots of her films tend to tickle the sense of humor of those reading the article and its associated links. It may be that some of those voting to keep are simply reacting to this article being listed for deletion for a third time in just five months or so, and barely a month after the last listing. All of these may affect the outcome of a VfD listing. I currently don't have a vote to make on this yet, but it's simply wrong to imply that those who vote to keep this article must thereby justify their failure to enter 50,000 articles on other little-known actors and actresses. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I can’t say I agree with everything the Michael Moore wantabe said on this articles talk page. And previously I had voted to keep this page, however in light of the info that she actually contacted Wikipedia. Ms. Nogueira actually writing concerning her page and suggesting that she wouldn’t mind it being deleted sounds like a polite way of saying that she is not ready for this type of publicity yet. Perhaps it would be wise to remove it if she is not comfortable with it. Perhaps also, she does not like some of the raucous arguing that goes on that sometimes even makes fun of the people that have been listed in an article. And if there is some sort of attacking of the page that has been cited maybe it would be better to remove it. I have yet to decide at this point. Plank 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• DELeTE Sorry, but if Eric Bruno Borgman, who is an actor producer and director, gets deleted with 3,530 hits on Google than she should too! What defacements is the Oxford professor talking about? Dwain 02:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no intention of sticking my hand into a nest that's already abuzz, but the notability standard does and should differ depending upon context. X Google hits for a scientific site is greater significance than 2X the hits for a porn site, given that porn sites multiply links intentionally. Similarly, X hits for an environmentalist is greater than 2X those hits for an actress, because the actress is guaranteed hits via the movie production company, the distribution company, archival sites, and, inevitably, fans. If an avant-garde composer got 1,000 hits, we'd be looking at a world leader (see how many hits Paul Drescher gets, e.g.). The problem with straight to video actors and actresses is that the numbers are staggering, and we ought to be looking at whether or not a career (not a person) has been such that its subject will be sought by researchers and can be discussed rather than just catalogued. If all you can say is "Was in A, B, and C," then that's not encyclopedic. That's just a record, and IMDB is going to kick our butts in every case. An article is not just a fact, nor just a list of facts. Geogre 02:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:POINT. This nomination seems to stem from MichaelMoore's actions regarding the removal of an image from the article and claims it was censorship. Why anyone would argue that a pointless image of a pair of breasts could be seen as relevant or encyclopaedic, when the DVD cover suffices seems to me a case of sour grapes. Megan1967 06:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable actor. Perhaps she will achieve encyclopedic notability later in her career, but not yet. Quale 08:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, to reiterate my earlier vote. I don't particularly like the fact that a VfD result may differ depending on which admin closes it, but I can't think of a better system, and I believe both Tony and Fiend are in good faith here even if they disagree. Radiant_* 09:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT — Davenbelle 13:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as it should have been deleted after the last vote. If people are going to keep raising the bar midgame as to what is required to delete an article we might as well shut down VfD right now. -R. fiend 16:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense; no-one has "raised the bar" — I suspect that you simply haven't read VfD policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have put an explanatory message about VfD decision-making on User talk:R. fiend. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:POINT . JamesBurns 10:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mainly because the talk page history suggests to me that this is a bad-faith nomination. Prior to listing for deletion, MichaelMoore (talk · contribs) had put a picture on the article. This listing seems to be the result of a rebuff on that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I give heavy weighting to the fact that the subject of the article contacted us saying she does not belong in Wikipedia and asking how she can delete the article. She said "How can I alter or delete an entry on myself that I did not create?" She then said "Also, if the editors of this site would like to delete this article that would be okay with me. I didn't post it and while I appreciate the mention I don't feel I belong in Wikkipedia. Thanks." Johntex 15:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After reading the exact words of this actress I'm sorry to tell the people who support this article that I have to vote to delete it. Someone basically asking how they can delete the article makes me believe that it must have caused her some stress. Although I feel she is worth having an article about I have to vote delete knowing what I know from the above mentioned text. Plank 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • To the two preceding comments: I replied to her message, reassuring her, and she replied to me (on my Talk page), thanking me, and apparently successfully reassured. Her message is therefore no reason to delete this article (in fact, personal requests by subjects don't in any case consitute grounds for deletion). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I started the page and if I had known that it was to have caused this person any undue stress, I would not have done so. It is obvious from her statements that she doesn't want to be included in this encyclopedia and I think it is terrible that you would suggest that her personal request doesn't mean we should delete it. I think that is rather insensative and I regret that I ever started the article. I think her wishes in this case should be granted and that the page should be deleted. Plank 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • "Subject wants his/her article deleted" isn't a valid reason for deletion. It sets a bad precedent. (Note that I support deletion of the article on other grounds.) AиDя01DTALK 21:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:POINT. Leanne 05:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this non notable junk already. Grue 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the VfD process. Too soon to renominate. Xoloz 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a bad faith nomination by MichaelMoore. Iam 05:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable article from the same batch of articles that have mostly already been deleted. Gamaliel 23:17, 30 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. —Xezbeth 17:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny Gasperson

