Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete based on evidence that it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. --Michael Snow 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fortress Blakeley

This article appears to be a hoax. Google brings up zero hits for "Fortress Blakely". Villa Tuscana in British Columbia does no better. The NASA projects that were supposedly based there don't seem to have existed. The ISBN number of one reference actually belongs to a wholely unrelated book. All in all, I see no reason to think that this place exists, despite this detailed history. I've left a note on the only editor's talk page asking for sources. Willmcw 07:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Also Blakeley Fortress and Hacienda Toscana. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive14#The Fort Bleakeley vandal. Lupo 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Fortress_Blakeley#World_War_II sections is especially droll. It's prefaced by, "Nothing much happened at this time." Then it goes on to say how 753 Jewish refugees from the Philippines were personally saved and housed by Howard Blakeley on his estate, who also had time to help on the construction of the atom bomb. That's not to mention the island's fortifications, including "3,000 soldiers ... under the command of the Blakeley family." One of history's most overlooked heroes or a detailed fantasy. -Willmcw 09:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• If it's a hoax, it's very detailed; if it's real, it has few (i.e. no) in-links. Verify or delete --Simon Cursitor 07:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or BJAODN and delete: The really detailed, lavish, too-much-time-for-their-own-good hoax is an old sentimental favorite. Geogre 11:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in BC, and I'm sure this place doesn't exist. Scimitar 14:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. I'm an astronomer and I've never heard of those projects. And NASA wasn't founded until after WWII (1958), so how they fit in is beyond me. The referenced book at the end isn't on Amazon. - Etacar11 14:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 15:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a hoax, but one point grabbed my attention: remains of a human-like species not homo sapiens in the New World? This would mean a serious rewrite of existing theories. PatGallacher 16:34, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with previous claims this is a hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 18:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a re-created hoax. I know we've had that crap already (including this quote from the "Diary of Juan de Leon"), and voted upon, and it got deleted as an unverifiable hoax. If I only could find the old VfD... :-( And may I also point out Blakeley Fortress, which is the same crap I remember in condensed form. Lupo 19:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also Special:Undelete/Fort Blakeley... Lupo 20:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, speedy as recreation of previously VfD'ed article: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fort Bleakeley. Lupo 20:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Stubborn being. I told you that this doesnt look real but what little I wrote is! Look at the other article! Kaschner 20:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, won't you even look at my source? Kaschner 20:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Most of this stuff looks fake, but I read about the place in a book called "The Future of the Past". I put in References. I'll recheck and rewrite if its ok with you guys. Kaschner 20:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, then I'll put it here for you: ISBN 0-330-37534-2
    • Hm. Amazon doesn't know this ISBN. You created Hacienda Toscana on April 28, 2005. Then nothing. And then you re-appear just when this VfD goes off? And add another reference with an ISBN that amazon.com doesn't know? The book exists (ISBN 0312420943 or ISBN 0374159777), but seems to be unrelated. Hm. Lupo 20:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey look I didn't write this, why don't you ask the guy who wrote this? And why do you say its unrelated? Kaschner 20:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeh thats the book. I guess the ISBN is different cause I got it in UK. Its about conservavation of antiques and their future and in this chapter he said about the castle and how its been forgotten and what the future of it might be. Kaschner 20:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
          • And here's the old VfD discussion. The article was named differently: Special:Undelete/Fort Bleakeley. Lupo 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wheres the article? Kaschner 20:49, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Gladden

Entire article reads "Washington Gladden was a pastor in Ohio during the Social Gospel movement." Not enough evidence of notability. --Lee Hunter 00:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• He's apparently notable enough to get an entry in the Columbia encyclopedia. The article seems to indicate enough notability, but I don't know enough about the guy to rewrite an article that short without having it border on copyvio. Keep and tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 00:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar. Kappa 00:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand also mentioned in the Cambridge History of English and American Literature and had an article in the 1911 Britannica [1]. I will have a go at expanding it myself if necessary. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good catch, Meelar. Quale 01:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be expanded, though, to indicate how this guy is significant to the movement. Xcali 02:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 108,000 google hits must be notable. Klonimus 04:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, worthy of an article. Mgm|^(talk) 18:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Article now expanded. No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 15:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:32, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bass Terror Crew

Another group of wannabe noisemakers that came and went without leaving much of a trace. 5 google hits on 4 websites, nothing on allmusic.com. OK, so it's (barely) verifiable that someone made some music under that name--So? Niteowlneils 00:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--band vanity. Meelar (talk) 00:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 02:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless verified evidence is added, this currently fails WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 07:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. At least there wasn't any cheesy "we're so good" nonsense (DTF, anyone?) Scimitar 14:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity won't stop on Wikipedia, but at least we can do something about those that exist already. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Rothwell

This appears to be a vanity page Shoaler 00:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Shoaler 00:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 01:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Quale 01:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Move to User:Jordan25. Bovlb 02:11, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Xcali 02:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Look like Userfy to User:Jordan25. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what's the harm? User:Jordan25
  • Problem is, this is an encyclopedia (and one that is frequently criticized for the possibility that people will include articles such as this). You're welcome to post this info on your user page, tho. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:39, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Spinboy 05:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The usual kind of vanity. jni 07:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, but Jordan will see this little post on the wide web deleted.
• Userfy, per Bovlb and Zzyzx11 --Deathphoenix 14:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy Scimitar 14:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. GrantNeufeld 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, vanity. Tempshill 19:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Econrad 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:39, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Delete Very silly user homepage

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 ableism CDC (talk) 04:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ablism

Misspelled dicdef. Move to Wiktionary as "ableism" and delete. Denni☯ 00:22, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Wiktionary as "Ableism". Concur with the above. Sjakkalle 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Duplicate material, misnamed dictdef. Geogre 11:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to disability, which is where the commoner spelling variant ableism now redirects. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Move to Ableism, has a possibility to become as good or an article as racism, sexism or any other ism.
• keep, move to ableism, and expand. Concur with vote above. Ableism should not redirect to disability because the concept is not discussed there. Kappa 21:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behzad soufivand

Entirely non-notable. Denni☯ 00:26, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Unless he comes out as the one who outlines the Irani nuclear program, he ain't doing anything worth noting. Delete. Harro5 00:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown. Scimitar 14:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 23:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Table for further research. If this was meant as stub, perhaps the author needs to explain his rationale before a vote is taken. Fabartus 20:38, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Shelley

One half-sentence on an actress with no info on what she has done, or even what period she might have done it in! Harro5 00:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful to anyone interested in who performed in Lagaan. Kappa 00:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a stub and should be expanded.--Tznkai 03:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please do at least some looking into articles before putting them on VfD. Google returns 13,500 results on "Rachel Shelley" with the first ten all being relevant. IMDb has a page on her. I have updated her article to show some of the results of my search. -- Jonel 03:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and further expand. Seems to be a reasonably notable actress.Capitalistroadster 05:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep her IMDB page has enough credits to suggest she's worth including. Mgm|^(talk) 18:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but expand. Internodeuser 19:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with a stub article. Besides imdb tells me she an actress. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Out of question, keep it. --Oblivious 01:44, 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, and redirect to Seventh-generation era. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 512-bit Era

No such era exists and it's ridiculous (laughable is actually a better word) to state it's the "512-bit" era because a system has 512MB of RAM. Anything that isn't incorrect, speculation, POV, etc is already at Seventh-generation era which this appears to be a fork of. K1Bond007 00:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that this deserves to be an article, but it should be retitled to something more appropriate, since the previous "eras" such as the "16-bit" and "32-bit" eras were so named because the CPUs of the consoles of the era claimed to be as the name suggested, while none of the new consoles claim to have "512-bit processors" and all apparently run on PowerPC CPUs which are definitely not 512-bit. --M412k 01:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats what Seventh-generation era is, which is debatable too as a proper title. Actually the title of the article has gone through major discussions along with other similar articles at the corresponding Wikiproject. Since there is no name for this era (except for perhaps the Microsoft marketing "HD era"), I don't see what a proper title can be at this point -- for sure it shouldn't be "512-bit era" especially with that reasoning. K1Bond007 01:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about the Seventh-generation era. I almost proposed a merge, but the "information" in this article is mostly useless, so delete it. --M412k 02:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Seventh-generation era article already is covering this. Thunderbrand 02:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with you lot. "X-bit era" refers to the word width of the processor, i.e. how many bits it can treat as a single unit at a time. It has nothing to do with memory, and certainly not when confusing bits with megabytes. — JIP | Talk 04:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the nominator's reasons. --Chill Pill Bill 05:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculative fork of Seventh-generation era. jni 07:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Seventh-generation era. Vashti 08:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Seventh-generation era. Nestea 11:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Seventh-generation era. Mattl 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if there's 128-bit etc, then this should be kept too. Well researched, encyclopaedic article. Internodeuser 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

While I think that the author's intent was essentially good, as I explained above, the "512-bit" moniker just doesn't make any sense --M412k 02:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This era does not exist. Yet. It is scheduled to start in 2038. Tempshill 19:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when it actually happens. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely speculative. There's even a section "Most popular games during the era". Tetzcatlipoca 20:16, May 26, 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Just speculation. --SuperDude 23:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Andre (talk) 21:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dagobah Imperial Klo

I'm not the biggest Star Wars geek in the world, I haven't heard of this, and neither has Google. Nothing links to it internally, and this is the sole contribution of an anon. I suspect a hoax or vandalism. Delete Rlandmann 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is not real --M412k 01:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Never heard anything of this and I'm fairly well-versed in the mythology. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on this, we should. Cannot verify, this article is. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• @M412k If it is something from Star Wars, it can not be real. Is mister Palpatine real? Do you know him personally?
  

(comment by 80.132.74.149)

• Obviously, you realize that I meant "real" in the sense of existing at all within any source from Star Wars. There are plenty of Star Wars articles which are "real" in the sense of Star Wars. If you're just going to be an anonymous jerk who comes here and criticizes people for no good reason, please refrain from posting comments --M412k 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• What he meant to say is that it's not something that really exists within Star Wars. If you have a source to prove him wrong, go ahead and provide it. Until then, delete for being unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 18:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure fan fiction. Nufy8 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfic, per WP:FICT. When I saw this in the list, I feared somebody was putting WP editor Klonimus in charge of the galaxy. Barno 19:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fanfiction is not part of the Star Wars EU. --Hoovernj 21:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I know a bit about Star Wars and this doesn't exists anywhere besides fanfiction. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without source.-LtNOWIS 14:37, 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 settlement via WP:CP (copyvio). - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gigantomachy

This is not an article, it's just a narrative. However, I can't tell if it can be turned into an article or not. M412k 01:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Original author appears to have blanked page. No content anymore. Xcali 02:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the Gigantomachy was an important element of Greek mythology, the war of the new gods against the old ones. I'm not sure if this is its accepted English name (I've only heard it in Russian), but if it is it should probably be an article. PlatypeanArchcow 03:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Gigantomachy is not just a part of Greek mythology but also a symbolic political motif in classical art. The Gigantomachy on the east metopes of The Parthenon, for example, uses the motif to display the power, civilization and culture of Athens over the uncultured "others" of the rest of the world - it's order versus disorder. Megan1967 07:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but re-edit. --Simon Cursitor 07:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fiction. It's an attempted merging of the Norse frost giants with the Titans. I understand Megan1967's point, but that's a wholesale rewrite she's talking about, and it needn't include this fiction in its history. The other objection I have to a rewrite of this article is that I believe it's misnamed even there. I thought it was Gigomachy, and it's a fairly broad term. Geogre 11:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Which are you referring to? The battle of the giants and the gods in Greek mythology is definitely Gigantomachy. Megan1967 11:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, since it is also copyvio
  • Copyvio is not a reason for speedy deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, copyvio, good work Drini. If it hadn't been, I would have agreed with Geogre. Tempshill 20:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Copyright violation.--Hoovernj 21:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. The source is itself derivative, from Works and Days and Apollodorus. Septentrionalis 20:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite - There is no 'Gigomachy' term per dictionary.com but this mythological topic is certainly part of western culture. It IS not just a copyright violation, but outright word for word plagurism. Fabartus 21:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sushicam

Tagged for speedy deletion, bringing it here because it gets 49,300 google hits [2], possibly not all on topic. Kappa 01:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Googling for "Sushicam Laitila" gets only 594 hits, Definitely vanity. Definitely delete Denni☯ 02:07, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete I'm the one who speedied it. Thought it was short on info then, and I still do now. Looks like vanity to me. Xcali 02:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a blog with only 594 google hits isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Especially with this lack of info on the subject (it could be speedied under criterion 1). Mgm|^(talk) 18:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • Sushicam.com gets 5,810 hits. Kappa 23:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible; vanity. Tempshill 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Get rid of it. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pyotr

Non-notable chess program. The fact that it's Greek and written in Java are uncommon, but the stub is over a year old and although only a two sentences long, it seems to have little possibility of expansion. The provided link ([3]) seems dead tonight, although google cached it last month. The google cached Pyotr Chess Engine Frequently Asked Questions shows that the FAQ was last updated in December 2001. One highly respected partial list of chess engines provided by Tim Mann includes 176 engines. Although the list is arranged alphabetically and not by importance, Pyotr is number 132 on that list which is probably not too far away from where it ranks in notability. Quale 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Concur. No more notable really than an untitled master-level chess player. Sjakkalle 07:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment could this be turned into a disambiguation page? Pyotr is the Russian name for Peter. There is a fair few Pyotrs in history - Pyotr Kapitsa, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Kropotkin etc... On second thoughts maybe a redirect to Peter. Megan1967 11:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A name disambiguation page would be for people/places/things who were commonly known as "Pyotr", not as "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" (who is, however, commonly known as Tchaikovsky, highlighting one reason for a difference between name disambiguations for family names and those for given names). Peter is a name disambiguation page because there are people who are commonly known solely by that given name (1 apostle, 1 emperor, and 2 anti-popes, for starters). The lack of any additions to this page since 2004 indicates that this is probably not the case for "Pyotr". Uncle G 12:17, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for bringing up one of my pet peeves, Uncle G. First name disambiguations are not for "List" articles. They are for disentangling individuals known only by that name. There are usually enough medieval figures of any common first name to make this necessary, but Popes are an extreme case. It's common enough for even a scholar to say, "He was denied by Pope Peter" and not indicate that the reference is to Peter II or later. They're also not for etymology and variants on a name, as that's all lexicography. Geogre 13:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep master level chess engines are notable. Klonimus 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Where do you get the information that it's master level? What's the cite? Quale 00:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Klonimus appears to have inferred more from what Sjakkalle wrote above than strictly can be. Uncle G 15:25, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm kind of curious whether Klonimus ever reads any of the articles he votes on. Quale 20:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I read the article, it's NPOV and verifiable. I have no problem with keeping it. AFAIK the subject is notable. If some wikichess people can demonstrat that its not notable, then delete it. Klonimus 08:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
          • The perhaps you'll answer Quale's question, and tell us how you verified that this is a master level chess engine. Uncle G 09:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
          • I echo Uncle G's request. P.S. Sjakkalle and I are Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chess members and we have each created and edited dozens of chess articles. Quale 18:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sholtar 00:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable that it's anything good. Radiant_* 13:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, or Redirect into an article on Chess Engines in general. Agree thouroughly with Keep master level chess engines are notable. Klonimus 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC). These are nontrivial intellectual accomplishments. The press coverage in the '70's and '80's when the first such programs were able to play on par with masters and eventually grandmasters was of epic proportions. I'm more inclined to frown at the party suggesting this be deleted -- the entry documents some accomplishment of note, however sparse of text. 'Master Level' in tourneyment chess is a huge intellectual accomplishment on par with hitters averaging 35+ homers a year, QB's averaging 2+ TD passes a game, or (Shudder) music stars with a golden record album. Me thinks the author was succinct and concise and single entries of this type should be not only condoned, but sought out until they can be redirected into a comprehensive and complete article covering all such engines, and their place in history. Fabartus 22:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit was three days after the nomination of this article for VfD. RickK 22:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I don't mind this one voting, I think it is in good faith. However, I would disagree that this program is notable. First, I don't have any information that the program is of master strength. Second, even if it is master level, it is not especially interesting if it is developed in the 1990s or 2000s, because master level computers are quite abundant. Had it been made in the 1970s however, it would have been a pioneering program and notable. Sjakkalle 08:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pyotr's author was born in 1978 and the program was probably written in 2000-2001. From the description on its home site I suspect its play is rather weak. I also think Farbartus is voting in good faith, but many people, even good chess players, don't really understand computer chess. The problem of writing a strong chess playing program has been basically solved for the last 15 years. This raises the notability bar pretty high for me, and for modern programs only those involved in important matches (as was Deep Blue) or those that are commercially important (as is Fritz) meet it. (BTW, the Fritz article is poor.) I agree that most programs simply capable of playing a legal game of chess in the 1970s are notable. Anyone who thinks that every chess playing program is notable is invited to look at the sea of red links that is List of chess engines. Most of them are not notable, and often they are tiny modifications of other programs. Also remember that this is just a partial list of engines. Anyone trying hard could probably increase the length of that list by 50-100%. Quale 18:29, 3 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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Theta

