Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 27 May 29 >

Contents

[edit] May 28

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Lithgow

Fantasy biography. This one can't decide on a time frame, shifting between centuries. The subject was born in 1986, is a computer engineer, mathematician, scientist and later a political leader - indeed, he is "one of the most controversial figures in Australian political history." Among his accomplishements as Australia's Prime Minister: established diplomatic relations with China and reduced voting age to 12. In 1744 he was briefly married to the queen of a warrior tribe, in 1868 he built a church, in 1688 he was ahead in the polls, etc..... Naturally, there's not a single source for any of this. Willmcw 22:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete patent nonsense. Speedy candidate. Rl 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Apparently, Australia had Federal elections in 1688 100 years before European settlement and 213 years before Federation. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax / fictional entry. This was my entry, I sincerly apologise. It was immature abuse of Wikipedia. If I could remove it myself, I would. 14:52, 30 May 2005 (EST)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anal masturbation

This seems like a controversial article for Wikipedia.

  • merge to Masturbation. --SuperDude 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • merge to Masturbation. Project2501a 08:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC) -- COMMENT: Just because it's controversial, does not mean it should be deleted :P
  • Keep. This article is too long to be merged into another article, and masturbation involving the anus is a phenomenon different enough from simple masturbation to deserve its own article. There are many more articles on Wikipedia that describe adult, controversial, or sexually explicit topics, such as gay bathhouse, felching, testicle cuffs, cock and ball torture, frotteurism, facesitting, to name a few. AlexQ 12:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with AlexQ. Self contained, well written complete Article. --Marianocecowski 11:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrmasU (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 May 2005
    • 49th edit by this user
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.62.150 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 May 2005
    • 10th edit by this user
  • Keep. Agree with AlexQ. Too long to merge. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (or anyone else for that matter). -- Krash 20:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.59.240 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 May 2005
    • 3rd edit
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.19.99 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 May 2005
    • 1st edit
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.88.124 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 May 2005
    • 1st edit
  • Keep (seconding Krash's reasoning) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.241.165 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 May 2005
    • 2nd edit
  • Keep (Seconding Krash's reason) ultraviolet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.226 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 May 2005
  • Keep. No one has offered any compelling reason for deleting this article. Controversy is good, first of all, because it allows all points of view to be aired, not just the ones that one side likes. On the contrary, this is a perfectly legitimate article with valuable information on a fairly common human behavior. For the reasons above, this article fits very well within the bounds of WikiPedia's mission. The only possible real (and unspoken) "reason" for deletion would have to do with censorship by social conservatives offended by the topic, who use the terrifying concept of controversy (aka "someone must not be allowed to think differently from me"). But if we start down that route then let *me* delete all the articles that offend social liberals - a very dangerous route and a precedent we do not want to set. I see right through the transparent pretext to the real agenda which is to censor information some uptight conservative does not want other people to have. No sale. User: GreatAlfredini (was 66.80.5.229 (talk · contribs), 19:59, 25 May 2005)
    • 46th edit
  • Keep. It's generally not a matter of interest if this article seems controversial to a small number of users. Ninuor 20:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • 5th edit
  • Keep. I find it the topic disgusting, but that's no arguemnt. Karol 20:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Controversial, maybe, but very well-written. I see no reason to delete this article. Keep. DS 23:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Controversial, probably. But wikipedia is not censored and I see nothing wrong with the article. Merging into masturbation would make the other article too long and besides, they are quite different. Mgm|(talk) 00:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Controversial topics can be of interest in an encyclopedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup--this is largely a how-to. Meelar (talk) 00:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Merge with Anal sex and Masturbation. There isn't anything in this article that's specific to anal masturbation. Demi T/C 00:49, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why was this listed for deletion? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why are we still voting?

Isn't it enough to remove the Vfd tag? And the voting has been going for a while... --Marianocecowski 08:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Just leave it for the full 5 day period. People are gonna be pissed if they didn't have the chance to vote delete for it. Mgm|(talk) 00:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: have gone through and attributed all the unsigned votes. Marblespire 00:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep So what if its controversial? Life is controversial. Too long to Merge and notable/important enough to keep. -CunningLinguist 03:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Masturbation. Concur with Demi. Delete, on a second review this is merely a POV fork. Megan1967 04:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (no opposition to merging.) — Phil Welch 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like this has been on Vfd since May 9th, Why did it get posted twice? Samuel Wantman 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, controversial topics are nothing new to Wikipedia. Athiesm, anyone? Nazism? Racism? Political parties? --WikiFan04ß 1:04, 28 May 2005 (CDT)
  • Comment I don't see a problem with this as an article, but I feel that having the article be esentially a guide is not nessecary and is probably what led to much of the controversy over the article. I suggest we keep, but re-word such that it sounds less like an instruction manual for mastrubating... Oracleoftruth 06:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Grutness...wha? 13:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but for God's sake rewrite! Right now it reads most of all like a how-to guide. The article could easily be a bit more academic and a bit less like Martha Stewart's guide to life in prison. Eixo 15:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable behavior, on which much sexology research has been done. Also article is/will be too long to practically fit all of its content in the main masturbation article. (And anyone who disagrees can shove it up their ass ;-) - Sorry, couldn't resist!) Blackcats 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I imagine the page will be adult-content filtered at many sites. — RJH 05:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with masturbation. Radiant_* 10:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable sub-type of masturbation. Buttplug Klonimus 08:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned nominator versus the sockpuppet patrol, fight! Oh yeah, and keep well-written articles on notable if deviant sexual practices. A Man In Black 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Masturbation. JamesBurns 11:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 00:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Filth like this belongs in the trash. People don't really do perverted things like this. Redirect to anus and don't forget to also vote on talk:anus to delete that disgusting picture they have posted!!! 70.177.90.39 20:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. 70.177.90.39 (talk · contribs) has also created an article, Anal eroticism and seems here to be expressing an opinion irreconcilable with his edits on Talk:Anus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. That's just the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from you. 70.177.90.39 04:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 20:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. -Seth Mahoney 14:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, if this goes just cos someone doesn't like it, where do we stop? I don't like spiders....can we delete every reference to them please!? (Ok, slightly sarky, but......) Jcuk 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, DELETE the article on spiders too. 70.177.90.39 23:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Samboy 03:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worth a mention in masturbation, perhaps, but otherwise this is just a long how-to. Exploding Boy 22:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moved to Wiktionary and then probably redirected to Spanish verbs. - SimonP 22:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spanish verbs

  • Isn't this more of a wiktionary thing? --W(t) 00:12, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Since none of the entries on the list will get an article, I'd say yes. Transwiki to wiktionary. Mgm|(talk) 00:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary then delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is a good supplement to the very encyclopedic Spanish verbs article. But that article had simply gotten so big that it was preferable not to include a long list. If the article isn't kept, then much of its content will have to be put back into the main article. This is a clear case where a spin-off article is a good thing. Blackcats 19:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A simple dictionary. Unencyclopaedic. There's an easily editable dictionary, of Spanish and all other languages, over there, with active contributors adding Spanish verbs, Italian verbs, and many others. Blackcats is wrong that this content will "have to be put back". Just do your dictionary work in the dictionary and refer readers there. That's what it's there for. Delete. Uncle G 20:27, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Gonna list every verb in Spanish? RickK 22:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, no question.Yuber(talk) 01:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme transwiki. Radiant_* 10:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into original article. However, I could be talked into voting to keep it if it focused upon irregular verbs, or if it tied to some sort of proficiency test, or if it were limited to verbs found the Swadesh list. If merged back, it should be pared down to only the most important verbs. --Arcadian 22:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki then delete. JamesBurns 11:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. I could live with a more compact list in the article showing some "regular irregulars" (vowel-alternating) and other common irregular patterns. --Pablo D. Flores 01:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This once survived a Vfd. I never liked it, so what I did was to move it to Spanish verbs and greatly expand it, adding a lot of info about how Spanish verbs work. That way, this silly list didn't have its own article, but was just tagged onto the end of the good one, where I could keep it under control. However, I made the Spanish verbs article too big, and so someone split the list out again! We're back to where we were: with a list that nobody likes very much. I say let's just delete it. If we ever decide to put some sort of list of common verbs in the Spanish verbs article, this list is preserved in the history, so we can just pull it out at any time. — Chameleon 23:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NO! don't get rid of it just attach it on to something else!!!!!!!! I'd rather not delete it...at least not entirely, at least just tack it back on to the Spanish verbs article. I mean, since this is a very incomplete list of Spanish verbs... and it is impractical for an extensive list to be placed here, I suggest that it should at least be considered that the article is not deleted, but have a section on its article on Spanish verbs. Dbraceyrules 19:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a compramise. I have moved it to Wiktionary and the link on Spanish verbs can be changed to this link. Also have a transfer where List of Spanish verbs is K-unit 01:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No way jose!

Non-notable band gkhan 00:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 00:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Xcali 00:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. cannot independently find any content on this band. Google does, ironically, show a different No Way Jose! artist: Jose Ramos in Boston external website. Tobycat 04:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot find any evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, or possibly a joke. --WikiFan04ß 1:05, 28 May 2005 (CDT)
  • Delete Unwikified vanity. --Frostyservant 13:33, 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 MERGE and REDIRECT to 7 Year Bitch. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Davis

Looks like a vanity article to me Jeff Anonymous 00:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • 7 Year Bitch does have an article, but I'm not quite sure if that's enough. No vote. --W(t) 02:25, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: 7 Year Bitch was a signed band and deserves its article. Elizabeth Davis (a common name) has been in others, but none of the others passes muster at this point, so I'd say that she's only needed in the 7 Year Bitch article. Geogre 03:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect unless someone provides much more noteworthy content. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. WikiFan04ß 1:07, 28 May 2005 (CDT)
  • Merge per Geogre Karol 16:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't object to merging this material into 7 Year Bitch (with a redirect or disambig), but it should be retained one way or another. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 22:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black and white (newspaper)

I'm not sure we need an article on every high school newspaper. It has recieved recent awards, but the majority of the information on the page is listing the recent students. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think we've established by now that we don't. Delete. --W(t) 02:23, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Merge into article on parent high school. --FCYTravis 02:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into parent high school. --Unfocused 02:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The parent high school article could do with some content, so I agree with FCYTravis: Merge the introduction into the high school article, however the management and staff lists can go. JeremyA 03:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: High schools are not inherently more notable than banks. Particular branches need to distinguish themselves to merit an article. Therefore, no merge. The paper is just a HS paper, and the article is misnamed. Delete, therefore. Geogre 03:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure we need the list of 50-odd managers but the heart of the article is fine and notes ten recent national and state awards. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to school's page. I'm not sure the awards are notable. It seems like every time I turn around I'm seeing yet another school paper that's gotten one of those, and I don't mean just in Wikipedia. Xcali 04:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into parent high school. The National Scholastic Press Association Pacemaker Award [1] is a big deal and it is noteworthy that this high school's student newspaper has won it. The NSPA has been giving these awards annually since 1927 as part of a national competition (in the US). It's difficult to win and a notable achievement for its staff. I'd like to see the content pared down (no need for the vanity section listing the current students on the staff) and merged in with the high school, which would bolster the school article's notability.Tobycat 05:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the high school article (Walt Whitman High School). I don't think we really need the list of names of eveeryone working with the newspaper however. We don't have such lists for large, general newspapers. Sjakkalle 06:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Black & White is also the name of one of Birmingham, Alabama's two major alternative weekly papers. If this were to be kept, it should at least disambiguate. Dystopos 04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DoubleBlue or merge. WebLuis 13:07, 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 on the grounds of being a vanity article. -- ChrisO 22:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason M. Isaacs