Actor who played a minor character in a barely noteworthy movie. Rl 19:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 20:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The person's IMDB.com entry lists only two minor roles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He may one day warrant an article but this silly one isn't it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:10, 23 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anangu

It is a word. This is not a dictionary. I can't see that it is more significant than any other word. Any useful information should be added to one of the many Australian Aboriginal articles. --Silversmith 20:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I transwikied it, so delete. — A.M. 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but borderline. The author did try to add discussion and context in linguistics, so it's not as offensive as most dictdefs. If the whole entry has been transwiki'd, though, it's now duplicate material. Geogre 02:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• You can delete it if you like. I only added an entry for it because someone added a link to it on the Uluru page (not me), and they seemed to misunderstand that it was a Pitjantjatjara word exclusively, hence I put in the little explanation. Perhaps you can instead change the Uluru page to have a link to the Wikidictionary entry, so that this can be clarified a bit better. It seemed to me like there was a great deal of misunderstanding as to what the word meant, so I was trying to help things a bit. Alternatively, it could be expanded in to something that would be encyclopaedia-worthy, as it is rather a broad word. I am sure that someone knowledgeable of aboriginal languages and customs could do that. It's up to you.203.26.206.129 07:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, if I can be so bold, what I think is a good suggestion is to do both. Firstly, make a link from the Uluru page (which references Anangu as a word) straight to Wikidictionary (I am sorry, I am a newbie, and don't know how to do that). Secondly, expand on my article here (which is a stub) to make it encyclopaedia worthy. A word like "Anangu" does not simply mean "people". It means a whole way of life. That is what makes it enyclopaedia worthy. Furthermore, it can be used interchangeably to mean all aboriginal people, or all aboriginal people of an area, and has so many different meanings. I am sure that it could be turned in to something encyclopaedia-worthy with the right writer. Please can you change this to a stub, and deal with it in that manner. 203.26.206.129 07:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, just another bit. This particular word is also used with lots of Aboriginal businesses. So it could also be a disambiguous entry to link to the various businesses that use the word "Anangu" as part of their name. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head. 203.26.206.129 07:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - the Anangu are one of the more well known Australian Aboriginal tribes or peoples being included with the people associated with Uluru / Ayers Rock. The word does not just mean people it refers to particular people. I am appalled that anyone would nominate an article about a people for deletion. The article certainly needs expansion but nominating it for deletion should not be the way to achieve that.--AYArktos 10:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that that highlights the importance of having an argument, because Anangu is like saying "I am aboriginal" or "I am a member of a specific tribe". Anangu is not the name of a tribe (nor do aborigines use the name tribe - they refer to themselves as being from a particular country, such as being from Arrente country or from the Pitlands, or sometimes from a certain community). Furthermore, Anangu isn't just used in Uluru/Ayer's Rock. It's used in a large number of other places. I don't know the full extent of it though. But in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands, it is very important, probably more than in Uluru/Ayer's Rock. And the Ngaanyatjarra people have no claim over Uluru. 203.26.206.129 07:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The page as it stands is not offensive and has interest. It apears to be factual, and to have considerable potential for expansion. Tannin 10:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (By the way, we should be careful not to confuse the source of an article with its content. Sure, the anon user who created the article has also created several patent nonsense articles that have been, or soon will be (quite properly) deleted or redirected - but this is irrelevant. This article is fine. Keep it. Tannin)
  • I think that you should be very wary of writing such personal attacks in a talk page. It is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy, which could lead to your account being banned. 203.26.206.129 07:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a lot of the content of Pitjantjatjara actually belongs to Anangu, but I'd be happy to keep both. Unfortunately, we don't have anybody here from Ernabella to enter any first-hand information. --ScottDavis 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been to Ernabella, and to most of the Central Australian communities. But I don't know where to reference stuff like that. Why do you say Ernabella specifically? I thought it was more Ngaanyatjarra that strongly use those words, and that is Warburton and the like more than Ernabella. 203.26.206.129 07:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This conversation demonstrates the importance of articles like Anangu! I chose Ernabella, South Australia as the most important town, as I'm from South Australia, and associate "Anangu" most strongly with Anangu Pitjantjatjara, who own (freehold!) a large tract of north western SA. You picked Warburton, Western Australia in Ngaanyatjarra country, and others have identified it with Uluru. Incidentally, I think I've heard Aborigines use the words "tribe" or "clan". It's a smaller grouping than "nation". I suspect Anangu is the "nation" composed of several of these other groups, like Ngarrindjeri nation consists of a number of groups along the Murray River. --ScottDavis 12:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have only ever heard aborigines refer to themselves as being from a "country" or "land", never "nation", "tribe" or "clan". But maybe I am talking to the wrong ones. The word "country" they use to mean their language group, such as Arrente, Ngaanyatjarra, Pitjantjatjara etc, while the word "land" can either mean that, or else simply their community/town or a smaller area like an outstation. We have maps at work which divide Australia up in to aboriginal countries, and only list the traditional aboriginal lands. Quite interesting. You can get one from Institute for Aboriginal Development if you want one. I think they are in the range of $60-$100 each. Internodeuser 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep it is not so much a word as an ethnicity.--Cyberjunkie 09:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplication. JamesBurns 10:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the stub shows potential as an ethnicity article in how certain Indigenous Australians see themselves and relate to the world.--Takver 02:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Leanne 05:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep, ethnicities and how they define themselves are encyclopedic. Kappa 22:54, 27 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, and this coming from another DeLand resident... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris bensko