Non-notible. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is a no-brainer: Merge into Psi Upsilon. Kelly Martin 02:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's already there. -- Jonel 03:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Psi Upsilon. jni 07:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to University of Washington#Student life rather than Psi Upsilon there's a reason: Fraternities and sororities other than Psi Upsilon will have chapters called Theta Theta (and any other letter combination you can name). This particular chapter doesn't belong solely to this particular sorority, but to this particular university's particular sorority. Geogre 11:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Geogre. Good call. Meelar (talk) 14:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to University of Washington#Student life per Geogre. I don't support a redirect, since the reasons he applied to the article also are applicable to a redirect. Barno 19:59, 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 CDC (talk) 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phentermine tolerance

Ad sort of thing. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like an advertisement. I suspect there may also be copyright issues. Xcali 02:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad, highly suspect Phen-Phen supplement, c&p from a website. Geogre 11:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Délèté. Advertisement and c&p. 68.255.237.76 14:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. - Etacar11 19:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the ad. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:55, 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 speedy delete, request by creator. Thue | talk 21:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew danks

• Delete It's either vanity or an advertisement. Either way, it doesn't belong. Xcali 02:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When will fourteen year olds realize that nothing remotely interesting has ever happened in their life? --EvilZak 02:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing against Andrew Danks, but no encyclopedic notability. Sjakkalle 09:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete now that the author has requested it be removed. Sjakkalle 07:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have a feeling nobody will be looking up Andrew Danks on Wikipedia anytime soon. Totally irrelevant. <3 to Danks :D R Lee E 09:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the info is either unverifiable or highly POV (or both). If he's some young entrepreneur, I'd like some sources to back it up in which case a new pages can be created without prejudice. Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kid vanity. - Etacar11 20:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if the editor wants to join the project, otherwise Delete--misunderstanding/no hard feelings. Niteowlneils 20:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Autobiographies/ advertisements are not welcome on Wikipedia. --Hoovernj 21:25, 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 speedy delete upon author's request. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human thermodynamics

This article is likely nonsense. Kelly Martin 03:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: While this article could use a good cleanup, it seems coherent enough in it's present form. --ImaSpy 03:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • ImaSpy's only contributions to WP so far have been to this and one other VfD page. -- Hoary 09:48, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• I'm torn. While I think the thing may very well be a bunch of crud, it could very well be a belief that some people hold. I think, given that "formula" that appears early, this is nonsense. I'm inclined to agree with Kelly. Delete Xcali 03:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like patent nonsense to me.Capitalistroadster 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This nonsense seems to have an existence outside of Wikipedia, but unlike say Time Cube, this seems to be marginal enough to be classified as non-notable kind of sillyness. jni 07:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• We read that The framework of HT as a virgin science can be employed to intelligently answer any question related to human phenomena. HT helps one enjoy life -- yet be keen to its guidelines! Ah yes. Let's reconsider this, er, science after it has lost its virginity and is written up in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. Delete. -- Hoary 09:43, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense (although some of the jokes are cute). Fg2 11:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke article. Sjakkalle 13:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I am the author of the article. I apologize for putting it on Wikipedia. I stumbled upon the Wikipedia website yesterday, did a search for 'Human Thermodynamics', but found nothing, and thought it would be nice for the community to have a small entry on the subject. To be clear, it is a very new branch of thermodynamics; not more than a dozen people around the world are presently working on it. The concept of a 'human molecule' was originated in 1977 by the Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry) Ilya Prigogine who used the term: 'dissapative structures' to define such an entity. After reading the above comments, I see that it would be wiser for such a new science to have a better reader base before it is implemented into an encyclopedia. Sorry for the trouble. Libb Thims [B.S. Chemical Engineering, B.S. Electrical Engineering, Ph.D. Biochemistry - M.D. Neuroscience (in progress)]. --209.86.105.182 14:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comment. I'll speedy this once I've double checked this was in fact the author. Mgm|^(talk) 18:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Networks and partnerships

Unencyclopedic and original research. This page may also have been already deleted yesterday. Delete JeremyA 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The page was not deleted merely modified to make it more encyclopedic.Leave[[User:Aldreds|Scot Aldred]

• Delete. Reads like an internal HR Memo more than an encyclopedia article. Scimitar 15:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-encyclopedic Bgeer 16:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Could have been speedy deleted as nonsense. Plus, it's probably a copyvio too. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 22:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this comment. While I agree that this is original work from my students it is in no way a copyright violation and the suggestion that this is the case is insulting and defamitory. I would also like to draw this person's attention to the following rules of Wikipedia which appear to have been ignored on the Wikipedia link he has included to his wikipedia home page:

• Please do not bite the newcomers
• Don't create articles about yourself
• Don't insert links to your own home pageScot Aldred

• Everyone is free to put what they want (within reason) on their user page. This is not your user page. Etacar11 04:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)ThanksScot Aldred

• Delete pointless, unencyclopedic. - Etacar11 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Please explain how this is unencylopedic--is it that there are too few links to other parts of Wikipedia? I've looked at the guidelines and fail to see how this is unencyclopedic.Scot Aldred

• It's just not something anyone is likely to look up (in my opinion). Nothing personal. Not to mention it violates Wikipedia:No_original_research Etacar11 04:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)ThanksScot Aldred

• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• CLEAN UP Dissenting voices have a point -- unencyclopedic as written... however, a topic of great interest to individuals in the jobs markets, in both the public and private sectors, especially as the years acrue and one's resume lengthens. There is merit here, if not great presentation. It should be perhaps considered a long stub that needs a good experienced editor working with the author to achieve a better wikientry. The topic is both modern and needed by many. There have to be half a hundred biz books dealing with Networking, mentoring, et al. so there are references both popular and acedemic to round this out. Fabartus 21:10, 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 redirect. CDC (talk) 21:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ricouer

• I agree with Uppland and apologize for my spelling error -- Tyoda
• (Merge and) delete. Article Paul Ricoeur already exists. This article is a misspelled variation.--Logariasmo 02:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Just make it a redirect and unlist it from VfD. This won't be the last time somebody misspells Ricoeur. Uppland 07:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only: Ricoeur is a great man, now sniffed at by clever academics. Geogre 11:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge for heaven's sake - why bring VfD into it? Charles Matthews 13:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only. Article Paul Ricoeur is far more detailed, and already has the material in this article. Scimitar 22:35, 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 no consensus (default KEEP) — Gwalla | Talk 21:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Box (book)

Reads like an advertisement on the back of a book jacket. Xcali 03:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Kelly Martin 03:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to clean up. Amazon sales rank #93,560 [4] Kappa 03:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Reasonably notable book. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• As nearly as anyone can figure, an Amazon sales rank of roughly a hundred thousand means they've sold about 250 copies. Politely, delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it came out in 3 editions in the United States, probably at least one in Israel. Kappa 09:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, low Amazon sales rankings... this isnt all that notable. Megan1967 07:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reads like jacket-blurb. Which would make it POV. If notable, then wants making objective and somewhat more rounded. IMHO --Simon Cursitor 07:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an awful article (what are "unconclusions"?) but this is a book by a very famous novelist and so should be cleaned up rather than deleted. --Zero 12:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The WP article on the author is quite good, but nothing in this article indicates that we have anything encyclopedic to say about this particular book. Even major authors produce minor works that don't require their own articles. If there is enough encyclopedic material to warrant on article on this book, starting from scratch would not be much of a burden because what's there now isn't worth saving. Quale 19:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in bad shape but its still notable. Falphin 14:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• ABSTAIN leaning hard to 'Keep' as good synopsis. What Is the Harm - 'and the Wikistandard' - the 'cost is but' a single record on a single track of the servers hdd. The greater Question is whether any book entry needs to be deemed notable and who decides. It seems to me that the Wikistandards about literary mentions should be more inclusionary than a printed bound encyclopedia, not limited solely because history hasn't made up it's mind about the merits of a contemporary author. Sales figures for Amazon are cited as a rationale, but I expect they exceed Amazon's sales for The Art of War, or indeed many other notable works like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Pilgrims Progress, Tom Sawyer, Little Women or the Uncle Remus (Tar Baby). Since stumbling across a reference like this in say a google search, might just get someone to put the computer aside and pick up a text long enough to exercise the old grey matter in the almost lost act of reading, bring such entries on. Wiki will then become famed for it's comprehensive and egalitarian nature, vice it's stuffy exclusionary snobbery. Fabartus 22:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, it's hard to imagine that any novel by Amos Oz would be non-notable. He is arguably Israel's leading novelist. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 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 no consensus (default KEEP) — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Body parts slang

It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN. drini ☎ 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a_dictionary and WP:WIN:

Wikipedia is not a usage guide Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used

Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide

Besides, it seems like anything can be fit into here. Really, if Marx and Stalin fit for breasts, then CocaCola and Pepsi, Sony and Cher, or any other 2 nouns should go into here too. Likewise with other body parts. So this has no chance of actually being encyclopedic. drini ☎ 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, original research. --Angr/_comhrá 06:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definitions, original research. Megan1967 07:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Original nonsense. Hopefully this is stuff that won't need a vote after the Deletion forum comes to a decision. Harro5 08:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Ejaculations. I used my musketeers to type this article so I could see it with my Marty Feldmans. Geogre 11:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Two things to point out here:
  • The Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis, the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Street name, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of street names of drugs discussions are worth reading.
  • This probably opens debate on The Outsiders (novel) slang dictionary and Singapore sexual slang, and re-opens the debate on Sexual slang (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sexual slang).
• The same considerations apply here as in the "list of words of X" debate, namely that the list of dictionary entries is inappropriate for the encyclopaedia (especially as there's a 70,000 word dictionary right next door nearly begging to be used in ways such as Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:penis, Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:anus, Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:vagina, and how Cannabis (drug) uses Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang) but there's often a sentence or two that could start an encyclopaedia article, if only people would stop trying to write a dictionary (or, as here, a thesaurus) in the same space.
• My own opinion expressed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Latin origin, Talk:Lists of English words of international origin, and elsewhere still stands: excise the thesaurus and Keep as a stub for an encyclopaedia article about body parts slang. There are three paragraphs here that (albeit that they are currently pretty much straight copies from sexual slang) might start it, if only they weren't being drowned by the thesaurus. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Strong concur with Uncle G, WP:NOT a dictionary, and WIKT:IS a dictionary. Radiant_* 14:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with drini. CryptoDerk 15:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep and trim per Uncle G. Kappa 18:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there's a problem with the swearing, its perfectly encyclopaedic and legitimate. Internodeuser 19:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another disruptive vote by Internodeuser. RickK 22:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Hack and slash and rewrite as per Uncle G. Scimitar 22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is original research (of dubious value) and it is nonsense. What's more, if we're going to have a penis-names article and a body-parts-names article, why not have clitoris-names or earlobe-names. This is getting ridiculous. Bgeer 03:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs to be synchronised with euphemism where appropriate, but are two separate categories. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Transfer to Wiktionary. Neutrality^talk 02:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a sort of original research, and as generally unverifiable. Really, any stupid name for any old body parts could be added here, with the argument "I heard somebody call them that once." Joyous 02:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs text modified, as such slang is certain not limited to adoscencents attempting to impress one another, but is in daily usage by members of both sexes in non-business level interpersonal communication. It is however very common outside the whitecollar workplace. The article is further, informative, and I SEE NO PLACE WHERE It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN, save It might be misconstrued as thesarus material, (Certainly NOT dictionary in form!) but I think the collection and presentation of the widespread collective usages is very illuminating, however misguided the original task in conception. While I am amused at the topic extent of the coverage, I have to give kudos to the apparent completeness of the topic coverage. Such subject matter is not likely to be covered in any printed media, and Wiki strikes me as a perfect place for such outre' coverage. The article is further serious in tone, if not in impact while reading it's seemingly endless lists. If kept, I would expect writers of fiction to consult with it frequently as they struggle to personify characters and set them apart in their prose. As such, the collected wisdom therein may well be of far more social use than the dissertions of 95% of PHD candidates. Fabartus 23:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• It goes agains WP:WINwhere it says

A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily-confused ideas, as at Nation or Freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

since it doesn't provide context nor expand abotu the linguistics involved, (it's just a list), and since WP:WIN is official policy, then this entry should go away. drini ☎ 23:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a place for new research nor is it a dictionary -Joey.dale 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sexual slang is for sex, this article is for body parts. —Markaci 2005-06-2 T 01:54 Z
• Definitely Keep. It has a purpose, the same one as all the other slang articles have. If you delete this one you have to delete every one. Sure, the words may seem offensive, but they solve it's purpose --> they tell you slang words about body parts. Why delete an article anyway? If you don't like it, don't go to the page anymore! If young kids want to know slang words, and wikipedia deletes them, then they'll find them somewhere else. Therefore there's no point in deleting this. Walter Simons 8:33 AM EDT June 3rd 2005
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete (or rewrite as an article about body parts slang), possibly move whatever can be verified to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain as I created the article by separating from Sexual slang. I would vote to keep obviously. This is indeed encyclopedic, although it's the kind of article that can get out of hand if not watched. I'm normally a deletionist, but this article is actually informative! Especially for parents trying to get a grip on what their kids are talking about. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a good compromise would be to require that the words in the list be sourced. If this ends up being deleted, I'm going to have to merge it back into sexual slang (which passed the VfD test), as I really don't want to see this wealth of info destroyed. Normally, I won't take a stand like this, but this is an exception. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this list valuable. - Stoph 04:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer to Wiktionary, since most people are saying they are just definitions
• Keep Come on its funny!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. CDC (talk) 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devlin Gandy

An "up-and-coming" photographer, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO at this time. 17 google hits [5]. Kappa 06:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the above comments. --Hoovernj 21:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed, the article doesn't suggest this person meets WP:BIO criteria at this time. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 22:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. 578 (Yes?) 20:55, 31 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. —Xezbeth 12:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Dawg