This appears to be a vanity article -- Mr. Isaacs is the apparent contributor. Jeff Anonymous 00:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to user page as soon as an admin is kind enough to remove the redirect that lives there now due to a message accidentally being put there instead of on the user's talk page. --W(t) 02:22, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete: The user can make a userpage, but this is a vanity article. Geogre 03:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Megan1967 03:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Userify would also be acceptable. Xcali 04:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious vanity article. Agree with Xcali that moving to user page would be a good solution.Tobycat 05:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Jason.isaacs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Mgm|(talk) 10:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and vanity. JamesBurns 11:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Gblaz 18:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN and vanity. Feydey 10:27, 9 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?) 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Telemundo Square

The content of this page is silly and nonsensical. Additionally, searching for Telemundo Square produces zero hits. This page may be part of a broader attempt at obscuring vandalism as it was recently linked to by text in radio station articles that have been vandalized today by the same user including KVEA, KWHY, KNBC, WNBC. Tobycat 01:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't vouch for the content, but Telemundo does exist. How about redirecting it there? --W(t) 02:19, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    • If the location can be demonstrated to exist I would agree. Since there are no google hits for it and the only articles that link to it were vandalism, the entity 'Telemundo Square' does not appear real. SInce I've already quarantined the vandalism, nothing links to the Telemundo Square page anymore. Basically there's nothing to redirect. I still believe deletion is the appropriate choice.Tobycat 04:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 04:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fiction, ban creator. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is it a church or a radio station? The article is gibberish. RickK 22:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article may contain a nugget a truth, it is true that KVEA, KWHY and KNBC (and I beleive the Bravo network as well) share facilities/studios, see this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_6_25/ai_97920274 . However, the studio is in Burnank and not LA, it is also not known as TELEMUNDO SQUARE but rather merely NBC Universal Studios I beleive. WNBC is in New York and the other radio stations do not share the same facilities I dont beleive. So delete for now. -CunningLinguist 23:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search for "Telemundo Square" revealed nothing. I don't believe that this article refers to anything that is real. Zero37 12:15, 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 delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wtfpwnsauce

Stupid neologism. One google hit. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --W(t) 02:18, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete and I think I'll add it to BJAODN. -CunningLinguist 03:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: More nausea from the fervid teen imagination. Geogre 03:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not article material Gblaz 03:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. WTFpwned!? is already listed as a variant at Pwn#Leetspeak. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Article lacks noteworthiness and relevance. Tobycat 05:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and flog those responsible. — Phil Welch 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See also barbecue? gkhan 11:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd pay a lot of money for a device that would allow me to punch people who use this word without leaving the comfort of my own chair. -Tadanisakari 07:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism --Silas Snider (talk) 03:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copperfield

Delete. Not notable. Vanity page for a WoW character. At the very least, this should be merged with World of Warcraft#Onyxia, where this character's exploits are already described. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the section on World of Warcraft probably needs to be deleted too, but I'll leave that to those in the know about WoW. --W(t) 02:17, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. There doesn't seem to be any source material to cite for this character except for WoW character lists and similar. Demi T/C 02:31, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is unintelligible to me, so at the least, it needs a clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft. Perhaps best recycled as a redirect to David Copperfield? —tregoweth 07:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete page history and redirect to David Copperfield. Martg76 07:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful info in the World of Warcraft, and recycle the page as a disambiguation between this character, David Copperfield (the magician) and David Copperfield (the Dickens story) and maybe others. Mgm|(talk) 10:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a single person's rpg character. It should not be cleaned up, it should not be merged, it should be killed with a very very large axe like the horrible awful vanity page it is. Create disambiguation/redirect per above. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -This character is well known across servers. His guild is also well known. — (Unsigned comment by Tombrend, the main contributor to the article in question.)
  • Delete per Cyrius. Quale 04:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Frjwoolley 02:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Smite Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Change Change to something akin to: Copperfield_WoW_Shattered_Hand.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danth's Law

Neologism. --W(t) 02:15, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete: Legend of the ether. Neologism for a law that is no law and a phenomenon that isn't constricted to the phone wires. Geogre 03:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All google hits are wikipedia mirrors. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable phrase. Megan1967 04:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and inform those responsible that we have won the argument. — Phil Welch 05:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be neologism. Currently cannon find any third party references to verify that it is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Immediately recognizable on Tangency forums of RPG.NET, which has approximately 20,000 users, but can't be viewed from Google (as Google isn't 'signed in'). Anything used or recognized in the thousands is notable enough to keep. Almafeta 07:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 11:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_* 11:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Frjwoolley 02:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stoopid.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tenothree

Commercial vanity Denni☯ 02:24, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 02:36, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above users. --Chanting Fox 03:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spamvertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, advertising. Megan1967 04:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another ad. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battery Acid Spray

Compound dictdef, I'm not sure if this is wanted on wiktionary. --W(t) 02:31, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete Yet another food/addiction/battery related article created by an Andrew Lin sockpuppet. Delete with prejudice. - Jersyko 02:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Batteries do sometimes spray when abused, such as when charging an Energizer battery 68.170.0.238 02:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and my dog sometimes barks when he wants to come inside. Neither is remotely encyclopedic, though. The battery and battery acid articles cover their respective topics fairly well, though both could use some expansion. Some relevant neutral point of view edits to those articles might be appropriate. The above vote, by the way, was cast by the article's creator. - Jersyko talk 03:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator. Article has virtually no chance of becoming encyclopedic. --Durin 02:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, the content (in edited form) could be merged into Battery (electricity). JeremyA 03:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of no interest whatsoever. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly rewrite Should possibly be added as a subsection of battery and/or battery acid under a relevant title Jtkiefer 07:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Battery (electricity) article already has a section on battery explosion. - Jersyko talk 01:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete last time I checked the type of battery thats not rechargable doesn't contain acids anyway (its called alkaline for a reason). --Kiand 21:05, 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 delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley diet

Neologism. --W(t) 02:35, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Elvis never designed this to be a diet where others copy it, and calling it that is original research. Harro5 02:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another food/addiction/battery related article created by an Andrew Lin sockpuppet. Delete with prejudice. - Jersyko 02:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Elvis' diet is of any interest, it is within his article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what a dangerous diet. Revolución 04:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and inform those responsible that this article has left the building. — Phil Welch 05:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. 100,000 calories a day? Silly! He'd probably have needed a sucrose drip to absorb that much. The term "Elvis Presley diet" does sometimes crop up as an ironic figure of speech to describe the eating habits of someone with a liking with junk food, but not very often. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Classic example of the fact that wikipedia has so many articles now that people who want to create a new one REALLY have to stretch. - DavidWBrooks 13:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Elvis Presley#Trivia. RickK 18:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't redirect to subheaders of pages. A redirect to Elvis Presley would be ok by me though. --W(t) 23:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • I know, but it would be in place for the time when the redirect to subheaders actually works. RickK 22:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think they ever will, at least not for the http+html wikipedia. It just isn't technically feasible. --W(t) 05:54, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
          • Nonsense, of course it's technically feasible. The link Elvis Presley#Trivia goes straight to the trivia section, so a redirect can too. It just hasn't been written that way yet. sjorford →•← 15:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Redirects are handled server-side, link-clicking is client-side. Anchor jumping has to be done client side. The only way to make redirects happen client side is to use html meta redirects, which would significantly slow down access and increase server load. --W(t) 00:11, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I sort of realised the catch after I posted...It is still technically possible anyway (cross-project redirects worked that way, before they were turned off). sjorford →•← 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If a grapefruit diet consists of eating grapefruits... ah, never mind. Delete. Radiant_* 10:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Wikipedia

More non-notability from User:Aghost. --W(t) 02:47, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity article on irc channel begun "24 May 2005". DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity article that's supposed to be an ad, I think. Self-referential to Wikipedia and the user. Geogre 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
i have removed factual information about the efnet channel's foundation due to suspicion of vantiy. It is not self referential to the wikipedia as it is an article about irc chat rooms. Aghost 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • comment i intentionally made this article with the /temp postfix in order to avoid this nonsense. There is a link to the article in the topic of the new wikipedia channel on efnet irc. the intent was that users of the channel would collaborativly write the article and then the postfix would be removed. please see Talk:Channel_Wikipedia. by continually voting for deletion on my articles rather than editing them, you are moving the discussion to the vfd, leaving me as the only editor of the articles in most cases. this is completely missing the point of wikipedia. the freenode channel is very notable, wikipedia even links to it when it's having server problems. Aghost 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Aghost, you've had a few articles that have received no VfD attention or if they have, have passed. The lesson you should be getting from this is that starting articles on extremely non-notable things is going to get a VfD now that you have a reputation for starting non-notable articles. I would suggest you be careful for the time being in what you create; make sure it *truly* is notable, and not something founded on Wikipedia yesterday. --Durin 01:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CryptoDerk 04:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - IRC channels have a high bar to get over to be in Wikipedia, and given Aghost's history of adding articles about things he just made up, I'm not inclined to think this is over that bar. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
comment this stated by a user of channel wikipedia. Aghost 05:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that that only lends credence to his(?) delete vote; it's not often you see someone vote to delete an article about a channel/website/forum/etc. he contributes to. (Also, delete nn irc channels, like this one.) A Man In Black 09:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, subtrivial net-cruft. Everyking 05:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and flog those responsible. — Phil Welch 05:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The real Channel Wikipedia features Deleteball - where RickK channels John McLaughlin in debates over encyclopedic suitability. ISSUE NUMBER ONE. Is Channel Wikipedia notable or not notable?! - oh, and delete. --FCYTravis 05:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
sounds like fun. lets do efnet vs freenode teams. i have an idea for new rules, if the article is deleted, we both lose. oh, and keep. Aghost 05:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Avoid self-references. Delete. --Slowking Man 05:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - both trivial and vanity Tobycat 05:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Right, we need this. Kelly Martin 05:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, this seems to be using Wikipedia to suit personal goals. Also, no notability whatsoever. Sarg 13:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No matter how many bad articles a person creates, there's no justification for personal attacks in the VfD debate. ----Isaac R 19:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What personal attacks? His history is relevant, and pretending that it isn't is naïve. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not relevent. We don't judge articles by the person who wrote them, period. Even when a person is creating a lot of bad articles. Especially then, because such articles tend to be so bad, everybody can agree they have to go. So why escalate the personality wars for no purpose? ----Isaac R 20:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You say "period" like it's an argument. If a person has a history of intentionally inserting non-factual information into Wikipedia, then everything they do is suspect until proven otherwise. It's the part of the behavior that got Michael hard banned two years ago. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I say "period" because the policies say, "Talk about content, not about people". And it's a good rule. Basing your criticim on who wrote an article damages the community atmosphere. Besides, what's the point? Aghost's writing is so incoherent, you don't have to work hard to get people to vote "Delete". (Which is always the case when somebody feels the need to say "another article from...") Indeed, making it personal actually works in his favor: he's able to justify himself as a persecuted, misunderstood individual. Personal attacks just feed that myth. ----Isaac R 23:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable. Another article about something created very recently, and virtually automatically fails any notability test. --Durin 01:12, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nreis

This page is an advertisement for a commercial company that does not seem to warrant its own wikipedia article Gblaz 03:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • delete ad. Xcali 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Megan1967 05:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete marketing materials: "With a staff of nearly 1,000 people in our corporate headquarters...". Um...did that say our? Tobycat 05:37, 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 {{{1}}}. delete, but it was speedy deleted anyway by Cyrius. bainer (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] America Adventure

For a prior VFD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/America Adventure/2004 Oct 24.
  • Delete article was voted for deletion before, but it was never deleted. Revolución 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Xcali 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 05:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's both advertising and not notable. Tobycat 05:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising/promo. Kaibabsquirrel 20:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "America Adventure is a cd-rom in Engrish." - there, fixed. Delete. --FCYTravis 20:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. It was deleted, but was recreated. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • On a side note, that article "consist to be" so bad it made my eyes water. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of the Beginning