Vanity; delete. Emiao 20:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and tell Chris to get a user page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Chris has a 7 page signature, but, apparently, it doesn't involve the shift key for his last name. Cosmically unsignificant 15 year old suffering the tempest of adolesence. Geogre 02:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • insignificant(aren't we all) 209.208.117.102 17:57, 2005 May 23 (alteration to Geogre's comment factored out Uncle G 00:24, 2005 May 25 (UTC))
  • Note: Contributor is now on a vandalizing snit. Geogre 15:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What was wrong with my comment about Geogre's good taste in music? 209.208.117.102 17:55, 2005 May 23 (alteration to Geogre's comment factored out Uncle G 00:24, 2005 May 25 (UTC))
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, take your pick... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle 14:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Thue | talk 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• I removed a pile of unsigned 'keep' votes, all added by the same anon. Oh, and delete. DJ Clayworth 05:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Given that keep votes are being "removed", is there any point in voting on this VfD ?--Simon Cursitor 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The only keep votes being removed are fraudulent ones. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Blah blah blah, standard adolescent vanity article. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and since when can Keep votes be removed? If anyone tries to get away with voting multiple times, you leave one. Sounds a bit fraudulent in itself.
  • You also vandalized other people's votes. You should be blocked from editing. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Cosmically insignificant adolescent would like to apologize to anyone he may have angered, but will also point out that he didn't vandalize votes in the sense of changing the contributor's meaning, ie replacing delete with keep votes. As stated before, Geogre has good taste in music.
  • Comment made by 209.208.117.136
• The nadir of puerile adolescent musings. In other words, better than anything else of its genre.
  • Comment made by /209.208.117.111
• For the sake of ee cummings, delete. Kelly Martin 04:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• The worst article ever written for Wikipedia...I loved it.
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or userfy if the user has or gets a login). Kelly Martin 03:25, Jun 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 merge with Computer jargon Sjakkalle 11:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Btkatc