Prior VFD discussion : Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/White Dawg/2005 May 25

this rapper is not notable and his annoying wiki edits are ruining our great encyclopedia. F White Dawg 18:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sup, BrowardPlaya? How does it feel to be up for deletion AGAIN? HAHAHAHAHA.... we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once. That Bentley ain't yours. You ain't from no Westside. And you sure as hell have no right to call yourself a "nigga." Someone's gotta slap the teeth out your mouth, FOOL. I vote DELETE! Also I eat cock. TRU THUG 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. This page has no business being on an encyclopedia. Keeping it up makes wikipedia look like a JOKE! Fan of REAL Hip-Hop 18:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Artist had a Top 20 hit on the Billboard rap charts in 1999, thereby meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. I'm also seeing a possible personal vendetta/abuse of VFD here. Sockpuppet limit has been reached at two. --FCYTravis 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - VfD is a joke. Ashibaka (tock) 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Relistings should be valid but not within such a short period of time. Everyking 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. White Dawg is an embarrassment to Caucasians, the south, hip-hop, and himself. That being said, he is, quite unfortunately, notable. jglc | t | c 19:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As much as I despise (C)Rap music, this guy has over 16 million hits on Google.--Kross 20:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hey now. No need to get offensive on rap music, there. After all, you do listen to Evanescence.jglc | t | c 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, if you put quotes around it, you get under 900 total for the "WhiteDawg" and "White Dawg" variants. --Xcali 21:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this shouldnt be allowed Yuckfoo 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Yo, I see that tha haterz have been active lately. It's aight, tho... it's all gravy. I ain't gonna let it get me down. But if you foolz seriously have a problem with me, let's quit playing internet games and handle this in the streetz like real gangstas! You heard what I said?! BrowardPlaya 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This justifies my dislike of the rap genre.--Kross 21:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. That's the exact same logic that a racist uses: In high school, a white teacher acted in ignorance towards me. Therefore, all white people are evil. All this statement does is justify your (and my) dislike (if not outright contempt) of this one guy. jglc | t | c 01:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Except that's a race, which doesn't define intelligence, and contain both intelligent and unintelligent people. Rap on the other hand... -- Natalinasmpf 16:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree 110% with above. -Hmib 20:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, though I'd like to see the main picture replaced. The hand jesture is too easy to misinterpret as something offensive. --Xcali 21:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, has already survived VfD. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, has already survived VfD and does (just) meet the relevant criteria. --Jamieli 22:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; on grounds that even if the article is presumed to be a waste of time, space and bandwidth, we're wasting more having to vote on it again and again and again. Samaritan 23:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do a Request for arbitration or the likes if you have a problem with his edits, not another vfd. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to meet Wikimusic criteria. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per my previous vote on this. JamesBurns 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, bordering on speedy keep. This is the third VFD nomination on this article. I feel this is getting silly. This musician is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The user, on the other hand, has got to go. I agree strongly with CCrustacean. jglc | t | c 13:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who, the nominator or BrowardPlaya? Everyking 15:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Can't we just wipe all of them out? (I wouldn't mind if "TRU THUG" was disappeared, too). jglc | t | c 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know of any wrongdoing...this nomination was a little questionable consider the short span of time that has passed, but that isn't something we really punish. Everyking 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I would usually agree - the base policy being not to jump on new users - but looking at the comments left by "F White Dawg" and "TRU THUG" makes me fairly certain that their only purpose on wikipedia is negativity aimed at one particular user - BrowardBulldog. For a nice sample of his activities on Wikipedia, just look at the VfD entry for Wiked Wood. He has also been known to vandalise entries by placing an image of "White Dawg" next to a Bentley automobile in completely unrelated articles (such as Wealth and Rich). jglc | t | c 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The original nominator of this article, "User:Fuck White Dawg", was infinitely banned from Wikipedia yesterday for vandalism, establishing an offensive accout name, and violating the 3RR. Why is it that the history of this page begin with jglc's edits and not that of the nominator? Hall Monitor 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused: I don't think that it does. When I look at the History, it begins with UncleG's edits (x2), and then mine. jglc | t | c 16:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After looking more carefully at the edits, I think what happened was that the previous VfD on White Dawg was still active; therefore, when it was nom'd again, people began adding comments to the bottom of the previous discussion. UncleG archived the previous discussion and re-posted the pertinent (current) comments all at once. I made the first edit to the freshly reposted VfD discussion. jglc | t | c 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The edit history for User:TRU THUG, FCYTravis, Ashibaka, Everyking, and User:Fuck White Dawg should be merged back in. Hall Monitor 16:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree; Can you do it, though? I don't have the personal knowledge of how to do such a merge. Sorry, too inexperienced. jglc | t | c 16:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Yall just hatin on White Dawg cos he be flossin his ice and drivin in his Bentley. Bitches. -BrowardDon 02:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created less than an hour ago. --cesarb 02:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Likely a puppet of BrowardPlaya, with absolutely no name creativity. The people on both sides of this are being extremely obnoxious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would guess that the people on both sides are really on the same side: that is, they're just a bunch of puerile simpletons who want to use Wikipedia as their little internet playpen. The fact that one of them happens to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is probably the most truly unfortunate coincidence that I have ever encountered. jglc | t | c 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet this user nominated 8Ball & MJG for deletion as "non-notable" --newkai 10:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - VfD vandalism ("we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once.") Aecis 09:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I personally hate all rap music and I've never even heard of this guy before, but he has about three albums out and is obviously notable, so it's idiotic to delete it. Cyclone49 10:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's obviously notable. Yup, our man White Puppy looks gormless enough for me to believe that he's popular. -- Hoary 08:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just another attempt to take down a rapper's article because of personal dislike. Same is going on with 8Ball & MJG right now. newkai 09:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Let the artist stay. He don't have to be popular or even "good" to be on Wiki. --Anittas 18:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep in accordance with WP:MUSIC and mitigate VfD vandalism. Hall Monitor 21:29, 20 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.

While I respect Jerzy's concerns, most of the early voters did not cite the copyvio as the dominant reason for deletion. They argued that this was "vanity" which, however prejudicial you consider that word, is the normal shorthand used here for an article about a person which is either auto-biographical or unverifiable. I find that there is concensus to delete this from the main article space on that basis.

Noting that there is an associated user who appears to be the same person, I am going to offer to move this to his user page. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard J. Doscher

This VfD's validity was challenged in its first 15 hours per the claim of the article being a copyvio. No one now appears to support the copyvio claim. IMO

• the votes cast after time the copyvio was raised are valid,
• but the debate got less than a full day of unquestioned validity, and
• the most reasonable step is to restart its "clock" from the starting point, providing 5 uninterrupted calendar days of consideration.

--Jerzy·t 04:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nom & Del vote: This police chief of a population-55,000 city has no higher apparent distinction than that. User:Rdoscherca (R Doscher of Califonia?) has resolving copyvio concerns via EMail by stating he is both the author and subject. His baliwick is about one 5-thousandth of the US population, and where i come from, chiefs are considered professionals whose training must be up to snuff but who exercise less significant policy-making discretion than the elected officials on zoning commissions. If he's one of the few who use the position as a rung on a political ladder, he may later become notable, but he's not now. WP:BIO#People still alive seems to establish non-notability. --Jerzy~t 07:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I nom'ed this bio for n-n, and i'm a bit embarrassed to see "vanity" being tossed in, by the only three other del voters, as a reason. IMO we have here an honest misunderstanding (in fact, maybe only a boldly edited-in speculataion, rather than a disagreement) about notability here. We have here an apparently responsible professional, who realizes that stating the role of his personal leadership in innovation is part of the advancement of professionalism within his field. IMO there is such a difference in degree, between that and a student using WP for self assertion, as to constitute a difference in kind. We might be wise in general to consider including the word "vanity" (which presumes to determine a contributor's state of mind) a term of abuse worth mentioning as a form of personal attack. In any case, vanity does not mean "n-n and autobio", and i am heartily sorry that the word is that popular, and that closely associated with "del", in this VfD. --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. I'm torn. That's a pretty good article, but I'm not sure on notability. Scimitar 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge per Flcelloguy below. Scimitar 17:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity Proto 15:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Yuba City, create new section about police chief Flcelloguy 16:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Yuba City, IMHO the police chief is notable. Klonimus 23:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Yuba City, I agree with Flcelloguy. --Hoovernj 21:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from http://www.ycpd.org/index.cfm?navid=1023. I would have thought that something from the Yuba City Police Department would be public domain, but it says at the bottom of the page "© 2003 Yuba City Police Department, All Rights Reserved". Listed on Copyright problems. RickK 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Only works of the US federal government and the state of California are public domain by default. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Per the article's talk page, this question was raised in November, 2004. The submitter is the authorized copyright holder - the chief of police. I've removed the copyvio notice. --FCYTravis 00:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to the copyvio boilerplate. The chief of police may be the subject of the article, but he is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the city of Yuba City, and someone representing the city as an entity would have to tell us that they waive copyright. RickK 04:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

While RickK is technically correct, I would assume that Yuba City routinely authorizes officials to distribute biographies of themselves. The Chief is probably so authorized. Xoloz 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why would they need a copyright claim at the bottom of the page? RickK 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is boilerplate, probably to protect from mischevious use by less than admirable people (suspects angry at the sheriff, for example) The Sheriff wouldn't take copyright on a city site, but he can maintain practical control. These are the sorts of questions that motivated me to get my JD :) Xoloz 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, and nowhere close to meeting WP:BIO standards . Police chiefs of cities of this size are not generally notable. Merging wouldn't work well because there have probably been a number of police chiefs for Yuba City and there's nothing to indicate that the current chief is any more notable than any of his predecessors. Quale 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Information. Thank you for your feedback on the entry. The copywright on the Police Department website was requested by me in order to control distribution of material. The government code in CA views Police Chiefs differently from other governmental appointees in that the Chief is soley responsible for all aspects of the department until they resign, retire or are removed from office. While it's rare, the PD holds the copywrite for the website and its contents, much the same as the Los Angeles Police Department retains control over various use of its name and/or symbols. Such authority is vested in the chief. The Yuba City Police Department is recognized as one of the most technologically advanced agencies of its size in the U.S. We often host visitors from agencies throughout the U.S. and abroad. We are the only municipal police agency in the nation to have gained clearance from the U.S. National Security Agency to act as an area hub for the receipt and dissemination of classified Homeland Security data. While listing in Wikipedia assists significantly in allowing a resource for interested parties to gain detailed background data prior to interviews on techknology and/or Homeland Security topics, I am very willing to be guided by your decisions. If the article is delated, I appreciate the venue as it has helped our agency since its initial posting. Thank you for allowing me to clarify some details. Rdoscherca 02:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Especially since Xoloz's "probably" is not good enuf, this is a valuable clarification, answering Rick's "why would they need a copyright claim...?" To flesh it out slightly, "in order to control distribution of material" refers in part to what is quite explicit in the statute:
    • the copyright protections everyone knows about apply (contrary to popular belief) even without any copyright notice.
    • the right to have your lawyers paid by the copyright violator when you sue the violator exists only when there is a copyright notice.

    The YCPD lost virtually all its copyright protection (with respect to the bio only) when the chief put the bio under GDFL by his submission, since GDFL gives such broad permission. IMO the mayor or council, and the city attorney, would at most grumble about whether other city officials might infer an unwisely broader precedent from this pretty special case.

    The chief's language about "copywright ... requested" is a little confusing, but i assume he is refering to asserting (or legally, giving notice of) the copyright.

  --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge in to Yuba City. Although I understand RickK's concern, the copyright notice at the bottom of the source page says copyright Yuba City Police Department, not copyright Yuba City. As the Chief of Police, I would expect him to be able to speak for the department. --Unfocused 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Now on CopyVio
Those who are following this page without following the article have been left without what would seem to be the required notice that the VfD notice has been removed there, and a CopyVio notice put in its place. While my judgement is that the Chief's claim to exercise the copyright holder's power to put this text under VfD should be assumed valid in the absence of contrary evidence that has not been offered, there is IMO no reason not to let this play out on the Copyright problems page; AFAIK it will just come back here in due time, if Rick turns out to be mistaken.
--Jerzy·t 07:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio reverted

User:Rdoscherca has convinced me that he is the subject of the article and also the Yuba City PD's webmaster. Therefore he seems to be of sufficient authority to release the article and the image to the GFDL, and I have reverted the copyvio boilerplate. RickK 04:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Yuba City. Per the nominator, I'd like to re-emphasize that the chief should not be accused of "vanity." He's only doing his job as a professional. Basis for delete, if there is one, should be non-encyclopedic. Xoloz 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Good bredth of info.Tjackson 03:17, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristocrat (company)

I'm an Australian, and would usually defend anything written about the great land down under, but this is just plain pointless. Harro5 07:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Public company in Australia of some significance and a world leader in gaming technology. Capitalistroadster 08:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- and expand. Notable manufacturer of gaming machines in Australia. - Longhair | Talk 14:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable Australian public company. Keep and expand.--Takver 14:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It's one of the world's biggest poker machine manufacturers, and one of Australia's biggest indigenously-owned high-tech manufacturers, part of Australia's long tradition in inventing ways to gamble one's money away... --Robert Merkel 15:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Cyberjunkie 05:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a major company in its industry. Vegaswikian 05:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as mentioned above major Australian company in gambling industry--AYArktos 11:41, 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. CDC (talk) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Aaron Veloso of Windsor / HRH The Duke of Windsor

Credibility gap. The Duchy of Windsor may be technically vacant, but a grant of this sort would have been world-famous. Vanity (and petit treason) -- throttle Simon Cursitor 07:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• hang, draw and quarter and 'off with his head' --Doc (t) 08:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If he's in line to the throne, I'm a banana. Average Earthman 09:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity prank. Megan1967 11:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with the other bananas on this vote. This is a noxious prank, one of a run of "I'm the king in exile" articles we've had lately on VfD. Bring back the rack. Geogre 14:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ... to the gallows! Proto 15:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• The Red Queen was correct: "Off with 'is 'ead!" Unverifiable, hoax. Barno 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be the Queen of 'Earts. PlatypeanArchcow 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed. James F. (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Invalid assumption of a royal title is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom. RickK 22:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. I doubt if this child was even at the ceremony mentioned. A grant of a formerly-royal dukedom would not confer any succession rights, by the bye. [ -- AlexTiefling 23:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ]
• Delete vanity and hoax. - Etacar11 23:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to work for a newspaper and this reminds me of a guy who'd phone me every couple days claiming to be the Prime Minister of Canada who insisted there was a criminal conspiracy against him dating back to the 1950s and masterminded by Bill Clinton. 23skidoo 05:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Depose - another would-be-pretender and insignificant one at that - Skysmith 09:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete* As above, if the Queen had given the Duchy of Windsor to a child we would know about it! Also the syle of "Prince" and "HRH" are only granted to the children of the monarch and the children of the sons of monarchs. Therefore unless he is an illigitimate love child of either the Queen, or Princes Charles, Andrew, or Edward, then he is talking rubbish! - Gaylord 18:03, 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 already deleted. CDC (talk) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collin obremski

Another gentleman with a lower-cased surname. Also with little or nothing other than vanity in his entry. Delete Simon Cursitor 08:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, which is what I would have listed it for. --Kiand 08:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 11:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense - valid speedy delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:00, 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. CDC (talk) 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahalo

There's already an entry on Wiktionary, and the bit on confusion between "thank you" and "trash" notwithstanding, there's not much that you can really expand on this one. Delete. --KeithH 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 11:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already in Wiktionary --Hoovernj 21:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into hello Falphin 14:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 11:05, 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 move/redirect (already done). CDC (talk) 21:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian airports

A new article has been created, by the name of List of airports in Norway. This new article:
1) has the standard namespace (see List of airports)
2) is better structured, and more extensive
There is no need for two articles on the same subject. List of Norwegian airports contains no information missing on List of airports in Norway, so no merge will be necessary, it should simply be made into a redirect. Eixo 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, be bold and redirect it then. VFD is only for articles that need to be completely deleted, there's no need to bring this here. sjorford →•← 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Actually I think the best procedure would be to first move the article, and then edit it. The easiest thing to do now is simply to redirect to List of airports in Norway. Sjakkalle 12:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think I jumped the gun slightly here - yes, it would have been better to move the existing article to the new location rather than start a new article. Oh well, whatever. sjorford →•← 16:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Eixo, next time, be bold, redirect, and then consider posting on Redirects for Deletion, not here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to have already been redirected... — RJH 15:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have indeed tried to redirect it - twice, but it is recreated every time. I have tried to communicate with the person who does this (User:Samuelsen), but without getting any response. That is why I'm posting it here, and doing this seems to have moved him into action. Eixo 17:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Eixo, just so you know, you could have listed this on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles instead of here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, I'll keep that in mind. The problem seems to have been resolved peacefully, but thank you all for your input. Eixo 07:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Leigh

probable nonsense - no Google hits [6] AYArktos 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity page. Tannin 09:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not useless and not unaccomplished, but also not of encyclopedic notability at present. Geogre 14:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~leif ☺ _(talk) 22:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie 05:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probably vanity. Merge any verifiable information into the The Border Mail article. --Takver 11:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sertunc

Appears to be the etymology of someone's name. --W(t) 08:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, genealogy. Megan1967 11:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and etymology goes to Wiktionary. Geogre 14:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another non-notable genealogy article. --Hoovernj 21:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Same content as at User:Sertunc. The etymology is consistent, although Wiktionary leads me to believe that the given name is from Kurdish. The user has also given us soundeclipse. Wiktionary thanks you for Sertunç and Akdoğu. Uncle G 22:13, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably meets WP:CSD criteria. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 22:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vietnamese given names

As explained on its talk page, Is this a joke? Many of these "names" are rarely used as names nor are they real Vietnamese words. The pronunciation for those that are names are often wrong. In an effort to use Vietnamese spellings, the author used dubious characters that are never used in Vietnamese. This is so hopelessly inaccurate ... A Vietnamese Wikipedia sysop.