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Appears to be one person's view. Xcali 04:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV essay. Time is a non-existent force... okay... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 05:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay. And such eloquent phraseology too: "Both theories have a wide range of supporters who are willing to bash their opponent's heads in." Eric119 05:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay, POV. Tobycat 05:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Deep thoughts. (Besides, isn't time motion?) Geogre 11:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay. Sjakkalle 11:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:17, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mildly incoherent rhapsodizing. Trying to define time is an excercise in futility.
  • Delete. POV, original research. Kaibabsquirrel 20:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An essay. Not even a good one. GregorB 20:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Wikibofh 23:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Lacks coherency.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rami (musician)

Non notable artist, vanity, possible self promotion or close to it (see creator's contribs and this vfd as well). Google search gives all of about 20 websites [2] CryptoDerk 05:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non notable --Chill Pill Bill 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Promotion strongly suspected. Tobycat 05:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't appear to cut it according to WP:MUSIC; delete. -- Hoary 05:54, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete: Article has a history of outright fabrication in it. "Musician" doesn't make it. "Recording artist" is closer. "Significant recording artist" hits the spot. Geogre 11:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability in article. --Lee Hunter 18:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Appears to fail all points of WP:MUSIC. The closest possibility of passing is #3. But, they've released only one album (the other, "You Are Not Milk Machines" is a single). --Durin 01:23, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narita Records

Non notable record label. 60 google hits [3]. Article reads mostly like an ad. See this related VFD on an article created by the same guy. CryptoDerk 05:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — Looks like an advertisement to me. The inexplicable, apparently irrelevant link to the "m3rck" website doesn't help; it's either carelessness or (more likely, considering the related VfDed articles) uninteresting self-promotion. Perhaps if all of these pages were condensed into one well-written, comprehensive article, the information might find a more welcome home here. HorsePunchKid 05:25, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is advertising. Tobycat 05:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I wonder what benefits these companies think they'll get by putting up these crappy adverts--Sophitus 10:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Poorly done of malign intent. An ad. Geogre 11:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Megan1967 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Funtulis

A musician . . . or anyway a math student whose own web page offers two tracks of his music. See also Image:Phil_funtulis.jpg. -- Hoary 05:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Keep. Phillip is somewhat known among a group of people in the Warren, Ohio and Kent, Ohio areas. Given this and the fact that his music is somewhat unique, this article ought not be deleted. .... added at 05:09, 2005 May 28 by 65.25.107.137
  • Delete. Non-notable, non-verifiable, bordering on nonsense at times. ESkog 05:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He could be somebody someday, but.. uh.. not today. -- Hadal 05:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. College student vanity, probably a joke on Mr. Funtulis. Article does not assert notability. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, I know of phil (not personally)and I can attest to the validity of this article. But completely ignoring my previous point, just because nobody here can personally justify it doesn't mean that it is not factual and doesn't have it's place within the wikipedia. I doubt anyone here knows everything on the wikipedia -- that alone does not justify the removal of the article. After all the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide information to others. 65.24.57.160 05:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)..... added at 05:26, 2005 May 28 by 65.24.57.160
    • Please sign your comments. This is easy; just hit the twiddle key four times: ~~~~. Thank you. -- Hoary 05:32, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. No signs of compliance with Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikimusic is a proposal for a new project. Could you produce said guidelines? ... posted at 05:31, 2005 May 28 by 65.24.57.160
  • Keep Because Phil is indeed a great, great man. 152.163.101.5 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't write BS 65.24.57.160 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that shows this person passes WP:MUSIC. Thus, it is another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Having read the WP:MUSIC guidelines, I find fault with them. However, I am aware that my concerns are better placed on the WP:MUSIC page itself, I will outline them here at this moment: These guidelines are too strong and only promote the dissemination of information about musicians in the mainstream. Not in an entirely direct response to phil's article, however, the wikipedia should be a source of obscure and less well known information. While the article about phil may seem unnoteable it is incomplete as phil has the noteworthy talent of being able to compose and perform long and complex canons on the fly as improv when cued by an audience member.65.24.57.160 05:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You're very welcome to state your disagreements with WP:MUSIC on the "discussion" aka "talk" page accompanying that page. Note also WP:V. -- Hoary 06:04, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
        • I meant to imply that I would later post to the WP:MUSIC discussion page65.24.57.160 06:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with WP:V, however, I do believe that there is more to fact verification than the hasty voting of those here.65.24.57.160 06:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with others that this smacks of vanity and promotion. Note that two anon votes to 'keep' come from similar IP addresses. The webpage hosted at/by 65.25.107.137 may be of interest: [4], suggesting a personal agenda pushing for this content to be included. Tobycat 06:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Performing a Trace Route on the IPs in question will reveal that one is assigned to a computer in Columbus, Ohio, while the other is assigned to a computer in Northeast Ohio. The similarities are merely the result of using the same ISP and these IPs are clearly not in the same local area; however, they are close enough to be influenced by the music of Phillip Funtulis. 65.25.107.137 06:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it only fitting the maintainer of phil's homepage be the one to create his article. This is not suspicious at all but is instead akin to having an expert in neurology write the page on brain surgery.65.24.57.160 06:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and teach this guy how to spell his name ;) — Philip (one "L!") Welch 06:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Knowing Mr. Funtulis, his first name is spelled with two Ls.
      • Comment made by 65.25.107.137
      • It was a joke. Note the customized signature on my vote. — Phil Welch 06:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This new version is much better. 131.123.35.14 08:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent vanity--Sophitus 10:11, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete vanity. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. And, for Pete's sake, remove that photo of WP... Sarg 13:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Karol 16:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Xcali 16:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Enjoyable performer. 68.254.217.75 15:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Total vanity. "Phillip Funtulis" returns no results from Google, either. Bennie Noakes 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Having results in Google is not a prerequisite for inclusion in Wikipedia. 70.246.72.80 03:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 70.246.72.80 03:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and obvious vanity. JamesBurns 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good Music. 69.76.141.232 14:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, being a near-perfect example of non-notability. Frjwoolley 02:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oy, vanity squared. Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to meet music-importance and appears not notable. Vegaswikian 23:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Kel-nage 23:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

[edit] Chinese propaganda

Attempt to create a forum. I see nothing wrong with the topic, but there's no useful content. MikeJ9919 05:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (useful topic, but no useful content) and bill those responsible for the cost of the bullet. — Phil Welch 05:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the newly-fixed article. — Phil Welch 04:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox and of course Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. An article with this title could be appropriate but this isn't it. Tobycat 06:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's wait a few days before deleting. It's an appropriate topic that is waiting to be expanded. A poor expansion will change my vote to a delete. Wherewaldo 08:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand. I think it's worthy of attention. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is now it's rubbish. Eixo 15:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. Page needs attention, not deletion. Provided external links have info for a good stub. Not to say that some googling gives enorous amounts of relevant studies. mikka (t) 16:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete is not expanded. Karol 16:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I started expansion, just to show the road to go, rather than the suspected intention of the initial author to start bickering on modern political topics. Also, the article title must me changed, to reflect the fact that we are speaking about PRC here. How about Propaganda in People's Republic of China? mikka (t) 17:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's getting there, and it's certainly an ecyclopaedic topic. Frjwoolley 19:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs cleanup, expansion, and a new title--Sophitus 19:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mikkalai's rewrite, but rename it. RickK 22:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Encyclopaedic topic. Megan1967 04:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to propaganda in China. Radiant_* 10:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Which of the today Chinas? mikka (t) 16:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 20:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mikkalai's rewrite. JamesBurns 11:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spoiling the well through the choice of the title. Would the keep voters vote to keep a page entitled "U.S. propaganda?" WebLuis 13:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename/rewrite The article has not convinced me that the word "propaganda" is NPOV. Shoaler 12:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The word "propaganda" is a purely technical term in communist countries. It is a fact, not a POV. If you are not convinced in facts spelt for you, then you have problems, not article. mikka (t) 17:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's definitely going to need a lot more work, but I also think the subject itself is easily notable enough to merit an article precisely because propaganda is such a major part of daily life in China. If it eventually ends up being merged with something else or renamed ("Propaganda in the People's Republic of China", as suggested by Mikkalai above, would be an improvement), I don't have a problem with that. Point is, I certainly wouldn't delete it now. -- Captain Disdain 23:37, 1 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penis removal

This is an unencyclopedic topic. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, probably belongs more likely in a history or medical journal. Charles and Co. 05:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Topic is encyclopedic and notable by Wikipedia standards. — Phil Welch 06:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Article coveres notable and diverse topic well. More than sufficient amount of content and depth to warrant a stand-alone article. Note that this one has been developing for over a year.Tobycat 06:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there doesn't seem to be a VfD notice on the article page.Tobycat 06:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Then put up a notice, it's a Wiki after all! Fixed :) — Phil Welch 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Xoloz 06:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe delist since the Vfd tag hasn't been added. Kappa 08:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no, it does belong--Sophitus 10:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason given why this shouldn't belong here. Mgm|(talk) 10:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good little article. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anybody else read that Poul Anderson story, "The Pugilist"?
  • Keep, notability. Megan1967 04:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ...nervously keeping legs crossed. — RJH 05:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, informative - Pete C ✍ 08:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why should that topic be unencyclopedic? -- AlexR
  • Strong Keep There are many other medical listings in this encyclopedia. What makes this one different? -- alofferman 14:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per what everyone else said -CunningLinguist 23:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for above reasons. A squeamish but completely valid topic. neckro 03:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just kidding. Definitely keep. 70.177.90.39 05:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • *Smacks you.* :-D alofferman 10:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is only 'unencyclopedic' if we take a narrow definition of what an encyclopedia is. It has valuable and interesting information. Robertbrockway 21:51 4 June, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep --67.161.115.23 21:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Mr Tan 14:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--EASports 22:28, 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 deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Light Formerly Known as Blinking

Traffic lights are not notable! — Phil Welch 06:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If the information can be verified, it could be merged with Taos, New Mexico. Angela. 06:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability. Even if true it is little more than a weak testimonial to a trivial fact.Tobycat 06:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —tregoweth 06:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phil's reason was well-put. --Idont Havaname 07:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All public institutions are notable. What not traffic lights? Delete then. Sjakkalle 08:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title made me laugh, but that's no reason for a keep. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there was evidence that it was officially designated as a historic landmark by the local government, or some other similar reason, maybe... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. My hometown has one of those, too. Should we start a disambig page? Joyous 20:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Traffic lights are a public institution and are inherently notable. Kidding, of course, Denni☯ 01:33, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Radiant_* 10:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability. JamesBurns 11:27, 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 to delete on the grounds of being a dictionary definition. -- ChrisO 21:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh snap

slangdef. --W(t) 06:33, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. --Idont Havaname 07:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Phil Welch 07:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Do things like this get into Wiktionary? It's a pretty common phrase among blacks and people who want to act black nowadays. -- Barfooz (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Does it occur as "snap!", just like the interjection "shit!"? If so, add the meaning of it to the Interjection section of snap, marking it as (''United States English, slang''). Uncle G 20:59, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not turn wikipedia into Urban Dictionary, please. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, Delete - DavidWBrooks 13:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonencyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 13:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a collection of slang words. Sjakkalle 13:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. redirect The dozens
    Unsigned comment by 63.209.14.211 (talk · contributions)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 speedy deleted on 04:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) by Delirium (copyright infringement -- listed on VfD/copyvio over a week). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pataphysical situation