DictDef, computer jargon/slang. Can this be expanded? Otherwise transwiki to wikidictionary and delete. (no inlinks). 12 googles (some from wikipedia), so also non-notable RJFJR 20:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Computer jargon, or delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Mike Rosoft. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Computer jargon. Megan1967 06:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• ... or to PEBKAC, as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PEBCAK. Take your pick. Either way, a separate article is not warranted, for this or for any of the other initialisms that people can think up for the same thing. Uncle G 00:29, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Juan del Sur

More a tourism advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 20:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all real places, and cleanup. RickK 04:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caleb Koch

Zero Google hits for ""Caleb Koch" actor. Either NN or hoax. Denni☯ 21:23, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of prototype World War II infantry weapons

Two weapons hardly justifies a list article -Cynical 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems very unlikely to take off. Oberiko 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of secondary and special-issue World War II infantry weapons. Vegaswikian 05:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Vegaswikian, unless this list grows signficantly in the next week. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:25, 24 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavens Tower

Fictional places that appear in one single video game usually shouldn't have their own articles, in my opinion. RPGs in the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series often have dozens of cities, and it would be silly to have articles for each one of them. Crotalus horridus 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• If things "shouldn't have their own articles" feel free to merge/redirect them somewhere without bringing them to Vfd. Kappa 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fancruft. If the original author gets link happy in the Final Fantasy XI article and then has to go along and create a link for every noun, that's tragic, but the fact remains that this is a title that will not be sought by anyone who doesn't already know what it is. Geogre 02:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Windurst. I understand giving individual cities in the game their own entry, given the nature of the game, but giving individual landmarks their own entry is pushing it a little. – Seancdaug 03:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 06:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. JamesBurns 10:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. carmeld1 01:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn cruft. Leanne 05:48, 25 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] C-F Nadd

Non-verifiable, non-notable and vanity, you can choose Sarg 21:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 30 google hits for an online columnist. Well, so much for the claims of being popular. Average Earthman 22:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Conspicuously not well known. So much for being America's most promising online columnist. Geogre 02:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up: well known in circles.
  • This comment by annon User:68.202.188.164, who is the creator of the page and tried to disrupt (probably unintentionally) this vote page. Sarg 19:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:16, 23 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ara Fell

• This might be just my opinion, but I don't think any regular fan-made games, and particularly not those made with RPGMaker, should be here. I have made 3 of these games myself... Sarg 22:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hobby vanity. A given hand rolled computer game is not appropriate content if it has no widespread distribution or large player base. I'm sure we all congratulate its author on the game, but it is not encyclopedic. Geogre 02:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - RPG Maker (95/2000/2003/XP) games deserve no place at wikipedia.--Imaek 00:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. For a hobby game 5,400 Google hits isnt bad. Leanne 05:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is a RPG Maker section. This is a specific game, and is an advertisement for that game. It is unnecessary and uninteresting. If anybody wants information on this game they can visit Ara Fell's website. --Imaek 15:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sarg. Quale 05:44, 26 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. —Xezbeth 19:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wtx

This page is a duplicate of WTX Cmdrjameson 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• So redirect it. RickK 05:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to WTX. Megan1967 06:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap fun and easier than Votes for deletion. Sjakkalle 14:25, 23 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. —Xezbeth 18:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creepers

Band vanity page. No significant info found in google Sarg 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Completely forging a new genre. Keep
  • This comment by annon User:64.53.139.48, who created the page. Sarg 22:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Deltabeignet 22:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 05:44, 26 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. —Xezbeth 18:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lorien Mayfair

Vanity page DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity DS1953 22:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:18, 23 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. —Xezbeth 18:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captain wow

Band vanity DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Unsigned. No indication that they're gigging. Band vanity. Geogre 02:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland

Strongly suspect this is largely nonsense Average Earthman 22:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I once met a woman who announced to me, "I just lost 100 pounds." I said, "Congratulations" (she looked to weigh about 105 lbs.). She said, "No. I'm the Queen of England." Well, this fellow abdicated from being king, so I should introduce the two of them. Hoax. Geogre 02:59, 23 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. —Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unfossilized dinosaur bones