• Therefore, I feel it appropriate to delete this as nonsense. Radiant_* 08:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 11:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it's real it should be in Wiktionary because it has only etymological info on the names. Mgm|^(talk) 18:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonencyclopedic. --Angr/탉 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Fix, there are many other happily extant lists of names on Wikipedia. See Category:Names by culture. It could be encyclopedic if done right. - Gilgamesh 00:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Albury, New South Wales. — Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borella Road

While the information is facturally accurate and verifiable, it is trivial and adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge. If one travels along Borella Road as I have, one will observe takeaways, the hospital, the airport, but so what - not notable: Delete. AYArktos 09:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

the road, contrary to the description is not the 2nd most major road in Albury. It is already mentioned in the article about Albert Chalmers Borella VC after whom the road was named. If one was going to augment the Albury article with descriptions of roads there would be at least half a dozen roads or streets mentioned before Borella Road.--AYArktos 09:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Describing Albury, New South Wales requires describing its major roads. Merge with that or keep. Kappa 09:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Radiant_* 10:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: First, it's not going to prove to be a unique name. Second, it's a stranded detail (merge would be fine). Third, the road needs a character to be described at all; being a trafficked piece of asphalt is not sufficient. Fourth, the road would need to be known outside of its city to be sought. Geogre 14:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not worth an article on it's own, could be a disamb problem. Merge into Albury, New South Wales and remove trivial stuff on celebs. It doesn't make a road any more important. Mgm|^(talk) 18:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Quale 00:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge, and if necessary disambiguate the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Albury, New South Wales. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Vegaswikian 05:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Albury, New South Wales and disambiguate the redirect later if needed, per SPUI. Sjakkalle 07:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Albury, New South Wales. I'm all for having articles on prominent streets, but I'd like to see a better claim to notability. Ambi 11:37, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qazi Mohammad Misbahuddin Ahmed

Vanity. --W(t) 09:32, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Also, its redirect Qazi Ahmed (which was a duplication of the article created after the first one was VfDed) --W(t) 10:40, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:09, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven K. C. Poh

This appears to be more an online CV than an encyclopedia article. Looks like autobiography / advertising / self-promotion. -- The Anome 09:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Autobiography? Make that autohagiography. Delete. -- Hoary 09:36, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a CV in narrative form. The guy's probably a good hire, but so am I. Geogre 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:33, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gbengene

Vanity. --W(t) 10:07, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He isn't even the son of Sonny Abacha who can get me $200 million, if I just give him my bank information. (Vanity article from a student.) Geogre 14:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:35, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Site safe

• Delete Generic piece-of-software description. No evidence of a claim to notability. --W(t) 10:12, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Too generic. --Hoovernj 21:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a software directory, no other reason given for inclusion. Google test generates a lot of false positives as "site safe" crops up a lot in common sentence structures. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, spam. Should be vSd Joey.dale 03:16, 31 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 all. CDC (talk) 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Half-decent articles, Wikipedia:Half-decent classification and Wikipedia:Half-decent article candidates

The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal. Radiant_* 10:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the point at present. The only thing that comes to mind is a space for articles that would be useful for Wikipedia 1.0 but are not quite up to standard. However, I think the FAC and collaboration mechanisms would be better suited to these (although I'm not active in either, so I might be wrong). My first preference is to archive, but I'll vote delete as I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a consensus on either option. Thryduulf 11:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a community. Try livejournal instead. 203.26.206.129 19:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these half-decent ideas, POV, unverifiable, no consensus on Village pump or other policy discussion pages. Barno 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tagging about 400,000 articles as half-decent doesn't really say anything about their quality. Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Policy gets archived, not deleted. But there's no evidence that this was mentioned, much less discussed, anywhere before its inception. Besides, is Wikipedia really going to proudly label an article 'half-decent'? That's publicity I think we could do without. --InShaneee 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• This is just dumb. Delete to take one small step towards cleaning up the giant mess that is the Wikipedia namespace. Also the related junk:
  • Wikipedia:Half-decent classification
  • Template:Hac
  • Template:Ha
  • Template:Hc-list
  • Template:Hc-ref

-- Cyrius|✎ 23:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Added the lot of them. Radiant_* 09:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's not make things too complicated. Sjakkalle 07:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all those pointed out by Cyrius. Also delete the shortcuts WP:HAC and WP:HA, plus Category:Half-decent article candidates. the wub (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This idea isn't half-decent. -- Joolz 21:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NOOB -- Personally, I'd like to see them go, but this is not within the purview of VfD. Comments on the failed nomination of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion indicated clear concensus that VfD is not an appropriate place to discuss the deletion of Wikipedia-namespace pages. Those arguments are equally valid here. This nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 14:26, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Actually the remit for VfD was orginally anything on WP. Since the Templates, Images, Categories etc have been spun off those deletion tools have defined remits. The consensus on the deletion debate you give was actually that the place to discuss changes to TfD, including getting rid of it already, is TfD. The Wikipedia: namespace is within the remit of VfD as it is not within the remit of any other deletion tool. Thryduulf 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Xiong, you are mistaken. Read VFD policy. Radiant_* 15:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Phil Welch 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Surely you could call the thousands of articles that are not stubs and not Fantastic half decent. No point really. --bjwebb 09:35, 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. CDC (talk) 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Throw

Failed speedy candidate. <1000 Google hits for 'Golden Throw', none relevant to this article. Apparently the 'premier sport' in the area, which you would expect to leave a lot of media references on the web. Probably completely fake, delete Kiand 10:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- as is, it is incomprehensible what the 'sport' involves. Could be dwarf-throwing, could be darts, could be upchucking. --Simon Cursitor 10:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. SWAdair | Talk 10:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost certainly nonsense. No google results at all when searching for golden throw and Albury. As a frequent visitor to Albury with family living there, I find it surprising that the sport could be notable and I have not heard of it.--AYArktos 11:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified. No relevant Google hits. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified, no references, lack of detail.--Takver 11:08, 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 wikisource (done http://wikisource.org/wiki/Epitaph_to_a_Dog). Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epitaph to a dog

Does wikisource want this? By Byron, apparently. --W(t) 10:27, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Transwiki to source. Yeah, they do this. While we're at it, I'll contribute Pope's Epigram on the collar of the King's dog: "I am his majesty's dog at Kew/ Pray, tell me sir, whose dog are you?" Geogre 12:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• See Wikisource:Author:George Gordon, Lord Byron. Uncle G 20:26, 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 REDIRECT to Symbionese Liberation Army — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Little

Russell Little is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately dealt with on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. Megan1967 11:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Megan1967. — RJH 15:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Why clog up VfD with stuff this easy? A2Kafir 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable US terrorist as part of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Was one of the prisoners intended to be swapped for Patty Hearst. Capitalistroadster 20:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until such time as there's enough material to support a separate article. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. If there really isn't anything else that can be said about this person (which seems unlikely) perhaps this one could be redirected, but it seems more likely that additional information will be added if we keep this stub for now. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 00:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect and delete page content. There's nothing to expand to. The entirity of his encyclopedic life is already covered on SLA. Compare to the Yoshimora page which is encyclopedic: Yoshimora was involved in other American terrorist organisations, and is thus notable in and of herself. Again, there's nowhere to expand to with Little.Fifelfoo 00:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to expand. Notable terrorist, so his background is encyclopedic. Kappa 22:02, 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. CDC (talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hasan Zuberi

I don't think we need articles on the board members of all mensa chapters. --W(t) 10:45, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete. I wouldn't have the foggiest clue who runs Mensa in my country, and I'm sure it's not an influential post in Pakistan either. Average Earthman 12:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If he is actually important to Mensa then put something about him in the Mensa page. No need to redirect though.Bgeer 15:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. - Etacar11 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:07, 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 keep.

The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this two-line stub after almost 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Kilgore

James Kilgore is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The SLA involvement makes hom notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Zzyzx. RickK 22:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. I don't see what is gained by removing this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• delete page content and redirect. Not encyclopedic outside of SLA involvement, SLA involvement is adequately covered on SLA page.Fifelfoo 00:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Gazpacho 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Falphin 14:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me to have remembered the name, and wondered who exactly he was -- a prime purpose Wikipedia serves. Xoloz 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep, notable. Should be allowed to expand and include his pre-terrorist background. Kappa 22:03, 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 keep.

The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only four of the 11 voters argued to "keep as is". Many argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bortin

Michael Bortin is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Hearst kidnapping was one of the most famous crimes of the 20th century. Capitalistroadster 20:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Zzyzx. RickK 22:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. I don't see what is gained by removing this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Gazpacho 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• redirect and delete. Content replication of SLA. Not encyclopedic when disconnected from SLA. Fifelfoo 04:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and delete, what's the point of that?
• Keep. Notable figure. Sjakkalle 07:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, merging is a bad idea. Kappa 22:04, 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 keep.

The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only 5 of the 12 voters argued to "keep as is". Many others argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Soliah

Steven Soliah is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per above. Capitalistroadster 20:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with Symbionese Liberation Army --Hoovernj 21:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Zzyzx. RickK 22:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. I don't see how wikipedia would be improved by merging these articles. It certainly isn't harmed by keeping them. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete page content and redirect. Page content already merged into SLA. Soliah is non notable outside of his involvement in the SLA and is fully covered by the SLA article. Fifelfoo 23:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Gazpacho 01:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• This already been merged? I would have preferred bios on notable people to be separate articles. I support that this be kept, and that the info about the person in the SLA article be removed. Sjakkalle 07:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak KeepFalphin 14:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, merging bios of notable people is pointless. Kappa 22:06, 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 keep.

The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this three-line stub after 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Content has not been deleted because it can be recovered from page history by any future reader/editor. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willie Wolfe

Willie Wolf is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Nomination typo fixed. Abstain. Radiant_* 11:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

keep A biography was written about him: An American Journey: the Short Life of Willy Wolfe, by Max Eastman and published by Simon and Schuster in 1979. Ydorb 14:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Another merge candidate, or so it seems. I'm not going to vote on the entire dozen now. Radiant_* 15:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable criminal with biography. Capitalistroadster 20:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a red link? I'm not going to vote on every one of these, but I do hereby declare my vote of merge and redirect for all of them. RickK 22:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough. Doing a "merge and delete" is always a loss, because we lose edit histories. "Merge and redirect" is almost as bad. In this case it is especially not adequate to merge, because some of these articles contain explicit person metadata (eg, the birth/death categories). Plus, the SLA article doesn't need this much info about each of it's members, when the info is already well represented in these articles. I don't see how wikipedia would be improved by merging these articles. It certainly isn't harmed by keeping them. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect and delete page content. Wolfe is non-encyclopedic outside of his SLA involvement. Having a biography published doesn't make one encyclopedic, and the biography can be adequately linked to via the ISBN system on the SLA page.Fifelfoo 00:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Gazpacho 01:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate per Leif. Kappa 22:07, 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 keep.

The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were about evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one was not expanded during most of its 3 years as an article and that the recent expansion consisted of the addition of trivia which I would not anticipate to survive the normal edit process), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded with relevant and verifiable information to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Soltysik

Patricia Soltysik is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

keep or at least merge, it contains information not on the SLA page Ydorb 14:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. Capitalistroadster 20:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Doing a "merge and delete" is always a loss, because we lose edit histories. "Merge and redirect" is almost as bad. In this case it is especially not adequate to merge, because some of these articles contain explicit person metadata (eg, the birth/death categories). Plus, the SLA article doesn't need this much info about each of it's members, when the info is already well represented in these articles. I don't see how wikipedia would be improved by merging these articles. It certainly isn't harmed by keeping them. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect and delete page content. Soltysik is unencyclopedic outside her involvement in the SLA, her involvement in the SLA is fully covered on the SLA page. loss on non-encyclopedic content isn't a loss to wikipedia.Fifelfoo 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: notable (notorious), verifiable, and encyclopedic — Osama bin Laden is unencyclopedic outside his terrorist activities ➥the Epopt 00:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Osama is a very public propagandist for al-Qaeda. The members of the SLA concealed their identity. Gazpacho 01:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable figure. Sjakkalle 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; what leif said. --Theaterfreak64 02:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge. How are we supposed to figure out why she became a terrorist if we don't know her background?Kappa 21:51, 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 keep. CDC (talk) 21:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Go (verb)

Dicdef + etymology = transwiki. Dicdef + already in Wiktionary = delete. Radiant_* 11:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Completely disagree. The complexity of this verb is such that its etymology an important phenomenon of historical linguistics. This article complements and supports others which together give a full overview of the history not just of individual words (etymology) but of the whole verbal system in the Germanic languages. See the article Germanic verb, which is a hub linking this group together. This article does need some work - a recent comment on the talk page complains about its style, and I feel it should be expanded to cover the closely related forms in other Germanic languages (German is mentioned). But it is certainly important. --Doric Loon 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I fully agree that it's important. I just feel it's more appropriate in a dictionary. Radiant_* 11:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be far more information here than you would get in a dictionary and it doesn't seem like it's the kind of information that would get put in a dictionary. --JiFish 12:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep; this has already shown its potential to be encyclopedic. Brighterorange 13:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This contains extended discussion in complete sentences. It goes well beyond the sort of information you'd find in a dictionary. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • extended discussion in complete sentences — If your argument is based upon the thinking that dictionaries are required to speak in telegraphese and so cannot contain articles with complete sentences, then it is ill-founded, since you are thinking of paper dictionaries. Not all dictionaries are paper. Wiktionary is not paper, for one. Uncle G 14:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I oppose "dictionary definition" as grounds for deletion as a matter of course; on its own, all this does is raise needless controversy about valid stubs that begin at the beginning. Since that beginning, the concept has metastasized to articles that are "about a word." This is not a valid reason for deletion; ultimately every article in a written language is "about a word." The original "dictionary definition" ground was predicated on the notion that an article had no chance to ever become anything more than a list of synonyms; in which "dicdef" would be better stated as "unencyclopedic," and there are a host of math articles that ought to be deleted then, since they too contain naught but definition and tautology, and are far less intelligible than this. The instant article obviously goes far beyond that. Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Excellent article. Revolución 19:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Brilliant article. Why was this considered to delete? Internodeuser 19:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and merge with existing Wiktionary article. This is a brilliant article but better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 20:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a wonderful article. --Hoovernj 21:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please becase it really is a wonderful article so why erase it Yuckfoo 22:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep we shouldn't keep every verb in wikipedia, but I think one of the three most important verbs qualifies... --Arcadian 00:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up (I've already added the {{cleanup}} tag and I'll work on it when I get the chance). It goes into much more detail about the etymology than would be feasible or desirable at Wiktionary, and there are a lot of pages here that link to it. --Angr/탉 07:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good article. JamesBurns 11:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:47, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Keep -Lethe | Talk 09:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Highly informative and beyond anything to be found in a normal dictionary William Avery 21:13, 31 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 CDC (talk) 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eh

Dicdef, already in wiktionary. It is rather lengthy but it really only deals with the usage of this oft-Canadian interjection. Not encyclopedic, eh? Radiant_* 11:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article should be turned into a more encyclopedia-style entry. If consensus is to delete, redirect → Canadian slang. —Markaci 2005-05-25 T 17:27 Z
• Keep, though the article is rather messy right now. Also, there are other uses of eh that should be noted (for example, Italian usage); the article should be cleaned up and expanded. Mindmatrix 18:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Revolución 19:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important aspect of a national stereotype, recurs over and over in popular culture. Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I'd normally suggesting chucking this type of thing at Wiktionary, it really does go into detail on its uses, an can easily be expanded to me more international. --InShaneee 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and yes, InShaneee, I've just expanded it a little to be more international! :) Grutness...wha? 22:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More than just a dictionary entry. siafu 22:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep goatse has spoken "Eh" Klonimus 23:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A classic stereotype of Canadian culture. Just like an article on "like" or "d'oh". Wiwaxia 12:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And of New Zealand culture, too!
• Keep. - Lucky13pjn 20:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful info, not just on the Canadian stereotype. BrainyBabe 16:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:55, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck

For the previous VFD discussion of this article, see Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck.