Speedy deleted as patent nonsense, but recreated. VfD to placate those who don't believe patent nonsense is just cause for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 06:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete It isn't about anything. Indeed nonsense.Tobycat 06:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Keep unless it's a copyvio (in which case Delete). I'd also like to point out that this article is listed on Wikipedia:Unusual articles: "These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, ...". —Ashley Y 09:57, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep this article about intentional patent nonsense. Better to start with an explanation than to jump right in though.... Kappa 17:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: why does it matter if the patent nonsense is intentional? As if the sundry vandals and trolls *aren't* intending to write patent nonsense? Wikipedia's patent nonsense policy doesn't have exceptions for postmodernism. Assuming the article is meaningful at least to those versed in "pataphysics", it is impossible for most people to edit and has an insoluble systematic bias. It's impossible to judge if the subject is notable or encyclopedic, if the language conforms to the neutral point of view, if the language is factual, and so forth. This is why we have different language Wikipedias, and given that pataphysical prose is "intended to be absurd and nonsensical" to most people fluent in English, then it's arguably not written in English at all. Prose not written in English doesn't belong on an English language Wikipedia unless it's translated into English. If, on the other hand, it's patent nonsense even to pataphysicists, it doesn't belong on any Wikipedia. The point should be made in the pataphysics article (if it isn't already) that nonsensical prose is a component thereof. — Phil Welch 23:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this isn't an article about intentional patent nonsense. As it says in Talk:London Institute of Pataphysics this is a copy of an essay (Pataphysics: A Religion in the Making) written by Asger Jorn in Situationist International magazine, with a one-sentence disclaimer added at the top. It was reverted as a copyright violation in London Institute of Pataphysics, but copied from there to this article by User:Harry Potter, who asserted that this text was not copyrighted, in the middle of a VFD debate in 2003. The article is available online, but the copyright for the whole site where it is found states that it is Copyleft 1996-2004. All materials on UbuWeb are being made available for noncommercial and educational use only. All rights belong to the author(s). The prevention of commercial use makes this text GFDL-incompatible. Copyvio. Uncle G 21:28, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    • Now marked thusly. — Phil Welch 23:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well played. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I might add that I never alleged that the article was "about" intentional patent nonsense. In fact, we have many articles about several surrealistic and other movements that engage in the creation of patent nonsense, including an article about Pataphysics itself. What is barred is actual patent nonsense, even if it's patent nonsense created in the style of a serious intellectual doctrine. The article under question qualifies. copyvio or not. Of course, the copyvio makes this largely a moot point. — Phil Welch 07:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As the copyvio source notes, "Pataphysics: A Religion in the Making". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the religion is made and has a significant number of adherents, maybe then it will be time for an article. --Xcali 01:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, copyvio. Megan1967 04:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyright violation. JamesBurns 11:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sigh. I quite liked the article, and actually contributed to it, but if it's copyvio, it should go. NoahB 15:26, 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 to delete on the grounds of being non-encyclopedic and a probable copyright violation. -- ChrisO 21:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junk Food in Schools

Looks like a cut-and-pasted article; notice the photo credit and caption without photo. Even if it's original, biased POV. —tregoweth 06:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a long text which does not read like an encyclopedia article. Delete unless it's completely rewritten. Sjakkalle 11:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this essay. - DavidWBrooks 13:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Essay, POV title (no one can want junk food anywhere, because it's junk), and probably copyvio. Geogre 14:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Might be copyvio but have not found the source of it yet, and whether its copyrighted or in the public domain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs rewriting and a lot of work but this is a legitimate controversy. After making a futile attempt at arranging the content into a coherent, NPOV article I'm changing my vote to delete. I suspect, although I cannot locate the source, that this is a copyvio from a newspaper somewhere in Minnesota on the basis of several Minnesota towns and a photo being referenced in the article without explanation. Kaibabsquirrel 20:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Nestea 20:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good subject, but slanted and not in wiki format. --fpo 21:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV Essay (Is this the same guy as the Stop Drinking Soda stuff?) --Xcali 01:26, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raffles Institution Water Polo

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 07:00, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Merge some of the details into Raffles Institution--Sophitus 10:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It doesn't look like there is much that would be an appropriate merge, except "there is a water polo team." Geogre 14:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You're completely right, there is no useful content. The Raffles Institution article already mentions a water polo team, so I say *Delete--Sophitus 20:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing that needs merging. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, content duplication. Megan1967 04:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Tyler Eison

Some Nickelodeon voice actor. Full text: "Zach Tyler Eison is the star of two tv shows; the BackYardagins and Avatar: the last airbender." Rl 07:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable--Sophitus 10:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also did some behind-the-scenes stuff according to IMDB, but since most of his acting roles are minor, I'd have to say delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, minimal IMDb article. You might also want to check out Jack DeSena, which I didn't VfD, but I'm thinking about it. RickK 22:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
DELETE 100%-UNKNOWN
vote by 24.193.152.140, third edit. Rl 06:53, 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 - no consensus to delete, consensus does seem to exists that it should be merged or renamed. - SimonP 22:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 New England Patriots Schedule