Hopelessly POV article containing no scientific facts, and a lot of nonsense (using Carbon Dating to date something millions of years old, for example), written by a creationist whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been for POV pushing and for pasting links to his website. The article is about a subject that is probably not notable enough to split from the main Dinosaur article and which would be pretty impossible to cleanup and use. The concensus of the long-time editors of the Dinosaur article seems to have been to redirect it, but the creationist continues to add the nosense. Joe D (t) 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, this is creationist bullshit. Crotalus horridus 22:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Let It Remain -- as it seems to be based on (what may be) good evidence. --Truthteller 22:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This contributor may be the creator of the article. It was created by 66.159.217.56, which looks to be part of the same IP pool. (Truthteller's comment, before he signed it, was listed as coming from the IP address 66.159.217.9.) Crotalus horridus 22:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The article itself is signed by Truthteller. Joe D (t) 23:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dinosaur bones 9,000 years old? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 22:58, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsens, probably should have been a speedy delete Tannin 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why Not Discuss it -- from a Scientific perspective -- why you feel the way you do. In other words, what scientific Evidence do you disagree with? Or are you simply allowing your Bias to dictate what evidence you will accept and what you won't -- whether it be the truth or not.--Truthteller 23:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Because we have done this on Talk:Dinosaur and other talk pages and you have completely ignored our comments. If you showed any willingness to discuss things from a scientific perpective perhaps others would not treat you as a troll. Joe D (t) 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• What Nonesense: Joe D. says it is "nonesense" but doesn't give any reasons why he feels this way. So what specifically are you talking about??? Or are you Afraid to discuss it??? --Truthteller 23:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have discussed this on various talk pages and I have seen others discuss this with you on other websites. Not only that but I did give a reason, please make sure you read things properly before you go throwing around accusations. See the Carbon Dating comment, I know you understand why it's nonsense as myself and others have explained it to you several times before. Joe D (t) 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You also said it contained "no scientific facts" -- which is blatantly FALSE. --Truthteller 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Though it does present some information as fact (whether or not it is fact is debateable), most of the article is just a directory of weblinks more than anything else. The number of statements in this article that are meant to be factual are actually very few. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:40, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
    • The only content of the article is the Carbon Dating claim. That Carbon Dating found those ages may be a fact, but for reasons already explained to you many many times already it is not scientific because Carbon Dating is not used for dating things over 50,000 years old--if it is misused in this way it invariably finds an age of about 50,000, as indeed it did in this case. Joe D (t) 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Prune, merge into Young Earth Creationism and redirect. RickK 23:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Presumably under the heading "Dishonest use of carbon dating". But are you sure people using the search box to look for unfossilised dinosaur bones should be taken straight to the YEC page? Joe D (t) 23:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anti-fact propaganda. Fredrik | talk 00:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to bird (which as we all know are unfossilised and have bones!). Pseudoscience, which while not itself is ground for deletetion, if presented as a discussion of a phenomenon (such as the creationism or pre-Copernicus astronomy pages are), but this is presented as POV fact. Sabine's Sunbird 00:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE, fancruft. DarthProject2501a 00:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --nixie 04:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism. Martg76 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely delete all creationist bullshit. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anybody who knows anything about carbon dating will tell you this is either sheer incompetence or a deliberate fraud. This is also a violation of Wikipedia convention in that it consists almost entirely of external links pushing a POV. Average Earthman 08:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Quale 08:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax. Implicitly POV. AlexTiefling 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BS -- AlexR 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• All we should be concerned with at this point is whether or not it is true. If it is then, sooner or later we will HAVE to Deal with this honestly and fairly, or else risk losing our own credibility. Also, at this point the page is only linked to the Discussion Page, and it is not highly visible. Annonymous

• Yeah, well, should these ever become scientific and verifyable facts, then nobody will object to such an article. I'm not holding my breath, though. -- AlexR 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment by 164.230.99.101 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV, unverifiable, no potential to become encyclopedic. There doesn't appear to be any new-and-valid content worth merging to Young earth creationism or other articles. I have to believe the accusations of "POV-pushing" since the editor rejected talk-page consensus and refuses to accept that radiocarbon dating doesn't give meaningful results beyond 50K years ago. Linked content (used as substitute for actually providing verifiable content) is mostly to non-peer-reviewed unscientific advocacy, not reputable journals useable as primary sources. Barno 20:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Barno. JamesBurns 10:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Nuclear Delete this article. Maybe someone can create a subcategory for it under Creationist Pseudo-science. --Fazdeconta 12:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV unencyclopaedic. Leanne 05:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV or nonsense. For the sake of disputing the article's "factual" contentions, note that Carbon-14 testing is useless on items over 200,000 years of age, as Carbon has completely decayed by that time. Xoloz 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Prune, merge into Young Earth Creationism and redirect. I copied it from a user above, but I think that the content here should be merged with YOung Earth Creationism. --Alphachimp 02:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• keep it.. comment by 138.163.0.41 -- Reminder: Anonymous votes do not count.