While I did find it rather funny, I also found it an arbitrary and unencyclopedic list. Radiant_* 11:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 11:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encylopedic list. utcursch | talk 12:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An extremely long and unmaintainable list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Scimitar 16:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN for the title alone. Oh, and for the fact that someone has THAT much free time. --InShaneee 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been kept before at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film, and is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Unusual articles. —Xezbeth 16:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's mildly amusing and a useful reference. Zerbey 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep unless there's a problem with the swear words, there's nothing wrong with it, and its quite useful. 203.26.206.129 19:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Revolución 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no reason to deleted this - SimonP 22:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and give Nil by Mouth the Rory Award for The Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word 'Fuck' In A Serious Screenplay. the wub (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no more unmaintainable than many other lists currently in Wikipedia (List of songs whose title includes geographical names, anyone?) - and sure, we're not going to get all of the movies that use the word fuck in this list, but it can still be expanded into a worthwhile list. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep again please just like last time Yuckfoo 22:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Klonimus 23:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's certainly not arbitrary, it's completely objective! It's also encyclopedic and informative. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unusual article, useful and interesting. Kappa 23:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no different from any other good list. Qwghlm 00:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unusual. Thomas Buckwalter 00:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This actually has some valid trivia worthiness and is the type of thing that you might have found in the Book of Lists years ago. You have to admire someone who actually spent the time to count all these. However, although it generates a chuckle, I'd recommend changing the phrase "fucks/minute" to something that's less likely to be misinterpreted! ;-) 23skidoo 05:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable and useless list. --Angr/탉 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How in the heck can you call this unverifiable? This is one of the easiest to verify lists on the 'pedia... watch the movies and count. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now this is a good piece of reference! Entertaining and well-researched! Wiwaxia 12:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This may turn out to be usefull to at least oen person in the future Karol 12:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete -- I am afraid it is arbitrary and unmaintainable (see biggest omission below. Xoloz 19:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Somebody forgot the Andrew Dice Clay "classic" Ford Fairlane! Xoloz 19:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable and unmaintainable. JamesBurns 11:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Methinks you don't know the meaning of the word "unverifiable". Ketsuban (is better than you) 23:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. — Phil Welch 06:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- As they say on Meta, "If it's notable and has had an impact on a few thousand people, it's probably in our encyclopedia's domain. That's not to say we lack mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta... It's just we like to have a little bit of fun at the end of the day." Almafeta 07:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 00:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedic. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:58, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one thing that makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. -- Toytoy 02:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Culturally relevant if perpetually incomplete list Jtkiefer 02:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wierd, silly, but quite verifiable, and links are to stuff that's already deemed encyclopedic enough, so going to have to keep it. Kim Bruning 02:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Many people seem to confuse "unmaintainable" with "I wouldn't want to maintain it". OTOH, someone should probably actually try to verify some of these counts and report their findings on the talk page. - dcljr (talk) 09:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trivial, but amusing and even a bit useful. --Calton | Talk 11:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful and unusual resource. --KharBevNor 03:18, 8 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty most common words in English and Twenty most common words in Finnish

Unsurprisingly, this contains such marvels as "the, it, that, I". But it's really an arbitrary and pointless list. No sources are cited, and the Finnish one isn't even complete. Radiant_* 11:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Proto 15:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — this would probably only be interesting in other context, such as is the case for letter frequencies and ETAOIN SHRDLU. — RJH 15:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or Merge into the English language article. Zerbey 18:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate language article if sources are cited. Otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 18:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless its got references, what's the point? And is it realy encyclopaedic to have a top 20 list? 203.26.206.129 19:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• No sources or context were provided by Eequor, and without both these data are meaningless. What was the sample size? What was the cultural bias in the sample? Where was the sample for spoken frequencies taken from? What variety of English do the English statistics apply to: Indian English, United States English, Hawaiian English, Hiberno-English, ...? Uncle G 20:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Is this a delete vote or a comment? --Angr/탉 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's actually several questions. Maybe Eequor will drop by. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
      • I suspect it mainly reflects American and British English. Other varieties would be much more difficult to find information about. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
        • "suspect"? You wrote the articles. Can you not tell us where you got your data from? Uncle G 09:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
          • Well, it's been a while; I don't remember. There are a fair number of online sources which could be found through some digging in Google and which would match this list almost exactly aside from a transposition or two. Such lists could be expected to describe only American and British English unless otherwise noted. To that extent, the English article accurately reflects those dialects. I don't have access to a definitive source on frequency analysis; hopefully somebody else might know of one. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge amonst themselves (and if other will be created merge them) into List of most common words by language. And Clean up of course.
• Delete per 203.26.206.129 and Uncle G. --Angr/탉 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and add references, sources, and commentary on frequency analysis. I was going to initially suggest a Merge to Frequency analysis, as this is where the topic is of most value, but that article is already quite long, and could potentially get even longer, as it is an expansive subject. The "twenty" most common words may be a bit of an arbitrary descision, with regard to crytography. I'd like to get User:CryptoDerk's opinion on this. func(talk) 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons given above--Sophitus 09:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, possible merge. This information is good to know! — Phil Welch 06:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that you don't know what dialects the lists apply to, what samples were used, or where the information came from in the first place (since the person who originally wrote the article cannot find a source), what, exactly, is it that you think you actually know from reading these articles? Uncle G 09:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Keep, this is accurate and noteworthy information that belongs somewhere in the wiki. It would be nice to have solid references, but I don't know where to find a proper source — this is not particularly easy information to find. Hopefully the article can be expanded as per func's suggestions, and other similar lists compiled for other languages. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "accurate"? How do you know that it's accurate if you cannot find a source? Why can you not cite the source that you got the data from when you actually wrote the articles? Did you perform original research to compile the list? Uncle G 09:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Merge This article should be merged with english Joey.dale 03:20, 31 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; however, since Camilla Hall didn't have a VfD tag, it will be renominated. --cesarb 02:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camilla Hall, Angela Atwood, Donald DeFreeze and Nancy Ling Perry

They are not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, so merge them. That doesn't require a VFD vote, btw, just be bold. Radiant_* 14:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge notable kooky terrorists. Klonimus 23:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Angela Atwood. The others have decently standalone biographies, and are reasonably notable criminals. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Doing a "merge and delete" is always a loss, because we lose edit histories. "Merge and redirect" is almost as bad. In this case it is especially not adequate to merge, because some of these articles contain explicit person metadata (eg, the birth/death categories). Plus, the SLA article doesn't need this much info about each of it's members, when the info is already well represented in these articles. I don't see how wikipedia would be improved by merging these articles. It certainly isn't harmed by keeping them. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per other SLA members. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• My first reaction was to merge in the SLA article, but after looking at it again, I think Merge into one article on all of the members. Vegaswikian 05:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as seperate articles. The majority of the individual articles are about their subjects personally, not just about their SLA membership. (The Atwood stub is an exception but should be expanded rather than deleted.) MK2 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable individuals. Merge is acceptable, but I think bios should have separate articles. Sjakkalle 06:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep all of these please Yuckfoo 19:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep decent, self-contained articles, reasonable length, noteworthy subjects Fg2 23:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all to Symbionese Liberation Army. JamesBurns 11:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. These people were all famous in the mid-1970s; Patty Hearst and the SLA is one of the most interesting and least well-understood popular episodes in history. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
• Keep per Fg2, merging would be inconvenient for both merger and users Kappa 21:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all of the articles. Bio stubs can be expanded. Information on the life of the members of the SLA before they joined the SLA has historical importance. These people have enough bio to warrant individual biographies. Share_Bear

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 02:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Union Cab

Local cab company, not notable. --W(t) 11:26, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete advert - JiFish 13:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Bad-ad. Besides, I called them half an hour ago, and they still haven't come. Geogre 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Mindmatrix 18:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Since I live in Madison, Wisconsin I could easily expand this article with the over 25 year history Union Cab, some details about their dual-fuel fleet (gasoline and propane), the fact that the company is employee owned including some details how that came about, contrasts with their competitors (Badger and Madison Taxi), details about their advertizing, how their cab drivers smoke in the cabs (contrary to local ordinance and company policy), and even what color their cabs are. Of course that would make it just like the extremely rare somewhat better secondary school articles but still not notable, and I would have to vote Delete. If anyone is interested in the history of the company and how it came to be worker-owned (union and labor history type stuff in the 1970s), see Union Cab: The First 20 Years. It's pretty good. Quale 23:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable ad. The comment here is better than the article. This user has been spamming everywhere. Wikibofh 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete spam

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weak defensive strategy criterion

This standalone article is practically a stub, original research, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure how to vote on this one. There's a number of such voting strategy pages, all cross-linked with each other. So which are notable and which not? I have no idea. Sorry. :-) — RJH 15:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is not that obscure. Also, Steve Eppley has defined criteria with the same purpose, just different names. If WDSC and SDSC are deleted, there won't be any articles for these concepts. KVenzke 15:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

RSpeer, how do you know whether Mike added this? Does it make a difference who added it? Does this page need to be rewritten so as to not quote electionmethods.org directly? And by the way, it seems that a political party is advocating MCA. KVenzke 20:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Barno's suggestion that an election method is not notable until there has been an attempt to adopt it. Voting theory is not all about advocacy. KVenzke 21:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It looks like this VfD is going to fail for the same reason as Majority Choice Approval: it's crosslinked to a bunch of other things, people say, therefore it should be included. But it's original research, and Mike put those crosslinks there himself, so that doesn't make it any less original research. RSpeer 17:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid alternative strategy. 203.26.206.129 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge all these cross-linked stubs into a single article. Original research, no indication of notability provided. For a minute I thought this was (another) return of Iasson. Many political parties advocate many unusual voting methods, usually because they can't win under the existing systems; that doesn't confer notability upon the proposed system, unless there is a constitutional change or at least a referendum garnering nationwide or international attention. Barno 20:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but note it as non peer-reviewed criteria. Request for Barno: Please list the "many political parties" who "advocate many unusual voting methods, usually because they can't win under the existing systems". Then please demonstrate that this is their motive. If you cannot, then please retract your statement as an offhand opinion. --Fahrenheit451 22:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. The pages that are crosslinked to this page are all about other terms invented by Mike Ossipoff. I will change to keep if someone can actually provide a source that uses any of these techniques. --bainer (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Falphin 15:00, 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. Deathphoenix 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strong defensive strategy criterion

This standalone article is original research, excessively technical, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The term is not that obscure. Also, Steve Eppley has defined criteria with the same purpose, just different names. If WDSC and SDSC are deleted, there won't be any articles for these concepts. The article can be made less technical. KVenzke 15:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and also merge voting for strong and weak, since its likely they'll get the same votes for both. 203.26.206.129 19:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with KVenzke Falphin 14:57, 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 --cesarb 00:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey of Tithing of Headley

If I have figured this out correctly it is a list of people who have tithed in Headley. As this is probably primary source material it is probably not a copyvio, even though it is a replica of this. If this is a copyvio however, delete as a copyvio, if this is not a copyvio either transwiki to Wikisource or delete. I have serious trouble figuring out a possible use for this at Wikisource, so I doubt that a transwiki is really needed. Sjakkalle 12:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. Probably not useful to transwiki. Barno 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication as to whether this is a current book or just a copy of the original record. If it's current, it's a violation of Crown Copyright. If not, it's not an encyclopedia article. RickK 22:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 01:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance (book 3)

Wikipedia is not a crystall-ball. Not even the title is known yet. delete - JiFish 12:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not even much in the way of predictions. RickK 22:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it is released and someone can write a decent article about it. Sonic Mew 22:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now, not a crystal ball, predictions, etc. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation. Megan1967 05:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Hermione1980 00:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Not required for the time being. Once the title has been established, a page will be created for it. Aznph8playa 21:35, 8 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 - deleted - SimonP 21:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inga-Shaba Electrical Transmission Line Project

A lengthy bit of original research of some sort. Might maybe belong on WikiSource. Kelly Martin 12:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like copyvio. Google cache is not working for me right now, but it was apparently at http://membres.tripod.fr/transnational/miller.htm (don't bother following the link). Rl 19:27, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Stub, possibly non-notable Whig 13:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, main teacher of a notable Buddhist group. Martg76 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more than 3,000 hits on Google. Revolución 19:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  If the subject is notable, then it ought to contain more than the person's name and date/place of birth. This is hardly an encyclopedic article at present, anyhow. Whig 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability. RickK 22:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I dug up some information about him and added what I could to the article. He seems to be very important where Dzogchen is concerned. SirGeneral 23:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After Sir Gerneral's edit, it seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 05:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• If all of those books were published then it's a clear Keep. Vegaswikian 06:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable on the basis of his writings, at least. Xoloz 19:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability. JamesBurns 11:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Sir General's article establishes notability. Kappa 21:47, 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 --cesarb 01:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gantthead

The term is a neologism, and the page is clearly an advertisement for a website. Kelly Martin 13:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Currently an advertisement. However, if someone else provides some notable content on this company, backed by third party sources, I'll consider changing my vote. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - spam and neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:53, 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 speedied. —Xezbeth 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatman(villain)

Incomplete VfD nomination, couldn't find the source article. Radiant_* 14:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I tried to nominate it, but it *vanished* during nomination. Possibly speedied outwith my ... [It wasn't speedy-marked when i got there !!!] Sorry --Simon Cursitor 17:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, no problem. It means you were right about wanting it deleted. Radiant_* 09:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul McGuire

Hoax created by a student of Trinity College, Dublin. Or am I missing something? Delete. Lupo 13:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• no, this is just plain silly - delete --Doc (?) 14:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot verify this. No relevant Google hits. Currently, the last two sentences of this article seem silly. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. - Etacar11 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:59, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 21:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fierce Deity's Mask

Not notable enough to deserve its own page. Has adequate information on the Majora's Mask page, and I personally doubt anyone would search for Fierce Deity's Mask, so no reason to merge or redirect. -- A Link to the Past 14:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Probably true, but we have oodles of unlikely redirects (GANNON-BANNED to name one), and merge/redir is easier than VfD :) Merge or delete. Radiant_* 14:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Revolución 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (if there's anything mergeworthy) as above, as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 21:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable fan cruft. Megan1967 05:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters. Sjakkalle 06:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the Fierce Diety's Mask is actually an item, but the character one becomes by putting on the mask is called "Oni Link" (which means something like "demon link" in Japanese) so if this article were to be merged, it would best be merged to some article that details items in Majora's Mask. Revolución 19:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Andre (talk) 00:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Andre (talk) 00:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep --Phred Levi 23:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. SeraphX3 11:33, 8 June, 2005
  • I think this should be merged with the Majora's Mask article though marked with a spoiler warning since this could still be a surprise to players who would rather not know until the end. I doubt there are many who don't know about it, but it's always a possibility. Still, this is an interesting article nonetheless. The picture would be a very good addition to the game's page.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Deathphoenix 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Donahue

Author removed the VfD notice so this nomination never ran its' course. Originally submitted by TonyW -- Longhair | Talk 14:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If you had even looked at the history, I removed the tag FIFTEEN DAYS after it was nominated, as it was evident there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus at all (I lean toward keep, as the only two votes were votes to keep it). The thing I'm probably most guilty of is not realizing, at that time, how to properly close a VFD. This really shouldn't be renominated if you're going to make me look like I was trying to hide the VFD process, when I wasn't. At all. Mike H 16:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Whatever Mike. The VfD was closed incorrectly, by yourself. Let it run it's course as every other VfD should. Why post this here when it's been posted on my talk page as well? It wasn't renominated, it was listed correctly on the VfD page itself, as it never was in the first place. There are 3 stages to listing a VfD. Two were performed. What's your point? (and take it to my talk page) -- Longhair | Talk 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This comment was removed by Longhair once already. Please do not remove it again. Mike H 03:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Donahue was a contestant on the reality TV show Big Brother (USA), and as such has no other claim to fame. With that in mind, it's not worth having as an encyclopedic entry. -TonyW 00:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Not just a contestant, but the winner. I think that's notable enough for an entry. Keep. — Kate Turner | Talk 00:49, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
• If we decide to delete these, then we get into the "Should we delete all the articles on American Idol finalists?" and such. It's all very subjective and since these people were on nationally televised shows for a lengthy period of time, this is quite notable. Keep Mike H 00:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into a page about the contestants on the Big Brother (USA TV series). Only one line worth of information on the page is actually bio: the remainder is related to the TV show. Until she gets her big role in a movie, I think this can be rolled up into a group summary page. — RJH 15:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are over 48 contestants, with 12 more coming in this summer. A page like that would easily get over the limit. Mike H 16:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The simple solution to the length problem would be, in that eventuality, to have breakout pages for the individual seasons. Uncle G 22:42, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Merge, as RJH suggests. kmccoy (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Flag as stub. Reality show winners have notablitly, like it or not.--Tznkai 16:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty notable enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 18:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Big Brother (USA TV Series). Reality show contestants, like most quiz show contestants, are not achieving anything, really. They're being shown. That's it. Talk about them where people will seek the information, which is the show's article. Otherwise, we're betting that their names will be important in 5 years -- a bet that I'd never take. Geogre 18:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notable famous person, even if it is basically famous for being famous. We keep Paris Hilton, ergo we keep Lisa Donahue. Internodeuser 19:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Internodeuser, Andy Warhol would be proud. Klonimus 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Paris Hilton is also famous for being rich, and also has far more things to include in a biography, such as a filmography I see. (What happened to the two movies for 2004 that were predicted for Lisa Donahue? Has Lisa Donahue actually done anything of note outside of the television show?) Uncle G 22:42, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Agree with Uncle G, merge. To be famous for being famous, you first have to be famous. Google hits for "Paris Hilton": 5,700,000. Google hits for "Lisa Donahue": 744. Donahue only has one movie role listed at IMDb, and the film it was in has not been released. --Metropolitan90 00:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in full agreement with Geogre. Barno 20:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• How does this meet the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies? Uncle G 22:42, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, Internodeuser's vote is nonsense. RickK 22:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. Perhaps merge into a combined article covering all housemates if it must stay. - Longhair | Talk 23:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Quale 00:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G, first choice. Merge/redir w/Big Brother (USA TV series) per Georgre second choice. (and lets get rid of the redlinks to all the contestants that lost!)Niteowlneils 01:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont object to winners getting articles, winning is a notable achievement particularly for something thats televised to millions.. Its the failed contestants that dont even reach finals that should be deleted. Megan1967 06:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle g. Radiant_* 13:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please people will search for it Yuckfoo 18:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I personally hate these shows, but their winners are notable. Xoloz 19:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable winner. JamesBurns 11:16, 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 keep as merge/redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zess T.

Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sofixit. Merge & redirect (per WP:FICT) for the simple reason that it's easier than VFD'ing, and also faster (done in a minute, rather than having to wait for a week). Radiant_* 15:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Who keeps making these Paper Mario 2 articles? Merge into Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door or an article about Rougeport City. Sonic Mew 21:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mario cruft. Megan1967 06:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Vegaswikian 06:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. This too. Sjakkalle 06:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Andre (talk) 00:39, 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 keep as merge/redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn (Mario character)

Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to whichever article it would best be merged. Revolución 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge 203.26.206.129 19:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Mario enemies. Just someone stop making these articles! Please! Sonic Mew 21:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door per the above. Sjakkalle 06:48, 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 as merge/redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Pianta

Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge This is starting to get annoying. Can whoever is making these articles, please take the hint? Sonic Mew 21:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mario cruft. Megan1967 06:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Vegaswikian 06:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paper Mario. Adequately covered there. Sjakkalle 06:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Andre (talk) 00:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and don't bother with the vfd next time! --InShaneee 03:55, 13 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 as merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. I

Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and since he has a minor role in more than one game, a redirect or merge would not work well. -- A Link to the Past 14:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• You don't like all the merge votes, do you? But I can see your point, here. It basically just lists the games that a random enemy appears in. Unless someone has somewhere to put it, I am voting Delete Sonic Mew 21:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mario cruft. Megan1967 06:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one article and then link to the heading for this character in that article from any other articles. Vegaswikian 06:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge useful info into List of Super Mario characters and redirect.--Matteh (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Super Mario characters as we have done with just about all these minor characters. Sjakkalle 06:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Andre (talk) 00:36, 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 ambiguous.

I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes (one probable sockpuppet discounted) and 2 votes that were too ambiguous to call. The debate became very heated and appears to have focused on the content of the article overlooking the original reason for nomination - that the content is more dictionary-ish than encyclopedic.

I do note that an introduction to the article was created late in the discussion period. Votes continued to be mixed after the addition of the introduction. In my judgment, the introduction was insuffient to convince the majority to change their votes and retain the list as an encyclopedia article.

In general, "list of ABC slang" articles have been deemed necessary evils - ways of discouraging the endless re-creation of dictionary entries. Military slang is a good example. The topics were deleted, moved to Wiktionary and deleted again. The community concensus was clearly and repeatedly expressed that these terms belonged in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Yet they were being constantly re-created by new users in ignorance of prior decisions. By centralizing the terms in a single list, we believed that we were containing the policy violations somewhat and providing a way for new users to gently learn that Wiktionary is a better recipient for these contributions.

So far, no evidence has been presented that the topic of Singapore sexual slang will receive the same volume of editors nor that this topic will be endlessly re-created by new users if it is moved to Wiktionary. In fact, the evidence presented makes the opposite case very convincingly. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this decision as a "move to Wiktionary".

I'll further note that based on a spot check of the terms listed, they appear to already have been moved into Wiktionary. Since there appears to be nothing left to transwiki, I will execute the last step of the process and delete this left-over. Warning: I have not checked every term listed. If someone needs or wants a copy of the list in order to do that verification, please contact any admin. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore sexual slang

Delete since it goes against Wikipedia official policy drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a_dictionary and WP:WIN, both considered Official policy.

(Wikipedia is not) A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily-confused ideas, as at Nation or Freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• As a matter of academic curiosity, I am interested to know what unique slang words a leet cracker or chimney sweep would use. Could you kindly point me to a reference on the World Wide Web where such material exists? And if you can't, don't you think you'd be doing the linguistic geeks of the world a big favour by contributing such an article here in Wikipedia, assuming that you are familiar with leet cracker lingo yourself?Groyn88
• Delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_* 15:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge there has to be something somewhere this can be merged with. Klonimus 22:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Thanks for digging out that paragraph, Drini. I hope everyone reads it and heeds it. Geogre 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is obviously one Wikipedia policy that needs to be reviewed. Why should Wikipedia unnecessarily restrict itself by excluding dictionary entries, especially when the information provided here cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter. If you don't believe me, try searching for such info yourself! Starting a category of dictionaries, slang included, would be a wonderful growth opportunity in this uncharted territory.Groyn88 19:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that "the information provided here cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter" pretty much torpedoes your case admiships, just below the keel - lost at sea, all hands, captain went down with the ship, etc, with the irony being that you fired the torpedoes yourself.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ashley Pomeroy points out the original research problem with your argument, as well as the fact that it is close to admitting that these are merely protologisms. I point out that for the very reason that Wikipedia is not a dictionary we started a category of dictionaries (actually a single dictionary of all languages) back in 2002. It's over there. The problem is not Wikipedia unnecessarily restricting itself. It's you unnecessarily restricting yourself. There are many WikiMedia projects (which complement one another in all sorts of interesting ways). Wikipedia is not one giant mish-mash of everything simply because that is convenient for editors who don't go anywhere else. When you were busy adding burung and steam to your pet dictionary here, you could instead have been improving burung and steam in the real dictionary. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete slang dictionary definitions. Megan1967 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be converted and expanded to include a linguistic discussion of the evolution of this sort of slang in the different languages, how it is used in popular culture, etc. Should be more than just a list. Blackcats 09:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Blackcats has offered a wonderful solution! I shall convert this list into a full-fledged article which discusses the use of sexual slang in Singapore.

  I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied. The traditional slang words have been in use for centuries (if not millenia in the case of the Chinese dialects) and the ones coined in the new entity called Singlish have been around for decades.

  An analogous case in point: take the English slang words 'fuck', 'shit' and 'cunt'. Before the 1950's, say, one would be hard put to find such entries in any respectable English dictionary, comprehensive or otherwise. This does not mean that these words were 'protologisms'. They had been in use for over a century if not more. The same applies to the words I have listed. The fact that you cannot find some of this information anywhere in the virtual or real world demonstrates a salient aspect of Asian culture. We put on a smiling obsequious face while locking our dirty linen firmly in the closet. My aim is to bring out that dirty linen and subject it to academic scrutiny...and let outsiders have a sniff too.

  Let me quote from Wikipedia's original research policy: 'In some cases, where an article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).' The latter description fits my list to a T.

  It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless.Groyn88 15:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Wrong on nearly every single count:
    • It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. — Wrong. One doesn't even need to read any more of the English Wiktionary than its Main Page to know that it takes Singlish. The main page clearly says "all words of all languages".
    • these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied — Wrong. I didn't imply it. You did. Your very words were that this information "cannot be found anywhere else on the World Wide Web, or even in print form for that matter". If someone has not used these words with these meanings in print, then these are definitions that someone wants to be the case, not what actually is. If someone has used these words with these meanings in print, then the information can be "found anywhere else, or in print form". I suggest that you work out which of your two mutually contradictory assertions is the true one.
    • An analogous case in point: take the English slang words "fuck", "shit" and "cunt". — Wrong. It's not analogous, because those words were "found in print form" (and notably so) before they entered the dictionaries, contrary to your claim above that these words cannot be. As such, the whole of that argument is ill-founded.
    • Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless. — Wrong. That's just an excuse and a rationalization for doing the work in the wrong project. In reality it's just as simple to edit burung, with the same definition as here and an indication that the word is Singapore slang noun, as it is to make this edit; and, unlike the latter, the former is productive, useful, the first step along the way to a full Wiktionary article, and another word that people can then look up the meaning of. Wiktionarians would certainly prefer a properly formatted article, as it would save the New Page Patrol the work, but a good faith attempt at an article on an attested word is certainly not rejected. Please lift your self-imposed restriction and come and write your dictionary entries in the dictionary.
  • Uncle G 17:13, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Comment: At one point somebody (in favor of keeping) said that there was no documentation of Singapore's sexual slang in print or online (and that this article was therefore important to keep), and since then several people (in favor of deletion) have argued against this straw-man on the basis of orignial research. But I don't think the original assertion is actually true. Singapore is a populous enough country that there's gotta be books and websites elsewhere which could be cited that doccument this sort of slang and its evolution, use today, society's reaction to it, etc. Blackcats 05:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdefs. JamesBurns 11:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as Blackcats suggest to include a linguistic discussion, history and evolution (which will probably take time). The article is similar to Internet_slang, Gay slang, Baseball slang, Military slang. Give it more time, folks. -- Vsion 23:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unrelated entries. Some of the entries are definitely not slangs, only technical/proper terminologies for objects more frequently referred to by a slang term. It is inconceivable to say 'you're a gangmen ' (scientific name for anus) when in a bar and you wish to call someone an asshole. -Hmib 07:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Singlish to the benefit of both, --Wetman 16:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OK, trigger-happy deletionists, I've just added quite a lengthy introduction and also a few words before each section so that it resembles more of an article and not merely a list now. Whaddyall think? Regarding Wetman's suggestion, I don't think it's appropriate to add it to the Singlish article because of the presence of the slang words in the other languages like Malay, Mandarin, Hokkien and Tamil. Well, if my effort gets zapped in the end, I'm resigned to dumping it into the Singlish or any other related discussion page.Groyn88 17:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Send for Cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I go for it. Reflects that Singaporeans have no social morale, no faith in ancestors or the gods. We must not keep such obscene terms in order to preserve the social dignity of WE SINGAPOREANS.Mr Tan 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though some of the above comments indicate room for improvement. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• My vote is Keep, as it is no less WikiFriendly than many other language pages. I also include the comment below which I found on the talk page:

This is a page of important academic linguistic information. It is difficult to locate such topics on the internet. Please do not try to prudishly censor or deface it, or try to get it removed.Groyn88 13:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Can you please define the significance and importance of such crude language? Crude, sexual slangs are always despised by the average person. And it is very easy to find on the net for many Singaporeans have their own blogs, and adding in vulgarities is no rare phnomenon. I did not say that I will vandalise the article at all, Groyn88.

And Wikipedia is a place that is not meant for such crude terms. If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint.

Let's come down to the social factor; does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god. And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins.

Mr Tan 17:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, Mr Tan. I would like to express my disagreement with some of the points you have raised:
• "Can you please define the significance and importance of such crude language?"

From an academic linguistic point of view, every word has a rightful place and context in any language. Calling them 'crude' is making a sociological value judgement. Linguists document all elements of a language, and do not try to whitewash or censor aspects of a tongue which offend their subjective personal sensibilities.

• "Crude, sexual slangs are always despised by the average person."

You must either be living in an ivory tower or have earplugs permanently stuffed in your ears. Sexual slang is used frequently in everyday life by average people. Can you truthfully declare that you have not heard a person whose mother tongue is Hokkien often use the expletives I have listed in the 'Hokkien' section? And have you, your family, your friends and fellow Singaporeans not occasionally uttered them yourselves? Let's not be hypocritical, naive and narrow-minded. Or try to paint a rose-tinted view of reality.

• "And it is very easy to find on the net for many Singaporeans have their own blogs, and adding in vulgarities is no rare phnomenon."

Vulgarities in English and Singlish, yes, but can you point me to a single blog that uses Hokkien, Cantonese or Tamil expletives? And wouldn't it be helpful for a foreign sociologist researching local linguistic culture and evolution to have a guide to these phrases, one that is so difficult to locate anywhere else?

• "If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint."

You obviously have not read the lengthy Wiki article Sexual slang, or any of the numerous articles in the Sexual slang category like Fuck, Pussy, List of sexual slurs, List of names for the human penis, etc. Or any of the even more numerous articles in the Profanity category like Cunt, Cock, Dick, Crap, Arse. etc., etc. Please check them out yourself before making such totally inaccurate statements.

• "does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god."

Some 'world leaders' have included history's worst mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and closer to home, Qin Shi Huang who united China through a torrent of bloodshed. How do you know that world leaders do not cuss in private? The Bible or other religious canons have never expressly labelled vulgarity not directed against religious figures as a 'sin'. That sexual slang is a 'sin' is your personal opinion. Moreover, Buddhists, Daoists and atheists do not believe in the existence of an absolute God.

• "And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins."

The existence of numerous articles in Wikipedia on Sexual slang makes it in your eyes, a sinful place, and to save your soul from hellfire, I suggest that you stay clear altogether.Groyn88 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks to the introduction, I found unique value in this article beyond just a list of words. merbst

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 01:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "S from Hell"

Non standard name, non-encyclopedic Proto 15:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and BJAODN. What a hoot! The Beverly Hillbillies gave this author nightmares. Obvious delete, though, for the quotation marks, and then the hallucinatory subject matter. Geogre 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN candidate. — Phil Welch 06:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with article about TV logos, Sony, etc. after rewrite - after figuring out what they were talking about, it might be worth a small mention elsewhere but doesn't merit its own article. 67.101.113.10
• Delete. Non standard name, info already at Screen Gems#The S from Hell and S from Hell exists as a redirect.--Nabla 00:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 01:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Digimon

This article is non-encyclopedic and is of extremely poor quality. Bgeer 15:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• But it *is* a valid Digi-datum, and since Poke-* seems to be accepted -- weak keep & clean-up --Simon Cursitor 17:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• KeepInternodeuser 19:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and expand Yuckfoo 22:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid datum, important to digimon fans. Kappa 02:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ugh, Digimon is worse than Pokémon, but the Digimon universe is major so this is notable. Sjakkalle 06:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I just rewrote and expanded the article so it is much more encyclopedic and of much greater quality. It still needs some workd (such as more information on Megas in seasons 3 and 4 and in videogames, but it is no longer nearly so bad as it was.dcomings 18:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, similar to Wikipedia:Pokeprosal. Radiant_* 13:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Digimon. JamesBurns 11:18, 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 --cesarb 01:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lim Tak Wah and LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd

Full text: "Lim Tak Wah is born in 1940. He owns a company called LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd." and "LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd is a paper printing company. It was founded by Lim Tak Wah in 1972". No attempt to establish notability. Rl 15:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Xcali 16:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Incomprehensible lemmae and substub text. Two facts, no articles. Geogre 18:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subsubstub nn vanity. - Etacar11 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:08, 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 --cesarb 01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Rooney

Vanity Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:55, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete Xcali 16:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Stay in school, kids, and not in encyclopedias. Geogre 19:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:54, 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 --cesarb 01:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Vonamor and Elijah Vonamor

The activity by several editors suggests these are real. However, I can't verify anything about it. Neither about the series nor about either character. Rl 16:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• If Marie (or Elijah) are in a known s-f series, I've never heard of it. And 'Carpathia' sounds like Ghostbusters 2 -- verify or delete --Simon Cursitor 17:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neither Marie Vonamor, Elijah Vonamor or Kingdom of Mort are found on Google. Maybe it's fanfic? Delete. RickK 22:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 01:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CHAT

promotional JoJan 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Xcali 16:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Mindmatrix 18:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't CSD material? Kelly Martin 18:12, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Internodeuser 19:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Nearly speedy for spam. A paste from someone's danged ad. Nowiki'd now.