I know that Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Therefore, I fail to see why we need to devote an entire article to the New England Patriots's 2005 16-game regular season schedule. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper so the concept of "an entire article" does not apply. Kappa 08:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. So I guess what is bugging me is does this article mean we should have similar separate articles for each of the other 31 National Football League teams' regular season schedules? What about separate articles for each of the Major League Baseball teams' regular season schedules? NBA? Canadian Football League? Australian Football League? FA Premier League? A separate article for every schedule for each team in every other professional sports league around the world? Where will it end? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Zzyzx11, Please skim through 2005 Boston Red Sox Season for an answer to that question. Obviously sports Wikipedians aren't going to write bad articles! --McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I would agree that information on how each sports league determines its regular season schedule is encyclopedic. What I oppose is a separate article for every single team's schedule for every single year. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you oppose that? --McDogm 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports news site. Also, you seem to be adding more sports analysis, editorials, and opinions rather than timeless NPOV material.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • 2005 New England Patriots Schedule and 2005 Boston Red Sox Season aren't really sports news. They are more like fixtures. I would like you to expand on your criticisms. Try to construct your own sports analysis mini-page, based on a sports team you know something about. Use Bill James as a 'template' for the work. The reason that I make this request is that I would seriously like to know how the two pages mentioned above in this comment trend so dangerously close to opinion or editorialism. And, I would like to see the voters here actually studying sports as they create their opinions of these two sports pages. It would be important for that to happen. As a note, if all 5 major US leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS and NHL each have on average 30 teams apiece, and each team generates up to 5 sports analysis pages, let's say, then there would be at least 750 new pages of sabermetrics level sports pages on the Wikipedia. This should take up to 10 years to occur. I completely fail to see how this could hurt the Wikipedia. Please tell me how this could hurt the Wikipedia. I would like to more completely work out this argument but I have to get back to work. Thanks for reading. --McDogm 15:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was thinking of merging, but than we'd have to accept full schedules and results for every sports team as well as long lists of past games.--Sophitus 10:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, Sophitus, that wouldn't make sense from a sports Wikipedian's point of view. The NFL is very easy to set up as it always has only 16 games in 17 weeks. I would be appalled myself to see an 82 game NBA schedule or NHL schedule. However, on 2005 Boston Red Sox Season an obvious solution is reached: that of simply listing each opposing team with the number of games to be played that season. An aggregate won-loss record can be jotted down on each of the 20 or so lines. And again, NFL is very easy to deal with as far as writing this type of result as there are only 16 entries for each of the 32 teams and either 1, 2, 3 or 4 playoff scores to record for each of the 12 playoff teams.--McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sets a thoroughly ugly principle. Harro5 11:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. Please elaborate. --McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't really see that game schedules which change from year to year need to be in the encyclopedia. Besides, anybody interested in it would just go to the schedule on the NEP's website. Sjakkalle 12:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My belief is that sports Wikipedians would rather get simple information from the Wikipedia. --McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move/Redirect to a more reasonable detail-level article at 2005 New England Patriots Season -- this could be a substantial article in time, and the current Pats articles is getting big. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:45, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    • I agree. It will be moved to 2005 New England Patriots Season if not deleted, as a preseason section, which will be followed by a short analytical precis of the 2005 season itself next January or February. --McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopediac. BTW, Booo Patriots. :-P --Chill Pill Bill 20:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain. --McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I just agree with nominator's reason for deleting this article because "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base." I don't mind the NFL Draft sub articles because only one new article occurs annually while if we keep on posting major sports teams' game schedules it is either 30+ new articles annually which is way too much. --Chill Pill Bill 21:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia has 500,000 articles. How are 32, 32x2 or 32x3 sports analysis articles harmful? --McDogm 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the sort of thing we need to get the Superconducting Supercollider back on track.--McDogm 21:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • See McDogm comment below Comment The article has now doubled in size.... for an explanation of this vote. Tx.--McDogm 21:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, at best Wikisource, but even they would probably not want it. Do we want to keep a record of every team in every sport's schedule for every year? There are 162 games in Major League Baseball, and 30 teams at present. RickK 21:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, my delete vote is even more extreme now that the author has added all of that POV original research! RickK 05:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm, it isn't really original; it is common knowledge. The POV could be better understood through Bill James. It is strictly neutral, sportswise, with a mild sports-like feeling. In this it resembles Deep Blue or the supercomputer competition covered in supercomputer.--McDogm 21:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has now doubled in size. The talk section is also begun. In any event the schedule will be available at User:McDogm/Pats Schedule. In passing, the investment community spends a lot of time with sports. It would behoove the science community to think about putting this potentially popular page on its own computer site in order to provide the basis for talking about money with people who have money to spend on the computer industry. It would puzzle the bank people in general to see a deletion area such as this one, and to then receive criticism for being unresponsive to the needs of the scientific community. Who do you think is voting on all this NASA stuff that keeps getting stalled? Politics is extremely important to getting money for quantum physics research and supercomputer research. Not to mention the internet. It is irritating to see science and sports fighting against each other. I would think that a simple schedule, which would go far towards establishing normal relations between the two camps, and which could be generated by interested sports fan Wikipedians at their leisure as the seasons unwind and repeat down through the years, would be a perfect addition to the body of knowledge here. In light of this present deletion difficulty, as a general trend indicator, it is easy to understand how difficult it is to obtain and give funding for important scientific research. Try instead to support a humble article like this one. Two-way communication is essential for generating massive expenditures in any field, including original science. It would certainly be appreciated. Remember, it takes two to tango. Let's try to set an example here. How can sports guys in congress vote for science when there is so much opposition to sports? They actually need your support in order to pass the necessary legislation! They really are eager to fund the science programs; they just can't receive abuse for doing so! Try not to make it too difficult. Its just common sense. Thanks for reading. --McDogm 22:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A schedule is simply source material. Any expansion beyond the dates, times, and opponents is at best speculation and editorializing. As the season progresses, the relevant high points can be added to the main article on New England Patriots. If there is enough information to warrant its own article, then it can be spun off of the main article at that time. Like many of the votes above, I don't see the point of having a single sports team's schedule for a single year in an encyclopedia. ESkog 23:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. I haven't seen any articles for the other 31 teams' schedules, or even an article for key games over the entire season. The only thing the main NFL article says about the regular season is a given team's opponent makeup. I think one article on the 2005-6 season highlighting key/good/interesting gameswould be enough. Megarockman 18:37, 28 May 2005 (CDT)
    • Wouldn't that be as untenable as merging all anime articles into anime?--McDogm 21:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that the schedule is ready to be merged to 2005 New England Patriots Season, as suggested above, as part of the preseason section, but the rules of deletion preclude any mergers or move of the article until the matter is resolved. On a seperate tack, 2005 Boston Red Sox Season is now more or less created, in the same vein as the future 2005 New England Patiots Season presentation. If one is concerned with 164-game lists, worry no more; the article is concise and interesting. I hope anyone concerned with this obvious worry would take a look should they have time. Tx. And as a point of interest, sports are such a huge part of our society, like the church, the military, art and science, that it is a bit odd to hear of it being spoken of as non-encyclopedic or even non-Wikipedic. I mean, it couldn't be more obvious. I think I understand some concerns, though. Although I am sure that there is no problem with sports articles that I write, I am sure that there is some small possibility of other teams' Wikifans not writing conscientious articles, to which I reply that any fan of the team or teams in question would simply have the authority by dint of love of the subject to create a better page. It is as though a free market force would take over bad sports pages, with incredibly proud and loyal fans replacing good with bad, in the case of un-Wikipedlian sports pages. Try to think along the lines of The Bad News Bears, Quiddich, George Plympton and Don DeLillo's End Zone. I could cite film; during the battle scene with the I-Fighters in the first Star Wars movie, Chewbacca, Luke Skywalker and Harrison Ford obviously has the type of hand-eye coordination associated with participation in sports. Another point I could make is that I have seen pages on this site so unbelievably obscure in nature that it belies any attempt to speak of sports as being unworthy of mention. I mean, really! I would be prepared to argue the case of this page in arbitration on all these grounds should it come down to it. I really think sports are good for society, and will be with us until the sun turns into a red giant, and hopefully beyond, if science and science fiction have anything to do with it. And I don't think Wikipedia should be left out of it. Thanks again for reading. --McDogm 01:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • McDogm, I don't think that most of the Delete voters are implying that sports in general don't have a place in Wikipedia. The questions, in my mind at least, are as follows: (1) Does/should a list of team schedules through history fit into the rest of Wikipedia's sports coverage? (2) If such an article can be expanded beyond a simple list, is there any way to meaningfully expand it without suffering from extensive NPOV (neutral point of view) problems? ESkog 06:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • ESkog, I think that the obvious pro-Sox and pro-Pats nature of those two schedule/analysis articles really reflect the very mild sports sentiment that one could expect from sports, as opposed to food or geography, to give examples. I think it is actually quite comparable to the pro-computer chess feeling one gets from Deep Blue and computer chess in its nature. I have spent time with the Bill James Baseball abstract. James invented sabermetrics, the term for the science of baseball analysis, and of detailed math analysis of sports in general. It is a very sober yet enjoyable science that takes fan feeling as an obviously inherent part of its written product. What I am getting at here is that these two sports articles, from a sports point of view, have very solid NPOV. I again refer to big science articles, which use the reader's and writer's enthusiasm for science to communicate the facts involved, like in JWST and any quantum mechanics article. The happiness of sports should come through in a sports article, much as the solemnity and toil of a saint should come through in a saint article. And as someone who knows sports writing to some degree, each team's analysis would follow in detail with the results of the analytical writing in 2005 New England Patriots Schedule and 2005 Boston Red Sox Season, albeit with differing emphasis. It is a commonplace of sports writing that one doesn't tear down the subject while one is writing it, but it is also a commonplace of sports writing that there is another article right around the corner that is more or less diametrically opposed to it, in a very mild sports manner, like a possible 2005 Indianapolis Colts Season or 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers Season in this case. As different sabermetrics level articles get written about differing opposing teams, the discussion begins to resemble a university classroom in its enthusiasm and and free flow of conflicting ideas. As long as sports writers on the Wikipedia are functioning at Bill James level there isn't much risk of abuse of the Wikipedia. Is the reference to POV and NPOV due to unfamiliarity with the world of sports? IDK.--McDogm 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • ESkog Not only is there some fan feeling in any sports article, more importantly, and what I was trying to say, is that fan feeling is obviously a component of a team's success, according to sabermetrics. It almost goes without saying. Sox fans have a certain feeling for the Sox, Yanks fans have a very different feeling toward the Yanks. These differences are imnportant and yield easily to analysis. Individual stars also have different 'looks'. Roberto Clemente (Pittsburgh Pirates) is different from Kirby Puckett (Minnesota Twins) and each one has a different impact on the story arc of the team. This is comparable to the concept of good will in accounting where Coca Cola's good will, based on the value of its appeal as a nominable asset, is different from that of Toyota or Mozilla.--McDogm 20:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikicities where someone can set up a wiki for this stuff. — Phil Welch 01:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Could this be accomplished after several years of development here on the Wikipedia proper? Detailed sports analysis is a rather new subject here and it needs some incubation. I am thinking of access issues for sports fan Wikipedians. --McDogm 21:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Detailed sports analysis is not encyclopedic and would be better suited for a sports news site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, trivial sports cruft. Megan1967 04:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask the meaning of 'cruft' as used here? Tx.--McDogm 21:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping you wrote your vote while the article was still half written. --McDogm 03:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As discussed, these "single season" articles do provide some interesting information and are not merely lists of events and dates. The information should be kept, but I think it would be better to condense them (to focus on encyclopedic rather than almanac information) and merge them into team histories. Dystopos 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My opinion on team history merging is that the articles in question are interesting per se and merging them into one seems to me to be like merging different subatomic particles articles like meson, photon, quark and spin into one subatomic particles article. --McDogm 21:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For reasons pointed out in Zzyzx11's comment. Article also has POV issues as noted by Eskog. --Xcali 01:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
(restoring my vote which was removed by McDogm) --Xcali 05:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should we also consider 2005 Boston Red Sox Season at the same time? --Xcali 05:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, Xcali, your vote got crunched up because your vote and my second big comment got saved at the same time. I was planning to leave you a note. Sorry.McDogm
  • Delete agree with Zzyzx11. JamesBurns 11:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have an idea that may help here. My two pages seem to be pretty good, prima facie. Yet I am certainly aware of how bad sports pages could result in a lot of work for VfD workers. So let me be a VfD worker who is always available at User:McDogm in case non-sabermetrics sports pages ever appear. Here is a useful first rule: "Any person writing about sports on the Wikipedia should be familiar with Bill James' work. I would be glad to talk to people who don't fit this description on deletion pages such as this. In fact, it would be my pleasure. And, in fact, please let me know if there are any such pages extant now, beyond the normal one-page per team and one-page per star encyclopedia entries, that are difficult to deal with and I will get around to it. Thanks. --McDogm 16:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a second rule or axiom: If any sports page is not sabermetrically competetive then it is not Wikipedia material. That is, if one isn't trying to get really good at sabermetrics, then what is one doing here writing? --McDogm 16:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose this list of axioma could go on and on. It is a lot of work to write a competetive sabermetrics page. Therefore, the list of pages that could be generated is extremely self-limited. --McDogm 16:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic - and most of it is speculation and opinion, suitable for a sports column but not an encyclopedia. CDC (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How can such a well known thing be unencyclopedic?--McDogm 20:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      • comment. Encyclopedic is not a synonym for famous. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and pay special attention to the headings "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." See also Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for additional guidelines. I think some of the information in this article is useful, but "the Patriots are expected to face a tough match-up in week 3" is not material for a reference work. Dystopos 20:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Please explain why "the Patriots are expected to face a tough match-up in week 3" is not material for a reference work. It is kind of like "The Americans faced a tough battle in the Ardennes" or "Hannibal faced a tough challenge crossing the Alps." Also, please quote that entire line to not take it out of context. It would facilitate discussion. Tx. --McDogm 17:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, I have been checking the Wikipedia: references you gave in your comment. I will have to ask, do you have any familiarity with sports in general? The reason I ask such a question is that the material in the 2005 Pats Schedule article is just obvious. It is something that every football fan already knows. It is difficult to verify, and it is difficult not to know this, if one had been more or less following any sports page in America. It is just very well expressed here, in a consciously sabermetrics level of intellectual discourse. There is nothing in the article that is not as obvious as knowing whether a light is on or off, to someone who has spent some time with the material, and who is willing to spend a lot of time bringing it to the Wikipedia, again in a standardized sabermetrics level of writing. --McDogm 17:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The phrase "is expected to" indicates speculation. Speculation is inherently unverifiable. If, in fact, the Patriots barely squeeze out a victory in week 3, then the information may be encyclopedic after the fact. If so many people think that week 3 will be a tough matchup that it is selected as the "Game of the Week" by several media outlets, then that information may be encyclopedid. The content of a prediction is not encyclopedic or verifiable. The means by which predictions are made could be, the effect of a prediction could be, and the actual outcome of the event could be. -- As for the argument that sports fans consider these speculations to be obvious, that does not argue for their inclusion. There is no article on the predicted color of the sky in 2006 for the same reason. To answer your question I do keep up with sports and I am, in fact, familiar with Bill James' work on baseball statistics. The sabermetric content of the notes I deleted from the article in question is not the point of objection. Dystopos 20:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what is? --McDogm 22:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The two games that the Patriots organization is concerned with are the Pittsburgh game and the Indianapolis game. The San Diego Chargers game is a third important hurdle for the team. These three games will be in the books by Week 9, halfway through the season. (Paragraph) Going into the season a second level of difficulty would include Atlanta, Denver and the New York Jets. Week 9 again is a milestone as 5 out of 7 of these difficult games will be complete by then. The Jets play on Week 13 and Week 16; the second game will be played on Christmas Day, December 25, 2005, very late in the season. This is the very material in question, italicized. You should try to think about criticizing this material more effectively. I am certainly at a loss at this point to continue this dialogue. I am not sure if this has turned into a excercise in foo fighting or not. I don't want to waste your time if it has. What is the procedure for withdrawing a motion for deletion? I am not trying to be nasty; I ask because the conversation is losing coherency and I have a lot of other stuff to do. Also, one's public statements should reflect well on one. Most of the comments here, all of which have been answered point by point, do not reach that standard. It is like sausage being made; its just ugly. What NFL team do you like, anyway? Please advise. I might have to give up on this deletion process as it is getting too weird. That certainly isn't good. --172.152.77.167 23:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) McDogm
      • I feel the same way. From my perspective I see everything as the exact opposite of your above synopsis. The material is not objectionable on a point-by-point basis. The class of material (speculation about future events) is inherently non-encyclopedic. The rest of the article is still up for VfD. I removed only the sections which were clearly against WP policies. I am not convinced that the remainder, though not so clearly objectionable, should remain as a separate article. Therefore I voted to merge it with a general account of the team history. I will understand if you do not wish to continue this conversation. I would be a bit relieved myself if it ended here. Perhaps it should be moved to a discussion page instead of Vfd. I am not sure the point of asking which teams I like. (I like the Saints, Titans, and Packers. I cheered for the Patriots in the Superbowl.) Dystopos 02:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Despite being against deletion, I agree that such material requires attribution for each of the facts presented, and in its current form is not acceptable. It seems to me this is just based on the records of the opponents from last season, and if this is so, that ought to be made clear. Again, though, the schedule and (AFTER the fact) a discussion of events in the season seems like legitimate material, and given the number of seasons the team has played and will play, putting all that into a single Pats article seems like too much. Having individual articles on each season seems like a good solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted earlier, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Furthermore, I'm sure this is information that is very, very easily available elsewhere. I realize that sports fans are likely to be interested in this stuff, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is a good place for it -- there are other (and, I would say, better and more obvious) sources for finding game schedules. Bottom line is, I don't think this is encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not a sports database dedicated to the minutiae of future events. I mean, we might as well start listing the air dates of upcoming episodes of ongoing TV series... -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is any minutiae in the document up for deletion. Please explain. --McDogm 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "Minutiae", as in "small or trivial detail" -- well, it may not the best choice of words, really, but I do think that in the grand scale of things, it's fitting enough. I don't think this is the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. Like I said, I realize that sports fans are likely to be interested in this stuff and that it's certainly not irrelevant information in itself, but that doesn't mean that it's relevant to Wikipedia. And I'm certainly not opposed to sports in Wikipedia, but it's one thing to write articles about sports and another to create pages for upcoming events. Bottom line: listing the dates and various details of future sports events is not encyclopedic information, and Wikipedia is not a scheduling tool or a repository of general knowledge. -- Captain Disdain 00:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into New Englands Patriots. I don't believe their is anything wrong with wikipedia having the next years schedule but it doesn't need its own article. Falphin 21:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. News report, so a move to Wikinews may make sense.--Nabla 00:28, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Merge per Falphin. This sets a terrible precedent that would allow large schedules from, say, hockey or baseball to be posted. I don't really think this is encyclopedic, but it might be good to post the upcoming schedule (perhaps with updated results as the season goes on) on each team's page, as this is good, current information that warrants its own subsection (at most). -Tadanisakari 07:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the content. We now have articles on each British cricket match so one on an entire NFL season is not out of place. Should be merged/renamed into a page on the season, however. - SimonP 22:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waste Control Specialist