moved comment by User:Truthteller to talk page Project2501a 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Truthteller notes that most of those demanding it be Deleted provide no logical reasoning for doing so -- other than that it goes against their own POV. Stating it is POV or "nonsense" does NOT make it so.--66.218.59.87 04:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kelly Martin 04:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks the bare minimum of rationality needed to make any article valid.--MWAK 08:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Gasson

Article does not establish that the subject is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Crotalus horridus 22:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A stunt diver who specializes in jumping without his parachute? Wow. Prank at most, insignificant at best. Geogre 03:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have his own stunt company. Seen on Joe Jennings's website. See http://www.skydivingstunts.com/.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shvitz

Dictdef. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 22:37, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikidict (if they want it) and delete. RJFJR 23:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictdef. Wiktionary has a good collection of Yiddish terms, especially those commonly heard in English. Geogre 03:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dd. Leanne 05:44, 25 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ey up

Dictdef, has been transwikied, no potential for improvement. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 22:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• Delete now that transwikied it has no content worth keeping. RJFJR 23:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/redirect (someone has done this already; I see no reason why that shouldn't stand -- moving to properly-capitalized title). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Best selling Female artist

Merge to Mariah Carey if there's anything worthwhile. POV too. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as information is already effectively covered in Best selling music artists and the redirect seems extremely narrow due to the capitalization. Mr Bound 23:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The same editor has apparently created Biggest Selling Female Artist with similar content. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Vegaswikian 05:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, possibly has some potential but the Mariah Carey POV has to go. I would be willing to do this myself over the next few days if editors wish for this article to stay. Turn Biggest Selling Female Artist into a redirect to this article. Megan1967 06:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I personally think the redir to Mariah is silly but I wouldn't oppose it. Radiant_* 11:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow Megan to cleanup the POV. Kappa 21:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it is inaccurate (according to Best selling music artists) with both Nana_Mouskouri and Madonna ahead of Mariah Carey on the all-time worldwide best selling list. This is clearly POV and inaccurate. Internodeuser 14:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Which is a reason to cleanup not delete. Leanne 05:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup this is really BIZAr article....but i will vote for keeping it ,because its really funny. :))Vorash 20:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Leanne 05:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, which was never finished. But Keep Biggest-selling female musician, which was started by the same person but now presents arguments for all three possible answers. The value of that article is that it isolates this perpetual debate in one place, rather than having it mess up the main articles for the three artists. Why people care so much about this "title" is beyond me, but it's resulted in endless edit battles in the Mariah Carey article and elsewhere. Wasted Time R 10:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with that title is that Wikipedia in many of its articles differentiates between a singer - someone who just sings, and a musician - someone who plays a musical instrument. Since Mariah Carey, Céline Dion, Madonna aren't know for their musicianship and more for their singing, the title is not strictly conforming with other Wikipedia articles. Megan1967 07:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The best title would be the one that's (modulo hyphen) used inside the article, "World's Biggest-Selling Female Recording Artist", since it's records that's being measured, not concert attendance, TV audiences, etc. If Nadja Solerno-Sonnenberg sold 200 million classical violin recordings, she would go on the list too. Wasted Time R 18:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, could be made into a useful topic. Iam 06:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Moosic

Delete. Probable not notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, <4 relevant google results. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable, DJVanity. (Thought for a minute this was DJ Mosaic, which would be more interesting.) Geogre 03:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JamesBurns 10:46, 24 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. —Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sci7071

Advertisement for unremarkable, nonencyclopedic blog. Kelly Martin 23:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and probably vanity. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This has to be close to a speedy for lack of content, but probably not quite. Quale 05:47, 26 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. —Xezbeth 17:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lowel lane baker