Geogre 19:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete because its an obvious ad and the site features pornagraphic images. Satanicbowlerhat 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So does oral sex. Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. As far as I know, advertising is only a deletion criteria, not a speedy criteria. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, spam. Econrad 00:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. The advertising is way too obvious to be doubted. Nestea 01:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, advertising spam. Wikibofh 04:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Obviously. Pufferfish101 22:12, 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. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Cole

Why is this on VFD? --84.9.103.212 22:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article in its present state will need a lot of work, but I don't think we should get rid of it. dmj27 0034, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide some source for the existence of this person (or even the place "Remis, Scotland" which doesn't seem to exist AFAICT). --Russ Blau (talk) 21:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep My granny lives in Remis, it does indeed exist, although it is a small village with about 800 residents. In fact her local butcher sold me some of the finest haggis I've ever eaten. The story itself may not actually be true, but it is a legend that haunts the place to this very day. --spankthecrumpet 15:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote is not from spankthecrumpet but User:131.111.8.101. Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• yes but spankthecrumpet is a disgraceful person
  • I don't care how disgraceful he is. You don't have the right to impersonate him. Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless references can be provided. Probably a hoax, James Cole is the main character in Twelve Monkeys. --W(t) 16:17, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• There is certainly no such place as 'Remis, Scotland' - the granny, and I suspect the subject, are figments of a over-active imagination. Delete --Doc (?) 18:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax, childishness. I'd settle for a single citation of "child molesting" in 1600-1634. Geogre 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless anyone can drastically expand it. Sonic Mew 22:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonverifiable. RickK 22:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Force is strong with this 'James Cole'. Ooo paaa, ooo paaa --Darth Vader 19:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Above comment is first edit by a newly-registered user. Russ Blau (talk) 20:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Additional information: Since the nomination, the page has been modified to include an External link to a page that purports to be a historical document describing the crimes of James Cole. In fact, it is a forgery of the story of Sawney Beane, the original version which can be found at Sawney Beane. I think this conclusively proves that this page is a fraud. Russ Blau (talk) 20:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • user:131.111.8.102 attempted to change this link
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a piece of puerile vandalism by Dmj27 (talk · contribs), in line with the rest of his edits. I've just blocked him from editing for 24 hours, as he seems to be here to do nothing but vandalise Wikipedia. I suspect that he'll end up being blocked permanently, but e can hope that he'll grow up very quickly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus that this is vandalism - can it be speedied?--Doc (?) 22:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• When I first saw it I was going to speedy it, but as there were already a lot of votes here, I held off. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been on vfd for over 10 days now, and all of the 'keep' votes are from sockpuppets. I encourage you to go ahead and speedy it. Russ Blau (talk) 10:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)----

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 01:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Central Avenue

Some 600,000 Google hits, but less than 1 ‰ mention Cedarhurst. Besides the bad name, the article provides very little information, let alone any facts that might establish notability. Rl 16:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Cedarhurst - unless anyone fancies creating the disambig from hell! --Doc (?) 18:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone wants to make that dab mentioned by Doc. Arbitrarily picking Cedarhurst as the Central Avenue is inane. I'm sure the one is Albany (to name but one) is just as significiant. -R. fiend 19:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is linked to from Albuquerque, New Mexico and List of sites of interest in the Los Angeles area, indicating that others have claim to the name, too. ☺ This is almost certainly going to end up as Central has. Uncle G 21:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
    • Nothing should link here. This isn't Broadway where there is one that is far and away the most significant of streets with that name. The best we could do is have some list of all the cities that have a "Central Ave", which would be very long and very useless. -R. fiend 21:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but until this article appeared those were dangling hyperlinks, awaiting articles. If they are both roads worthy of note, then eventually one would link to Central Avenue, Albuquerque, New Mexico and the other to Central Avenue, Los Angeles, California, and Central Avenue would be a disambiguation, ending up, as I said, as Central has, many of whose inbound links were adjusted (by me) to point to the real articles on 2005-04-17 exactly because nothing should link to the disambiguation. Uncle G 16:19, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many Central Avenues, and this one isn't notable. Quale 00:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in Five Towns and individual town articles. Gazpacho 02:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as a heading and then make this a DAB. Use any other Central Avenue to add to some other city article so that the DAB is a valid page. Vegaswikian 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 13:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a recreation. Sjakkalle 07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keyra Augustina

This article is non-encyclopedic FliiP 16:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment to any admin out there: Please check if this is a re-creation of Keyra Agustina which was deleted as the result of a previous VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and possibly Protect from recreation, new version of article previously deleted by valid VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a recreation. Good catch, Zzyzx11. Geogre 19:24, 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 keep --cesarb 01:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Elm

Advert. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Relatively new but notable, basically a more modern offshoot of WSM's Pottery Barn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Williams-Sonoma, Inc. and if it grows to merit an article in can be moved to a page. Vegaswikian 06:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to grow, not worth the effort of merging and unmerging. Kappa 21:43, 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 --cesarb 01:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War

A violation of just about all conventions. The beginning makes it clear that it's just a soapbox for a relatively little-known advocacy group: "On March 6, 1996, David R. Morgan, the National President of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms presented The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946 - 1985 to enumerate those world events wherein the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied." 172 16:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• As it stands this is a record of the contents of a minor speech - generalize by a move to 'Nuclear Crises of the Cold War' ('known' is redundant as we're hardly likely to list unknown ones!)--Doc (?) 18:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, move to a title that doesn't have a hard-coded number. This doesn't violate any convention that I see. Does need better references for each nuclear crisis, but this wouldn't be difficult. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Cold war. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to nuclear crises during the Cold War and delete the redirect. Neutrality^talk 05:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• • You people seem to be missing the point. The article will not make a basis for a list of Cold War-era "nuclear crises." As it stands, it is just a random sample of topics that really have nothing to do with each other aside from being listed in the same speech by an anti-nuclear activist. The only place for this list is the article on the individual making the speech. 172 08:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The basis of the article is that on the listed occasions "the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied". This is a fairly sensible and verifiable criterion and we can remove any items that don't reasonably qualify here. Some items may be questionable and should be removed, but this doesn't invalidate the basis of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If you are adding "implied" to the criterion, the classification is anything but easily verifiable and easy to qualify. This leaves way too much leeway for interpreting intent. You will never find total consensus among historians for every item that could possibly listed, barring the classic case of the Cuban Missle Crisis. Consider, e.g., the hotly debated claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were really hollow threats to the Soviet Union by Truman, who was exploiting the U.S. nuclear monopoly and knew it to be so. This interpretation has been one of the most hotly debated arguments in the historiography on the Cold War ever since the British physicist PMS Blackett first made it to wide notice in 1948, and especially after revisionist historian Gar Alperovitz supported it in 1965. Imagine the POV dispute here on Wikipedia that would occur if someone tried to add an item to the list based on it... While arguments that other events were backed by implicit treats of nuclear force might not be as emotional, they are not at all any less complicated and any more easy to interpret. As a rule, classification schemes for history are generally not as simple as they would seem at first glance, and they certainly are not in this case... Further, this list serves no useful purpose. A good survey article on the Cold War and the arms race ought to link to all of the events that would be listed on such a page. Such a list would be way too much trouble (including the likelihood of "original research") for whatever potential value it might have. 172 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I take your point about "implied". I would not expect events involving such interpretation to be included. I do think the article even in its present, unverified form is useful and may stimulate further research. If it should prove to be valueless then it will languish for a year or two and then we can revisit it. If it should both prove valueless and attract controversy all the better; give the edit warriors something to do instead of arguing about Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, or whatever. Spread the damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It would generate further original research, as no reference authority has established a standard list of Cold War "nuclear crises." BTW, I hope this "spread the damage" mentality has not become the norm on Wikipedia since I left as an active editor a few months ago. Edit warriors should be stopped when they are spewing crap into the Castro and Pinochet articles, and they should be stopped when they are messing up more obscure topics. When I singed up for an account in 2002, the objective of Wikipedia was to develop a credible internet sourcebook. Now the objective seems to be providing people with a social outlet and babysitting difficult users. 172 06:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Move to 'Nuclear Crises of the Cold War', or merge into David R. Morgan with a link from "related articles" on Cold War. Andy Mabbett 11:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Disorganized. POV.
  • Above vote was from Joebwan. -- Wisq 15:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete, do not move. Content might be merged in David R. Morgan or elsewhere as appropriate, but this should not be the seed of an article itself. The fruit would be ruined by the point of view at its roots. --Michael Snow 05:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no evidence presented that most of these are "nuclear crises" at all. There might well be a case for an article on nuclear crises of the Cold War, of which the Cuban missile crisis would be a good example; this isn't it, nor is it a good start for one. -- The Anome 15:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - since it's based on some guy's speech, it's original research. CDC (talk) 04:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently original research. --Carnildo 17:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with 172. RadicalSubversiv E 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per 172 and Carnildo. Ambi 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per 172. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:46, 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 keep. (2 delete, 3 keep -> No consensus -> Keep) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Roche

Her IMDB entry only lists a couple of minor roles. Also, I cannot find any other relevant Google hits to verify that she is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: An actress who fails Google is in a real disadvantage, as someone always creates references to actors and actresses, even regional theater ones. Article states that she was there, but no one saw her. Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia at this point. IMDB has her because that's their job. Geogre 19:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Yes a minor actress. But she did have a part in a TV series. I added some more info to the page. — RJH 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per RJH. Kappa 09:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per RJH. JamesBurns 11:22, 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 --cesarb 01:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Price and functionality of accounting software

Delete original research. Mindmatrix 18:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, research. --Sleepyhead81 07:39, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Scott Johnson

• Delete. We execute dozens of people a year in the United States, unless one is particularly notorious there is no reason to list them on Wikipedia. Alright, you've convinced me! Withdrawn. Zerbey 23:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would say that unless one is particularly NOTEWORTHY there's no reason for a Wikipedia article. This one is noteworthy because of the legal dispute about whether he could get a reprieve in order to donate his liver. It's been in the headlines everywhere. And have you proposed deletion of every article about an executed killer. Everyone with recent deaths on their watchlist knows that these appear not infrequently on Wikipedia. Michael Hardy 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Persons whose human rights are so abhorently abused by the United States are noteworthy. Dunc|☺ 20:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that Ruby Hutslar's rights were abhorently abused by Gregory Scott Johnson in 1985. Why do people have more sympathy for the killer than the killee? Klonimus 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What about the sister that he couldnt save? Megan1967 06:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Court case about liver adds to notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Controversial parts to this case, regardless of anyone's personal feelings on capital punishment. Scimitar 22:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Getting executed isn't really that notable. It's common for the condemned to engage in pre-execution publicity stunts. Klonimus 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please because this execution was high profile Yuckfoo 23:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high profile court case indicates people would want to look this up. Kappa 00:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could use some expansion and cleanup--Sophitus 00:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Noteworthy and an interesting problem that I'm sure will generate philisophical debate for a while at least. Wikibofh 04:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high profile and noteworthy case. Megan1967 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any murder is noteworthy unless it's a purely domestic killing. -- Necrothesp 15:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Every executed person in the US is notable as long as the death penalty debate continues. Moreover, this fellow is independently noteworthy given his sister's unusual circumstances and the press coverage it received. Xoloz 17:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
• Keep Needs some cleaning up but it should be kept. His sister's situation and his request makes him more than just another execution Alicia 03:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly notable case, could use some cleanup to be sure. Danthemankhan 04:02, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable case for several reasons which are not considered the 'norm'. As a UK citizen where there is no death penalty, atricles such as these are a valuable source of information especially since here in the UK many miscarriages of justice have come to light with several people cleared of murder many years after their conviction. These people would have diedin the USA and all that would have been left was an apology and a gravestone.
• Keep and cleanup. He's been in current events recently...Indiana has executed less than 13 inmates since 1976, far less than one a year: less than the rate at which, say, "American Idol" winners are being chosen. Should Bo Bice be deleted? --Fermatprime 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable. - Longhair | Talk 14:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- He is at least as notable as [Bo Bice]. - kthejoker
• Keep. -- For comments made in other keep votes. --Csnewton 15:17, 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 --cesarb 01:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vcodec

"Vcodec claims to be a revolutionary codec, but only installs maliscious spyware. Avoid installing." I cannot verify that. The rest of the text is copyvioish, but might just pass (basically a feature list). The claims made are rather strong, especially given that zero evidence is provided. Rl 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Heavy POV fork. Nestea 01:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete soapboxery. Gazpacho 02:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete. The claims are true. This fake codec installs a Trojan in C:\Windows\System32, filename msmsgs.exe and adds a startup entry to HKLM:...Run in the Windows registry. It's detected by Microsoft Anti-Spyware and described as Messenger.Viruswarning Trojan. The program displays a pop-up message every several minutes to tell you your computer is infected with some virus. I had this Trojan infecting my system myself and killed it by just deleting this file msmsgs.exe from C:\Windows\System32 and removing the startup entry in the registry.
• Delete, unless the soapboxery goes - or maybe afterall: do we need a whole article for every run-of-the-mill spyware bit, anyway? Surely this is nothing in scale or annoyance in comparison to CWS or whatever... --Wwwwolf 19:59, 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 --cesarb 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Kavalsky

College student's vanity page. --Michael Snow 18:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 22:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks non notable. Grue 04:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, vanity page. Hohokus 23:34, 10 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 --cesarb 01:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fabians

Band vanity. Rl 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, "in the future please do not enclose a group photo" - Etacar11 00:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above--Sophitus 00:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• This article does not currently pass WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:16, 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 --cesarb 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tech hippies

dicdef at best. Alai 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. Hi-Tech hippies is real. Vegaswikian 06:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is Flamebait and generally a waste of database resources Joey.dale 03:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, definately. --minghong 18:54, 10 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 - should be merged - SimonP 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Civilized World

The title is POV itself, and I don't think the article has any hope of being neutral. The article tries to say that some cultures are primitive or uncivilized while others, according to the criteria mentioned in the article, are civilized. This, at least to me, is very POV. Delete. Revolución 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite topic itself is valid, but way it is written is not. Internodeuser 19:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful with the far superior Civilization--Doc (?) 19:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is hopelessly POV, all important content is already in civilization. Quale 20:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is POV by definition, and the material doesn't add to the general knowledge base of Wikipedia. Scimitar 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, woefully misguided take on civilization. Gazpacho 02:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to civilization. Sjakkalle 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any NPOV content to civilization and delete this POV and poorly capitalized name. --Angr/탉 07:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Civilization. JamesBurns 11:24, 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. Joyous 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin lincoln

This page makes no sense. A prep school student is highly unlikely to have published everything claimed here. I'd call this a very poorly written vanity page. Xcali 18:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity article. --Aurochs

• Speedy delete vanity Internodeuser 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utter vanity. - Etacar11 00:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mega-vanity. Gazpacho 01:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another in a long line of vanity articles to come on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:18, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carnauba Palm

VfD added to article by User:Happyfeet10 on May 8, but never listed on VfD. (I'm just completing the listing and abstaining from vote) Brighterorange 19:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• changed- Speedy delete no substance. Scimitar 20:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that there is substance. A very nice stub. Scimitar 14:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy no info Xcali 20:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No real information of substance other than that it's a type of palm tree (the name already implies it.) --Hoovernj 22:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain extant artice is not encyclopedic, how ever the Carnauba Palm is a notable type of palm tree. Klonimus 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No real content, if someone wants to make a real article about the Carnauba, go ahead and do it, it won't be a recreation. Sjakkalle 06:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've put a stub there, but I failed biology and plants scare me, so I don't really understand the source material - however, it mentions the Latin name, alternate name, country of origin and the thing it's probably most notable for now. Vashti 09:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this article. Wiwaxia 12:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Xezbeth has done further work on it and it looks like quite a nice little stub now. Vashti 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Good stub, although not as amusing as it was when it was nominated for VfD ("A type of palm tree that has not yet been defined on this site."). Quale 14:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is now a good stub. --Unfocused 03:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good stub. JamesBurns 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but needs a lot of work JoJan 18:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems like a good stub now. Paul August ☎ 03:48, 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. While this could be appropriate content for a user page, no signed in user stepped forward to claim it. If you later decide that you do want this for you user page, please contact any administrator. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Smith (Entrepreneur)

Vanity grendel|khan 19:47, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• Delete résumé. Gazpacho 01:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. Megan1967 06:19, 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. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon Moneyhouse