Tagged for speedy deletion as advertising, but I don't think that's what it is (also not a criterion): "This company has stirred much controversy across the state and the country. The company has recieved much protest from enviromentalists, though it has been welcomed by the citizens in Andrews". Also there seems to be a plan to dump radioactive waste there [5]. No vote. Kappa 08:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Doesn't seem like advertising and the information seems pretty valid. --bjwebb 09:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think it's advertising as much as it is anti-contextual and a news report. No indication of notability for this particular company (is "Waste Control SpecialisT" the name? odd name for a company). Geogre 14:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially that huge map. —tregoweth 19:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no usable content. --W(t) 00:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete W is right. --Xcali 01:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 11.43 million cubic yards of ... waste is inherently notable, for miles around. But delete anyway. Frjwoolley 02:15, 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 {{{1}}}. speedy delete. bainer (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cl0ck crew & Clock Crew

Was previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clock Crew. This has been recreated a couple of times so I thought it was worth listing again. Content is significantly different also. —Xezbeth 09:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, seeing that this has already been ditched. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:21, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 22:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keyboard plaque

This is a dictionary defintion and I don't see how it can be anything more. Dmcdevit has already transwikied it to Wiktionary (see talk:Keyboard plaque) after I put the notice on yesterday. Thryduulf 09:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If it's been transwikified, than Delete should be the obvious choice--Sophitus 10:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge with keyboard, could be expanded to cover health/allergy implications, composition, rate of accumulation, effect on keyboard function, microbes/mites etc supported, and cleaning techniques... Kappa 17:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Kappa wants to create an article with all of that in it, he's more than welcome to, until, this article isn't encyclopedic. RickK 22:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is just a dictdef. --W(t) 00:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Merge with keyboard Xcali 01:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Keyboard, otherwise delete. Megan1967 04:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. Quale 07:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Keyboard. JamesBurns 11:30, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rubber Band

This page is pure vanity. Recnilgiarc 09:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Alphax τεχ 10:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The kids are probably too young to know that their name was taken long, long, long ago. Vanity article. Geogre 14:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's an early 20th century cartoon (I forget which.) that has a sight gag involving this pun. Gary Busey might have a few words to say, also. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. The kids might be too young to even come close to one of the WP:MUSIC requirements. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and not encyclopedic. Damicatz 23:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. redirect Bootsy's Rubber Band
    Unsigned comment by 63.209.14.211 (talk · contributions)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Penalty (rugby). This was done ages ago, some I'm just closing the debate here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penalty kick (rugby)

There is a better description of the reasons for a penaty and the different options for the team being awarded a penalty in the Penalty (rugby) page making this page useless. Greg321 10:58, 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 keep. —Xezbeth 09:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Yeager

Looks kinda like nonsense, would have speedied it, but i was unsure, maybe it has some redeeming feature gkhan 11:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No clue as to how 1984 got into this. Sjakkalle 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the rewrite by RickK. Well done. Sjakkalle 06:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The irrelevant content on 1984 takes up most of the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. GregorB 20:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, a fine article now, after the rewrite. GregorB 11:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've rewritten the article to be about the baseball player, though it might be a disambig page, since there is also a Steve Yeager who's a minor actor/director (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0947036/) and another who's a jazz musician (http://www.steveyeager.com/), although I'm not too sure how notable the last is. RickK 23:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work, keep. --W(t) 00:53, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • keep as written by RickK. Xcali 01:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Abstain Megan1967 04:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep the rewrite makes it worthwhile. Go, Dodgers! WBardwin 05:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep After RickK's rewrite it's a definite keep. I change my vote gkhan 10:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable baseball player. Capitalistroadster 00:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite keep now. Good job, Rick!  :) Dale Arnett 07:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEPER I don't know what that other garbage was, but Steve Yeager needs to be here, he was a conerstone role-player, was part of the "core group" of Garvey, Cey, Lopes, Russell, and Sutton, these six players held the Dodgers together for over 10 seasons, with 6-NLCS & 4 WS trips, One of the best Dodger catchers in history!. WikiDon 07:30, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Massicotte

Non-notable. All Google hits seem to go to reviews and guides on Amazon.com (written by, not about this person). Full text: "Young American composer, advocate of mixed atonality and tonality, and savage mechanism. Follower of Antheil and Beethoven, "The two crowning successes of music."" Rl 11:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Xcali 01:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:19, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interslurf

Delete. Conlang which is still under construction. Vanity/promotion. Made up by teenager as stated in article I've speedied yesterday. Bringing it here now. Mgm|(talk) 11:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity and useless. Sarg 14:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What makes this so different from Esperanto or the Klingon language?
    • This vote above by Tp640871, creator of the article. The difference should be crystal clear. Esperanto has 2 million speakers (a minority, 200-2000, of them natives). Klingon language has been heard by much more than 2 million people in Star Trek. Same reasons are valid for Quenya and Leet. Nobody knows Interslurf. Sarg 16:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like we're in for another round of conlang vanity articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that, outside of the author, anyone at all speaks or writes this made up language, let alone there being printed dictionaries for it and works written in it. Unverifiable. No secondary or even primary source materials are cited. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 21:45, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, YAMC (yet another minor conlang). --W(t) 00:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete Xcali 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Exslurf. Or whatever the word is for delete. Original research; conlang with no known speakers. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:05, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden Shoe

Ad for some non-notable bookstore. Rl 11:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to clog?Dunc|☺ 13:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The capitalization is off, but it would prevent recreation. Redirect. Mgm|(talk) 14:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no need for redirect, this article is about a stores, not a shoe.--Sophitus 20:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect will deter recreation. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deterring recreation is a nice side-effect, but I don't think we should be redirecting just for that. Delete, don't redir. --W(t) 00:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Clog. Xcali 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Clogs, not Clog as it's a dab page. Not notable bookstore. Megan1967 04:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another anarchist vanity page. The bookstore is admittedly notable within the "anarchist movement"...but so what? Kaibabsquirrel 05:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Clogs. JamesBurns 11:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to clogs. A clog is a wooden shoe, after all. Radiant_* 11:34, 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 speedy delete. bainer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Software Passport

Seems more like advertising, than an encyclopaedic article. --TheParanoidOne 11:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, but expand. I sorta see where you're coming from with the advertising, but I think it can be improved. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted - half the article was a recreation of a previously deleted copyvio. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:57, 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 - deleted - SimonP 22:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Innovism

Some political one-man movement, it seems. The article lacks references that could establish notability. It might be, but I have a hard time finding anything that shows it is. Rl 12:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:58, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:22, 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 - no consensus, vote so marred by sockpuppetry and outsiders that it might be best to rerun it at a later date. - SimonP 22:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stardestroyer.net

Vanity and website advertising. Delete. Current version already merged with Star Trek versus Star Wars, previous version was advertising, suffered from serious POV issues and ultimately was an advertisement for a website. Rev Prez 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Given the size and influence of the site, it does merit inclusion as an article. Majin Gojira 17:41, 30 May 2005

Delete. The subject of the article is hardly substantial enough to merit notability. 65.82.235.254 16:42, 30 May 2005

Keep. It should be noted here that Revprez, the person who has started this Vfd, has also repeatedly vandalised the base page, AND was banned from the BBS which the entry discusses due to trollish behavior over there. -Robgea 18:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral for the moment - article seems to big. If author keeps removing VFD tag, delete. --Kiand 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Delete due to infighting and obvious vote garnering starting to piss me off. --Kiand 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep. I do not believe the nominator for VfD is doing this in the interests of removing "advertising" or maintaining the objectivity of Wikipedia but as a part of his personal agenda, considering that he was banned from the site in question. Also, the maintainer of the website is not the author of the article. RDalton 19:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Rev Prez's stance is one solely based on exacting a bitter personal vendetta against a message board which banned him. --Spanky The Dolphin 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep' Rev Prez is a known troll who has harassed a great many forums. He has been banned from SD.net for violating board policy and is now seeking a vendetta against SD.net for this. As already mentioned by others this Wiki entry is not authored by the author of Stardestroyer.net Alyeska 20:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rev Prez is doing this for personal reasons rather than in accordance with the wiki rules for deletion. Fearghul 20:11, 28 May 2005

Keep Aside from what has already been stated, what are these 'serious POV issues'? - Shroom Man 777 210.213.149.252 20:20, 28 May 2005

Comment can I remind people, that anonymous users, and very new users with no substansial contributions CANNOT vote. --Kiand 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is obvious that revprez is doing this because of personal reasons, not because of an actual fault with the article that he has vandalised several times. Ubiquitous ALI_G.

Keep Stardestroyer.net is a specialist sight which would not be interesting to some one other than if they were looking for information on the startrek v starwars debate. There for it would pointless to advertises this site and there for it is my belief that the page in question dose not constitute advertising. It also may give vital information to some one confused by the purpose of stardestoryer.net and as such should be allowed to stay. 81.153.150.165 21:15, 28 May 2005

Comment. I urge any admin considering this VfD to check the voters' contributions, with Kiand's comment in mind. Phils 20:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment I also urge any admin considering this VfD to review Revprez's edit histories. He has repeatedly vandalized the page that this VfD is being conducted on as well as the Star Trek vs Star Wars page. He is carrying out a vendetta against SD.net and SB.com for having been banned from those forums. This is a personal vendetta for Revprez and he is using Wikipedia as his tool to try and hurt other forums. Alyeska 20:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Kaind is mistaken, if he had taken the time to read the actual rules on a vfd, it states quite clearly that new and anon users can contribute and vote, but they MAY be discounted by the admin. Fearghul 20:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never met an admin that doesn't anything other than strike and discount votes which are obviously being garnered from external sources. You could also try spelling my name right... --Kiand 21:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Some info on Revprez. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=14357364&oldid=14357316 He vandalized someones report of vandalism against him. Alyeska 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - notable authority on its subject matter. However, all that useless forum vanity garbage needs to go. I suggest everyone taking part in personal attacks leave it off this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - The site is widely reknowned for it's objective stances on the SW vs. ST debate. I am in agreement that touting the forum on a wiki entry may be a bit much, but SDN is what it is and what it has always been. That is, a vast storehouse of SW and ST knowledge compiled over several years from several knowledgeable sources.Chardok 19:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I am convinced that Revprez is nominating this article as a vendetta against Stardestroyer, and I think that Stardestroyer is a notable website, particularly because of its very active forums. Academic Challenger 23:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Whether the VfD nom is good faith or not is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or not (likewise the sockpuppetry shouldn't influence voting). --W(t) 23:52, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

First off, there is no sockpuppetry going on, secondly, Something Awful's forums have an entire article devoted to them, so this article is hardly "advertising" 210.131.198.82 00:25, 29 May 2005