Student vanity. Article does not establish noteworthiness. Kelly Martin 23:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete --Melaen 23:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete - not being able to speedy delete these things is what is making VFD impossible --Henrygb 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I quite agree that the narrowness of CSD is bogging VfD, but those criteria are narrow because of how few articles came in every day in the early days of Wikipedia. That said, any attempt at broadening CSD gets shouted down decisively, so we're at a lock. This isn't a speedy delete, unless one really pushed criterion #1. Just vanilla vanity. Geogre 03:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I consider speedying this article. I doubt any real harm would have come of it. Kelly Martin 06:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• No encyclopedic content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 06:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Just delete -- Eagle 20:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I concur, delete it Sdr 09:22, 27 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. —Xezbeth 19:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Boyd

Delete. It may simply be an advertisement, but anyways none of the people named (Richard Boyd, Carl Fernandes, and William Forty) have a large google presence. Boyd has almost 3 million but not really relevant ones. The website itself I think tell the whole story. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Megan1967. Quale 05:48, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egg cup

Page is not up to wikipedia standereds and is in "leet" speak JCS 23:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied as patent nonsense. Not a comment on the notability of a real article on this subject. I mean, if we can keep breadbox ... RickK 23:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • i am a bit new are you refering to the article when you say "speedied as patent nonsense" are you refering to what i said or the article?JCS 00:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant the article. But see below. RickK 04:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I was able to get a look at the history of this article just as Rick speedied it, and it looked like this was a vandalism that was never reverted. There was a real article on the subject, and someone leeted over it. -- Grev -- Talk 00:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Can we get the real article back then please? Kappa 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Pursue at VfU, if you believe it was improperly deleted. Content of the original stub was:

"An egg cup, sometimes called egg server, is a container used for serving eggs within their shell. Eggs could be either raw or hard or soft boiled. Egg cups have an upwardly concave portion to hold the egg and often include a base to raise the egg retaining portion and give stability."

Personally, I feel this content is criterion #1 in nutshell (or egg cup). On the other hand, I think there is a US College football game that is known as the Egg Cup. I'm not sure, though. Keep deleted. Geogre 03:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the non-vandalized version. Sorry about that. RickK 04:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong merge to dishware, along with other stubs on plates, cups etc. Radiant_* 11:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• The Egg Bowl is the annual football game between the University of Mississippi and Mississippi State University (now over 100 years old). It has nothing to do with egg cups. Right now this is merely a definition (when it is not vandalized). Someday it could cover the pez dispenser-like phenomenon of collectible egg-cups, but until then... move to Wiktionary. Dystopos 19:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, everyday objects like egg cups and breadboxes are inherently encyclopedic. Kappa 20:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with kappa, egg cups are notable. Klonimus 06:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Joyous 02:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 the rewrite. Sjakkalle 10:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Hairston, Jr.

Unencyclopedic high school sports vanity. Kelly Martin 23:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC). Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have rewritten the page. -- Grev -- Talk 00:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the original article, quite frankly, was not informative at all, Jerry Hairston Jr is a notable baseball player. R Calvete 00:38, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Keep. People really shouldn't write articles like the original one; it's not funny. Kelly Martin 01:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done, Grev. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. —RaD Man (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Nice catch by the VfD nominator and nice clean by Grev. Geogre 03:09, 23 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 Palestine Mandate. Sjakkalle 11:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] League of Nations Palestine Mandate

• Mostly just text from a document, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, essay/original research. The original document is already on Wikisource:Palestine Mandate, and there's also a Wikipedia article Palestine Mandate. — A.M. 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, redirect to Palestine Mandate. — A.M. 01:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestine Mandate. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per above. No merge, no Wikisource. Geogre 03:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestine Mandate. Revolución 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine Mandate. I'm drawn on what to do with this text though - something of it could be salvaged to be included in the Palestine Mandate article, even if it is too much quoting and too little objective analysis. Jamyskis 14:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to merge it in, if there's stuff worth keeping. As long as this article is redirected and not deleted, (which seems to be what will happen) then there aren't any GFDL problems. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestine Mandate. --metta, The Sunborn 03:30, 24 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.