Likely vanity. Google gives no hits for "Pentagon Moneyhouse". If he is a budding star, the bud must be very small. If it ever blooms, maybe the page could be added then. Xcali 20:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page. --Hoovernj 22:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Scimitar 22:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live in Drexel Hill (the borough north of Drexel Park), and I've heard of Pentagon Moneyhou$e (as he spells it). He's obscure and local, but real. The quality of his "music" is questionable, but that shouldn't be a reason to keep him out of the Wiki. --Imagist 23:17, 25, May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I, like Imagist, live near Pentagon Moneyhou$e. I lived in Upper Darby until I moved into the Drexel Hill area more recently. I've been looking for information on the internet to varify his existence, but have yet come up with nothing. However, I can confirm that he is real, and has achieved some fame, being featured in several local newspapers.
• Delete Far better suited for geocities at this time. --Unfocused 04:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm from Philly, and I'm afraid I haven't heard of him, (and I read several local newspapers). Even really new artists usually turn up at least one or two google hits...he gets none at all. func(talk) 02:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. mikka (t) 01:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm from just west of Philadelphia (west side represent), and I've certainly heard of Pentagon Moneyhouse. In fact, I heard two of the songs on his CD at a study session the other day. If you're going to delete pentagon's entry, you'd might as well delete m&m and snoop doggy dog as well, as all three as equally notable from my perspective. (unsigned edit by 68.236.17.174)
  • Note that this is 68.236.17.174's first edit ever. --Xcali 05:13, 7 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 - no consensus - SimonP 22:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stagecoach in Bedford

Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region? Particularly when most of its info is bus routes? --Doc (?) 20:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Each region is as important as the main group. Ted Ted 20:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry 'bro, but I did tell you to take the hint. While someone may find it useful, they are more likely to go to your sources, rather than Wikipedia. Also, I don't think the topic creator is allowed to vote. Sonic Mew 21:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read the main VfD page: "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.". That should imply that the main author is allowed to vote, should it not? Sjakkalle 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is simply a list of routes within a given region. If some form of notability could be shown, I'd be happy to change my vote, but at present this article shows none. Scimitar 22:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, disagree with Ted. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 02:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Megan1967 06:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Stagecoach Group, but trim away the information about the bus routes. Instead, place an external link to Stagecoach in Bedford's website which will surely have a more up-to-date listing of routes. The main public transport provider in a city is notable. Sjakkalle 06:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Convinced by CalJW that merge is a poor option, so outright keep now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not wikitravel. Radiant_* 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Stagecoach Group. Karol 13:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merge is the worst possible option. This is certainly less than 1% of Stagecoach's business. Putting this in the main article would be utterly disproportionate and the damage to that article would be far worse than having this article. I have categorised it. CalJW 23:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate, per CalJW. Kappa 21:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is simply nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia--Doc (?) 23:05, 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daughter in a box

Excellent article title, and not to be confused with Daughter in the box. Not in itself a poor article, but the problem is that all the information including the links appears - and makes a lot more sense - in the article on B. F. Skinner, where it is in context. There's nothing to be merged, and who on earth is going to search Wikipedia for 'Daughter in a box'? I say delete it.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I found the page whilst searching for Living in a Box, the late-80s pop group who had a big hit with a song called 'Living in a Box'.-Ashley Pomeroy 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently, at least one person already has. Although not a good title for an encyclopedia, it actually makes sense if considered as a search string--a lot of people tend to use Wikipedia more as a version of Google then as an encyclopedia per se. As such, I vote to redirect. Meelar (talk) 20:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with redirect. Scimitar 22:58, 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Jones

disambig page - but since we have no articles on any Katie Jones this is unneccessary --Doc (?) 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well a dab page of redlinks would be a keep, if any of the redlinks was even marginally notable. Unfortunately none of them appears to be, including the actress [7], so delete. Dunc|☺ 20:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability in the lot. RickK 22:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. katie.com and the city commissioner both meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Katie Jones has gotten a lot of press over her court battle in the US and UK including from CNN [8][9] , BBC [10], and Court TV [11] [12], not to mention the Guardian [13]and the Register [14] [15] [16]. Katie Jones the city commissioner meets Wikipedia:Biography criteria of "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I tend to be a moderate inclusionist and preferred to point to relevant articles where they are or will be included—KJ of Katie.com points to katie.com and KJ the city commissioner points to Government and politics of Marshall, Texas—rather than create bios. As such Katie Jones, would be a redirect pointing to the relevant articles, since creating redirects like Katie Jones (city commissioner) would be useless, I created a disambig that directs people to the proper articles. If, it is insisted that the page link directly to biographies, I will happily comply—by creating them. As for the IMDB articles, I felt if they were on IMDB they were worthy of mention in a disambig, though not their own articles, because nonetheless people will search for them.-JCarriker 15:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a normal disambig page, even though it needs some serious syntactical standardization. Many others contain items that don't have links to them. Besides, the Katie Joneses could be a lot less notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 22:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Notability" is a rather relative criterion. A wise man once said, "What might be right for you may not be right for some." Mike H 16:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was this article was deleted at 18:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) by Duk for being a {{copyvio}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Gianelli

Not notable. Likely vanity. Xcali 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Flagged as copyvio Shoaler 21:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, copyvio. Megan1967 06:22, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 32 universes

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Or unverifiable, and/or prank fiction. Zero hits for "32 universes" duncan. Niteowlneils 21:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If it is "Soon to be released", I would doubt many people would know enough about it to wrote an article, (or care about it.) Sonic Mew 22:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scimitar 23:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since I can find no credible reference to the saga or its author, no further contribution seems possible or likely. Johny 22:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete except in universes 5-21. — Phil Welch 06:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn etc. Kel-nage 12:59, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phw

A concept from a site that was only set up a couple of days ago. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article is nothing more than a ad... "thriving community", "huge amounts of traffic generated", "popularity skyrocketed within weeks of launch". According to Alexa it's very new, and received a spike around it's launch, but traffic has leveled out and it's ranked around #450,000 or something [17]. CryptoDerk 21:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 21:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Elliot

Non-notable, creative-writing, joke, whatever. Zero relevant hits for "Eric Elliot" neutron or "Eric Elliot" Leominster. Niteowlneils 21:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• What is this? There is only one paragraph that makes this worth considering: "Towards the end of his junior year, Eric participated in a field trip to France. His illicit escapades there nearly had him deported and have become infamous around the globe." If anyone knows why, please extend this paragraph. Otherwise, it is just a small biography of an unimportant person. Is the creator "Eric Elliot", himself, or does the creator know him well? I'm going with Delete until we can find out if there is anything worthwhile to add. Sonic Mew 22:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe I'm not terribly perceptive, but shouldn't global infamy give off at least one relevant google hit? Scimitar 23:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Econrad 00:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. Nothing notable. I suspect quite a bit of it is made up. --Durin 00:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG 13:28, 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 delete. —Xezbeth 16:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Devies

No notable accomplishments. Vanity. Xcali 21:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• He is a bit notable. Nothing worth making a page for, though. Sonic Mew 22:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and not notable. - Etacar11 00:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Econrad 00:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 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 page as rewritten about composer. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelly Palmer

Uses picture of Reese Witherspoon instead of article subject. Was created after a previous attempt at advertising. Unfortunately, this has more meat to it, but it's still an advertisement. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The previous was an ad. This is an ad with a biography. It still doesn't belong here. Xcali 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And now the anon has started link spamming in the article too. Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • At least it's obvious vanity-- "Yes I'm one of those people" (emphasis mine) Xcali 22:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One wonders why she linked United States to "one of the last ethical". RickK 23:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy since she appears to have an account now. JYolkowski // talk 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved to User:Shellympalmer and deleted. RickK 00:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Now a Famous Shelly Palmer

The non-noteworthy person was replaced by the famous televison composer of the same name. --Spotteddogsdotorg 04:10, 6 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 speedy delete. (MacGyverMagic did it, but Smoddy is closing the discussion). 22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses

Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is a completely un-wiki article, and is POV right from the title. It is no more than a mere collection of external links, and, as such, should be deleted. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• A mere collection of external links is cause for speedy deletion which I've done. Mgm|^(talk) 22:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • So it is. Cheers, Mgm. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:09, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Quaker Valley Swinging Quaker Marching Band

This appears to be a high school marching band. Not even a stub. Delete DS1953 22:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It is just a link and a list of names! Sonic Mew 22:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, easy decision on this one--Sophitus 00:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — no close google hits I could find. — RJH 14:30, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stagecoach London

"Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region?" This article already existed, but the same logic applies to this as the ones currently being created. All of the info can be found at the external link. Sonic Mew 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect if all the information can be found at Stagecoach Group. Without context encyclopedia articles are just Yellow Pages entries. --Wetman 22:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually these services are run by London coach companies that just use the Stagecoach brand and facilities. I don't see any harm in having a stub for this, it could grow to be quite a big article, which is frankly unlikely to happen if merged with Stagecoach Group. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to expand. Don't really understand the concept of "do we really need articles". Kappa 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to expand. I agree with Kappa above. If we were to delete articles on subsidiary companies, which are distinctly different in operation and, more importantly, history, then the same principle applies to the likes of Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet...why don't we just delete them or redirect them back to General Motors? The Stagecoach corporate article is a background and detail on the corporate firm, the subsidiary articles (of which there are several) contain, or have the potential to, far more information on the history of the local company rather than it's parent group. As has been said, it's doing no harm.--Ayrshire--77 07:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article already contains information which would be inappropriate/lost in the Stagecoach Group article. -- Chris j wood 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Unfocused 04:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've put it in category:transport in London. I don't think this would have been nominated if this was an indepedent company, but this detail is better on its own than cluttering up the main article, which should provide a corporate overview. CalJW 23:46, 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 KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 07:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brearley School

NOTE: Until BaronLarf JYolkowski reformatted this listing a few minutes ago it had no link to the article and there was no indication what it was a vote on. Most people didn't even realise it was distinct from the VfD before it. I'm moving this to the May 25 listings to give us a chance to discuss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. Stellertony the Bookcrosser 07:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• keep, potential for expansion Cantara 06:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nuf said. Take it to Wikipedia:Schools. --BaronLarf 22:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Here we go again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus
• Keep... Christopher Parham (talk) 22:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Keep, not a stub. Kappa 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much as I dislike the school--Sophitus 00:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, duh. Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not all schools are notable, but this one is. I recommend expanding the alumnae list. --Metropolitan90 02:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — sufficiently notable — RJH 14:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools belong in Wikipedia. --Unfocused 04:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please in accordance with our founders wishes [18] Yuckfoo 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep em comin'   —Teknic^T-M-C 01:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Of course it's notable. CalJW 23:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on keeping schools. —RaD Man (talk 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is actually notable. Neutrality^talk 04:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 01:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April Fool's Syndrome

Looks like a hoax. Smells like a hoax. Lack of Google hits like a hoax. Delete like a hoax. Cyrius|✎ 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Can anyone in the medical world verify this? There is a link, though it wouldn't work for me. For now, I'm voting Delete. Sonic Mew 22:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, wait: "'April Fool's Syndrome' is a fictional condition detailed in Number 85" I have still got no idea what 'Number 85'. I'm still voting deletion. Sonic Mew 23:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable comiccruft. Nestea 01:12, 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.

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 keep.

[edit] Uwe Kils

Vanity. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils. RickK 23:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, lack of reliable, verifiable material that can be used to support an article. --Michael Snow 23:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bio vanity. - Etacar11 00:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 03:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Whatever this guy did or did not do on Wikipedia, he seems to be quite notable in his field [19]. VFD ain't RFAR. Zocky 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  Most of what I've observed showing up in a Google search this way is his photo credits. From what I've seen he has good pictures, and I appreciate the images he's contributed to Wikipedia; however, I haven't seen anything yet from these results that we can make an encyclopedia article out of, or else I might reconsider. --Michael Snow 06:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  The fact that his photos are widely used in scientific circles alone makes him a notable science photographer. His CV [20] might be a good place to start looking for verifiable sources for his other activities. Zocky 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: notable person in the field, readily verifiable - anyone claiming otherwise is a fruitcake. Seriously people, we are talking over 3000 Google hits here. Tannin 13:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - note that Prof. Kils himself wants the page deleted. Karol 13:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wanted only the crippled version deleted Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant. Tannin 13:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as the subject wants it removed; it won't be a serious loss. Otherwise I would vote to keep. Scimitar 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not sufficiently notable. Named author on 13 journal publications (7 peer reviewed) and 15 articles in books (mainly ICES meeting proceedings), according to the ASFA abstracts database (after excluding duplicates). A good number of those google hits are simply mirrors of User:Kils or mirrors of wikipedia pages which give him a photo credit. Anilocra 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

hallo marine biologist Anilocra - my work was at least cited in Nature magazin and in Science magazin, that happens not to many marine biologists Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep 3000 google hits indicates some notability. JamesBurns 11:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral For those who are really interested in verifiable material: Achievements - Uwe Kils 68.46.71.104 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC) - it would be good for our proposals for a Virtual University and coursework to have such a page as teacher ref Uwe Kils 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. --Sn0wflake 03:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• After much thought, I have decided I'd like to keep this article. We have articles on far less noteable professors. Also, a lot more than what is currently written can be verified through third-party sources, even if it admittedly isn't exactly always easy. I just hope it doesn't turn into a biased "faculty testimonial" again. (Yes, that's biased, because it is designed to convince the immigration office what a great guy he is. It is also quite dated, still referring to him as a "young marine scientist"!) Lupo 08:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  Note: as this starts to look like it will be kept, I've given the article a thorough work-over. Lupo 08:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I feel. James F. (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Lupo on this matter. Considering that Wikipedia has articles on subjects far less notable, this article should be kept, as long as it is NPOV, reliable, documented info. Flcelloguy 20:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kingturtle 03:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. jimfbleak 05:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and seems notable in field. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm not convinced of his notability. --W(t) 07:57, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. --Magnus Manske 08:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient notability established. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies -- Egil 09:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in his field. El_C 07:54, 31 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 — Gwalla | Talk 07:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy kuhn

Teen-age vanity Frjwoolley 23:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. DS1953 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kiddie vanity. - Etacar11 00:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above--Sophitus 00:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 00:32, 3 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 Not enough votes to form consensus → Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deathcore

Another imaginary music genre, a combination of Death metal and Hardcore punk. Only one page links here, a band which is specifying this isn't it's genre.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable genre. Megan1967 06:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Term gets over 23,000 google hits, not so not entirely imaginary. Article could do (a lot) to demonstrate notability, however. Alai 20:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I've heard of it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kanji articles

Ichi (kanji) Shichi (kanji) Ku (kanji) Ni (kanji) Go (kanji) Hachi (kanji) Roku (kanji) Ju (kanji) Sen (kanji) Shi (kanji) Haku (kanji) Hyaku (kanji) Sei (kanji)

These articles are all poorly titled dictdefs: their subjects are individual character/morphemes in the Japanese language, making them more suitable for a dictionary, and since many kanji share readings (pronunciations), any titling based on transliteration is inherently ambiguous. Wiktionary in fact already has all of the information in these articles, so there is no transwiki necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 00:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I wish the wiktionary entries were organized more like these. Kappa 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, foreign dictionary definitions, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Megan. Radiant_* 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Karol 13:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Problematic those articles are, unnecessary not. We cannot have a double standard: wikipedia covers western characters like A, B and etc but not eastern ones. -- Taku 23:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The same (actually more) information is available at Wiktionary. These articles are not like the ones on Latin and Cyrillic letters: those talk about the development of the letterforms, while these are simply pronunciation and definition. And, as I'm sure you're aware, neither on-yomi nor kun-yomi can be used to uniquely identify a kanji, so at the very least these titles are unusable. — Gwalla | Talk 00:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, TakuyaMurata has a point. Kappa 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdefs. JamesBurns 11:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Ku (kanji) (for just one example) had as much information as the Wikipedia article on "A", or even if it just had more than the Wiktionary entry for 九 I would have voted to keep. Instead, the Wikipedia article is much less than the Wiktionary article. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, done much better in Wiktionary. And not only can one kanji have several pronunciations, one pronunciation can correspond to a whole pile of different kanji (I can think of three more "sei" kanji off the top of my head...), which would also have their own alternate pronunciations, etc. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you actually like those wiktionary articles? Kappa 21:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 17:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, If there's an "A", then there's a Ku (kanji). Get rid of Ku (kanji), then get rid of "A" and "1" and alpha and aleph. Exactly where is this discussion even coming from? Come on admins, get your act together, this isn't something for a vote but for policy. jeez! 04:47, 2 June 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by 24.215.106.98 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: It came from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Kanji — Gwalla | Talk 05:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary is the right place for these articles. --Tabor 03:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think everyone else summed this up nicely. --KM 14:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't add anymore to whats said! Hohokus 23:34, 10 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.