  • Delete nn. ad. Xcali 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - No less notable than iichan or 4chan. Iceberg3k 03:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleanup. Some notability. Megan1967 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that I was banned from SDN for trollish behavior, as well as from three other forums where I've trolled in discussions related to religion and politics. I guess in the experience of some posting here, that means I should hold a grudge or something. But even Darkstar has to admit that SDN of the most informative sites related to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate; his site wouldn't be up if it weren't. It continues that rare tradition in fan culture of examining beloved content with an empirical eye. If SWTC has had an impact on the debate noteworthy of its own page, then SDN may deserve its own as well. And the boards likewise lend themselves to rich discussion; there's nothing else out there that comes close in SDN's category. So I have no idea where all this "vendetta" crap is coming from. Still, the entry as stands doesn't even pass the laugh test. It's a vain, self-serving promotion. I've tried to work out the POV issues, but if people keep reverting it to the same old crap rather than expanding the stub then I don't see why it should stay. I don't intend to revert it back; the opening hook I wrote is in Star Trek versus Star Wars now. The question is whether the article is salvageable. With that, I'm changing my vote to weak keep. --Rev Prez 06:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Comment You have also trolled here at Wikipedia Revprez. Would you like me to post what you have done on the Vandalism in Progress page? I see multiple violations on your part. Alyeska 06:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sure, you're free to post them. --Rev Prez 06:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The SDN entry is not against the regulations of Wikipedia.--Yenchin 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the changes made to this entry today, I'm changing my vote to a keep. --Rev Prez 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm changing my vote to delete. The entry is five paragraphs. The half of the second paragraph is an explanation of the SDN abbreviation, and the other half lists Michael Wong's fanfiction (is it customary to advertise individual fanfics?). The fifth paragraph ends with a sentence (there are, again, only two) that simply restates the third paragraph--which in turn restates a fragment in the opening hook. The fourth paragraph--yet again another two sentence number--is half "Michael Wong likes Star Wars" and "AOTC:ICS supports SW over ST"; the Star Trek versus Star Wars article already discusses this. So really, what additional information of value follows the first paragraph? --Rev Prez 08:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 10:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, since I'm the only one who's worked on the first paragraph, let's just call it a delete. Final answer. --Rev Prez 15:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, this article in no way violates wiki protocol. Further, given that the charges of a personal vendetta appear to be true, I suggest keeping it soley to spite to fool attempting to misuse this resource. --D@niel 1136, 29 May 2005 (EST)
In what way are they true. --Rev Prez 15:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
You come here and you exclusivley target SDnet and pages related to it for massive deletions of text, without discussing it in the talk pages of the entries. When people ask you to come to the talk pages you ignore it and continue rampant deletion, and slap a VfD on the page to continue this. When you're reported for vandalism of the page in question you go to the Vandalism in Progress page, and edit the entry (seen here), changing it's report from one agaisnt you to one against the person who reported you. Then when you get called on this you come here you admit to being banned because you were a troll, and yet claim you have no vendetta even though you came back there with sock puppets, twice. If that's not a grudge, then I'm Alan Greenspan. Robgea 16:30, 29 May 2005
On the Vandalism in Progress page, I apologize and note that I did indicate that a previous revision showed the original. As for the vendetta business, well you're free to believe what you want to. I cop to my trollish behavior on SD.net and apologize to all who were offended; if that's not enough then we've got nothing more to say on the issue. If you can add informative material that does more than just restate the opening hook, I'll change my vote yet again. I doubt you can, though. --Rev Prez 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As stated by Iceberg3k, the site is no less notable amongst its fandom than 4chan or iichan are amongst anime fandoms. While the entry may need some cleaning up, it doesn't violate wiki guidelines from what I can see. If nothing else, even if it did deserve deletion, I don't believe that deleting a page after a VfD started in bad faith would set a good precident for Wikipedia. --138.130.219.71 00:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

(It seems I made this entry while I was accidently logged out. Figure I should re-sign it, so I'm not anonymous and can be checked up on. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC))

Comment - Given the amount of work I've put into trying to fix the entry, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that this VfD was started in bad faith. --Rev Prez 02:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - "Fix"? The edit history is the smoking gun and puts the lie to your claims you're trying to fix the article. your edits are vandalism, pure and simple. Have A Nice Day.
Comment - care to point out this vandalism you attribute to me? Or is this aspie outburst for emotional effect? --Rev Prez 04:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Given the simple fact that you are banned from the discussion forums of said site (And IP banned from the server itself?), you are clearly as biased a source of reference for this site as would be the webmaster himself. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • Keep - If you delete this because a whiny little git wants you to then everything that's hated by a whiney little git will get deleted. --darthdavid (It was me, forgot to log back in)
What if said "whiny little git" changes his vote to marginal keep? It looks like we can draft an informative, useful article about SDN (at least for all those Star Trek versus Star Wars types. Also, just curious, who the hell says "git?" --Rev Prez 06:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Delete articles about forums whose sum total contribution to humanity is some Star Trek vs. Star Wars fanfic. A Man In Black 09:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I wouldn't be so quick to pidgeonhole the site in this way. The fanfic side of things is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of this site, though the fact that the article might suggest such a thing would be cause for its re-writing. I would be interested to know which revision of the article you were looking at when you made this vote, given the significant evidence towards Rev Prez having both made biased edits to the point of vandalism, and having started this VfD in bad faith. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Do you want to list any specific instance where I've vandalized the SDN page, or any evidence whatsoever that this VfD was started in bad faith? No? I didn't thinkso. But with all the bitching going on amongst the SDN members, you'd think SDN would send over people with a larger vocabulary than "the," "Revprez" and "vendetta." --Rev Prez 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep widely known sf site. JamesBurns 11:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Now changing my vote to a permanent keep. The new revision is excellent. There are a few NPOV issues, and now there's a framework for expanding on Wong's EvC essays. --Rev Prez 22:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - That seriously better be your last vote change. You're flopping around more than a bass in the bottom of a fishing boat. --Spanky The Dolphin 22:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - "That better be my last vote change" or what? Seriously, I'm looking back over the entry and besides the opening hook I see little more than a brief restatement of the STvSW article, some stuff about Mike Wong's political and social views as well as his personal life, and a self-flattering portrait of the forums. I can't even say keep and merge; I just can't wring anything of value out the entry.--Rev Prez 07:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a web guide CDC (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment We might aswell delete every article about a website, then.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Bull. Nobody disputes the value of the Google and Slashdot entries anyway you slice it. What's so special about SDN? PhpBB? EvC? STvSW? Secular Humanism? Fanfiction? --Rev Prez 14:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Are you just a fucking moron or did you have to Dumbass U? You actually think Secular Humanism isn't worthy of having an article? Fanfiction has an entry because its a noteable subject known by alot of people. PHPBB is noteable software.--Kross 14:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Aspies go nuts. ;) I mentioned PhpBB, EvC, STvSW, secular humanism and fanfiction as features. --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment To put it politley, yes, yes he is a fucking moron, and yes he probably actually thinks that Secular Humanism doesn't deserve an entry. (What's even sadder, however, is that he actually went to MIT)--Robgea 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Yeah, there ain't no justice. --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Thats the funny thing. Several people checked and according to them, they discovered that he never finished at MIT. We're guessing he either failed or was expelled. He uses the whole "I went to MIT" spiel as a crutch to make himself look smarter.--Kross 02:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I don't believe I've ever used the "whole 'I went to MIT' spiel." --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per CDC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entry simply sounds off on a webmaster's views on life, Star Wars, Star Trek, and death. --Rev Prez 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and throw Revprez down a well.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment You gonna need to get your weight up, child. --Rev Prez 14:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is nothing more than a vanity article as currently read. If not delete, major cleanup needed. Balancer 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't it be kind of hard to do a major cleanup, if it were deleted?--Kross 23:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The website is well-known within its specialty, and thus deserves its own article. Not to mention the one person rabidly pushing for this deletion apparently has ulterior motives. Neocapitalist 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a notable enough website within the fan circles to deserve its own Wikipedia article. (Vote is from User:Ryan Hardy)

Delete, notable or not, there's insufficient depth of material here to warrant an encyclopedia article. Aside from the description fo the main site and its forum, this is an article on a personal website: "over the years Mike Wong has expanded the site to cover other topics within his interests " The site is already linked to in Star Trek versus Star Wars; its basic description could be expanded there (as some of the other sites' descriptions are). Sockatume 22:53, 9 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 - kept, article is wholly different from the one that was nominated - SimonP 23:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freifunk

Reads like an advertisement. Sjakkalle 12:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC) No vote yet on the rewrite. Sjakkalle 08:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete of course - DavidWBrooks 13:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Change to keep, following rewrite - DavidWBrooks 11:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete might as well be written in greek--Sophitus 20:05, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Neutral - no longer written in gibberish, but it still reads like an advertisment.--Sophitus 08:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I bet it deletes like an advertisment too. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The site's a bit below my normal personal bar for web sites. However, it's in German, cutting out a lot of English language traffic, and I'm in a decently good mood. No vote. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose that I had better not admit that I understand this text, then. ☺ See HyperWRT and OpenWRT for how such topics should be approached. Dumping a change log into Wikipedia does not an encyclopaedia article make. Cleanup would involve basically discarding all of the existing content, so Delete and start again is just as effective, maybe more so. Uncle G 22:00, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Stumbled accross this page while browsing. One of my users may have added this content, because he/she added a link on the WRT54G page. While I'am new to wikipedia editing, I will try to correct that content for a more general description. sven-ola 09:36, 2005 Jun 01 (CEST)
    • You can do that, but you should probably wait until this article is deleted first. It can be a bit hectic trying to get people back to change their vote on a rewrite, especially when most votes are made on the first two days. Sjakkalle 07:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I see you have rewritten the article. I'll go and contact the users who voted. Sjakkalle 08:05, 1 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 - kept, but needs cleanup - SimonP 23:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religiousness and intelligence

This article is a piece of patent nonsense. It could also be a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I don't think religion and intelligence are connected either way, nor should they be in an encyclopedia, so it's non-encyclopedic. --EuropracBHIT 12:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC).

  • Delete: This is not science... This is culture in the USA only. The paper suggest causal effects, that are unprovable.
While we're at it, lets delete everything in social science. You cant prove causal effects in any question in social science, unless there's a significant time delay.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Has been the subject of many scientific papers. Science should not be censored. Ultramarine 13:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that large parts of the article, including the data, is regularly deleted so check the history för an uncensored version. Ultramarine 21:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. It doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. It's cited. Various studies have shown that the more educated one is, the less likely one is to believe in the supernatural. In addition, the more educated in science one is, the less likely, and within science particularly biology. Now, I think one should recognise that education and intelligence are two different things, but nevertheless there is scope for an article. Dunc|☺ 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you support renaming the article to Religiousness and education? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:31, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. The source the author provides looks respectable enough, and he claims that he quotes studies featured in Nature and Scientific American, so I have difficulty believing that this is a piece of patent nonsense, even if you personally disagree with the findings. While the tone could certainly be made more diplomatic, a valid correlation between these two important elements of society is encyclopediac, in my opinion, especially when one considers the prominance of both religion and intelligence in encyclopedias individually. Finally, with regards to the possibility of disruption of Wikipedia--my feelings are that we should embrace these challenges, not ignore them. --Frostyservant 13:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for above reasons. I'd like to see the article fleshed out. --DAD 13:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Inherently POV, plus this is an unwieldly topic. It is, of course, simply amazing to me that Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Liebnitz, Bernard Spinoza, Soren Kierkegaard, C. S. Lewis, and hundreds of thousands of others were not intelligent. Phenomenal research! We have no business carrying articles based on cruddy methodologies and prejudicial results. All this does is create and carry forth a war. Geogre 14:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Logical fallacy alert: correlation does not imply 100% correlation. PlatypeanArchcow 15:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Methodical fallacy alert: the dead guys you listed are from at least 100 years back. The studies cited in this article pertain to a social group at present, and a narrow one for that matter. Karol 16:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is interesting enough, it's not patent nonsense; statistical correlation doesn't constitute an absolute rule. But it's not encyclopedic either. There are some things Wikipedia is not, and it is "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". This subject could be material for an essay, but not an encyclopedia article. Who on earth would come here looking for an article on "Religiousness and intelligence" anyway? Eixo 14:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
You never know when some Ted Turner type will make some statement linking the two. Then we'll have something to link to.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep though there should be more of statistics worldwide, not just US related ones. The explanation part should be removed as there's no chance to be objective. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The explanations part is what MAKES the article objective by providing some context to the data. For instance, would you support a Race and intelligence article in which say, college graduation statistics were provided for different races with no information about potential biases caused by different levels of wealth, etc? Christopher Parham

(talk) 15:36, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

    • Agree with Christopherparham. As long as each explanation is presented as a theory, it is acceptable.Hornplease 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, unfortunately, this explanation part is hopelessly POV - that is the bit that goes from today's US scientists to a sweeping generalization. It is this introduction that is a "logical" as "The Bell Curve" was. -- AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move/Redirect to Religiousness and education, or another more appropriate title. The current title (and especially the lead sentence of the article) is asking for trouble; the lead is deeply POV and the title is somewhat so. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given by Eixo and Geogre. Furthermore, the content and title are seriously POV, while both the papers referenced are by the same two authors- Edward Larson, in the History Dept at the University of Georgia and Larry Witham, a journalist. It seems more like a pet theory rather than accepted research conclusions. --G Rutter 16:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 16:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as this should be qualified as original research. Reason: the studies cited here report a correlation between level of education (not intelligence) and religious standpoints. They were made within a narrow group of people (both geographically and historically), however, and extrapolating such data to any wider context lacks justification. My opinion: this correlation among the american scientific community may be the byproduct of deeply rooted realism and reductionism. Karol 16:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep has anyone even bothered to look at the external link [6] which is a list of scholarly references that describe studies associating educational attainment, IQ, income, and scentific discipline with religiosity. Thus, it is not original research; and moreover it cannot simply be renamed as religiousness and education, but the term religiosity may be prefered -- religiosity and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: interesting stuff, well written article, good citations, certainly not nonsense… but I cannot convince myself that this belongs in the encyclopaedia. It cannot ever be made NPOV without becoming original research, and just seems, well, inappropriate, dammit. (by which I mean 'not a fit topic for an encyclopaedia', not 'too naughty to discuss') Naturenet 19:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Taboo should not be a justification for deletion. --Rikurzhen 19:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reasons already stated. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A worthy topic and not inherently POV. Needs more consideration of differing points of view. Kaibabsquirrel 19:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In response to what has been stated above, let me just say that: 1) a scientific question by definition can't be "inherently POV", because it deals with the reality, and in reality the answer is either true or false, 2) the article doesn't claim causation (i.e. that high IQ causes less religiousness), only correlation, and reasonably backs it with references. Still, I must add that I'd rather see it merged someplace... GregorB 20:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • This brings us to the essence of this dispute: should we have articles solely about correlations, aside from the question wether and how well they are documented? (I think everyone agrees that this article states correlation, and not causation). So, let's ask ourselves if we should have articles on other equally intensively studied, but perhaps not as popular correlations, such as Aggresiveness and obesity, Annual income and emotional quotient, and my personal favorite, Mental illness and time spent online. Karol 20:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is in fact a very good point... My personal hunch is that religiousness is negatively affected chiefly by education, not intelligence, and that the well-known high correlation between the two obscures that fact. Still, we don't know the answer yet, and the mere correlation is fair game for an article if it's important enough, and I think this one is. GregorB 12:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • If there is credible research on a subject, why not have an article on it? --Rikurzhen 22:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, junk, unsafeable, since the article does not even remotely come close to contraining what the title advertises; it would even be lousy if it were titled "religiousness and education" since it only talk about a very small part of the educated people in the word; namely, todays US scientists. One would probably even get vastly different results when checking other societies, or other fields of education, and as already pointed out above, let's not even mention different times. -- AlexR 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • we wouldn't delete an article about (for example) infanticide because that practice is limited in time and place --Rikurzhen 22:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but we would not let an article stand, either, that would claim that widespread infanticide is unlimited in time and/or place. Furthermore, false analogy - infanticide is a fact that stands on its own, this article is about a correlation, and the degree if that correlation is the question here.--AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It is clear that this article is about a real thing: an area of intelligence research that has shown a correlation between variables (though the studies and their results are debatable, similarly to race and intelligence). Beckwith's article presented 43 studies from this area that supported the correlation. This discussion is not about the degree of the correlation. Such a discussion would have to be based on a review of this area of intelligence research and these studies, not a review of a week-old stub. Has anyone here done this research before claiming the article will never be legitimate?--Nectarflowed T 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand if possible to cover other societies, fields of education, and different times. Kappa 20:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageable. It makes me blush to even imagine looking up this ridiculous topic in Encyclopedia Britannica. Should we have Red hair and fiery temperament, too? Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • as compared to having an article on Autofellatio? --Rikurzhen 22:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can find scientific, peer-reviewed papers outlining a correlation between red hair and fiery temperament then by all means make the article. The article in question has these papers. — Asbestos | Talk 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Religion, or some such similar article. Or, if you simply must keep, then at least wikify. Hermione1980 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs work and possibly retitling, but the subject is certainly worth an article. Keep. --W(t) 01:00, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Neutral point of view, anyone? Delete.--Slowking Man 01:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it if there is indeed studies being done on this topic. --ShaunMacPherson 01:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV, and likely unsalvagable. No note of studies which disprove the theory. Also, if consensus is to keep, I suggest a better title is found (religiousness?). --Xcali 01:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, worthy topic for inclusion. I can't see it being original research since it has been covered in other scientific journals. Megan1967 04:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the moment the article is pretty badly POV, and I've put a {{POV}} tag on it. But I don't think it's unsalvageable. It just needs to be NPOVed and nurtured carefully. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article's title is a lie compared to its contents: the studied groups are scientists and scientists as a group are not the same as intelligent people as a group. If someone wants to create an article that explores the religious beliefs of scientists, do it -- that would be interesting and encyclopedic. To pretend that studying scientists tells you about religiousness and intelligence is neither scientific nor intelligent. Quale 07:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly interesting topic. The nomination itself is invalid, as it does not rely on the usual criteria for deletion, but on personal disagreement with the research presented in the article. If the article is POV, or criticism of that research is not propertly addressed, this can be resolved by improving the article. VfD is not the place to solve POV problems. Martg76 08:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination was flawed, insofar as this is clearly not nonsense. The topic is highly contentious (I am religious by nature), but it can be salvaged by presenting a NPOV. Certainly, scientists have long studied the question -- the matter is of central concern to psychologist William James for one. Xoloz 19:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This isnt nonsense. It needs to be cleaned up and made a bit more NPOV but it is highly notable and has the capability of greatly expanding -CunningLinguist 23:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting and not original research. JamesBurns 11:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Researchness and delete. Radiant_* 11:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Breeding ground for POV and original research. WebLuis 13:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely needs rephrasing and re-analysis of cited research. Unfortunately science is not as diplomatic as we would like it to be, so I understand the controversy generated by this article. However, if this has basis in fact (and, though I am very religious, I have observed this in life as well) it should be re-written and left online. Perhaps studies/statistics from Mensa or the Triple Nine Society could corroborate the findings put forth in this article? (Previous unsigned vote by User:24.179.81.187. Hermione1980 19:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Because religiosity has been too narrowly defined. Evolutionists exhibit a highly religious faith in evolution. 222.152.132.86 21:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (Sock puppet) [7]
  • Keep, interesting, factual, referenced.-gadfium 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Maybe it needs some work, but on the whole i'd say we should keep the article.--M. Alexander 15:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This article, as it stands, is incredibly biased and lacking in balancing data (big bang theorists becoming thiests) If there are persons will to salvage, KEEP, if not, DELETE as per Deletion Policy: Article is disruptive.--Tznkai 16:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The article doesnt lack balancing data, I suspect the studies it cites do.Hornplease 05:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it isn't very good, but it has merit. See Race and intelligence to see how it should end up... (very well cited) --Gmaxwell 05:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; The subject matter is controversial, perhaps, but I can certify that studies of this nature are common among economists and social scientists. However, most studies concentrate on more objectively quantifiable identifiers, such as education. There may be no link between education and intelligence, and whether or not there is is not the subject of the article, which concentrates on the undisputed statistical fact that there is a correlation between levels of education and overt religiosity. (Theists do not satisfy the 'overt religiosity' thing, I suspect.) The article is not POV as it stands, but the title may be. Unusual situation. Maybe change to "Religiosity and Education/Intelligence" and keep.Hornplease 05:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - while the article isn't the best example of a Wikipedia article, its content is fairly good and the issue it is raising is scientific. Let's not censor science just to please the religious fundamentalists. Ronline 11:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, you might want to take notice of the fact that not everybody who voted for delete, for whatever reason, is a religious fundamentalist. I know I am not, and the same goes probably for the majority of those who voted "delete". The question may or may not be scientific, but unless there are works to be cited that actually deal with the subject (and not "religiousness and 'hard science' academics in the USA at the beginning of the 21st century") the article is not only an invitation for edit wars, it is also probably original research. -- AlexR 12:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re-read the article; in its early days it was the victim of massive deletions of content, but that has settled down now. You'll find many studies that directly correlate religosity with IQ, SAT, etc. --Rikurzhen 14:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Still very US-centric, and the term "religiousness" seems to be quite problematic, too - as it could cover everything from a belief in a god or some "higher plane" with not particular effect on a person's life or work, to a reborn bible-thumper. SAT, btw, also does not quite measure "intelligence", the latter being subject to quite a few controvercies itself. -- AlexR 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This area of intelligence research is mostly conducted in the US because religion, like race, is a bigger deal in the US than in other developed countries, as the article points out. Race and intelligence is, similarly, also pretty US-centric. This does not delegitimize these areas of intelligence research.
The studies clearly define their measurements of religiousness. Races can also be difficult to define, but that doesn't mean researchers should throw up their hands and give up. SAT tests do test cognitive ability and are correlated with IQ scores. Controversiality is not grounds for exclusion. Most of these issues are discussed in the race and intelligence article. --Nectarflowed T 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Leave intent and origin of opinion out of this, its unnecessary. I'm been accused of herecy more often than fundamentalism, and I am quite tempted to vote delete based on disruptiveness. A correlation between religious belief and education is intresting, but hardly indicative of inteligence. This isn't hard science, this is social science at best.--Tznkai 14:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
correlations are never conclusive, just suggestive. It might make you uncomfortable, but that is indeed social science works. Its not a good idea to ignore the social sciences altogether. `Hornplease 16:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm studying to be a social scientist, so I know the limitations, and the due dilligence that you need to make the statements this article was suggesting. It needs a lot of work--Tznkai 16:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is describing a well-researched scientific study, and has the relevent citations. The article describes a correlation and nothing more. Open to changing the title if necessary ("intelligence" should not be replaced with "education" since the article correlates more than that, but unsure if "religiousness" is the correct term). — Asbestos | Talk 17:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The origin of the "intelligence and" part of the title is probably to follow in the pattern of many other articles with similar titles: race and intelligence, sex and intelligence, brain size and intelligence, etc. I checked out "religiousness" and although its usage is less common than religiosity, I've found it in the titles of several papers. --Rikurzhen 18:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork nonsense. Ambi 07:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • POV Cleanup - This has to be some sort of trick to see who votes differently on this and Race and intelligence. The article misinterprets its sources - the Nature and Science articles only show correlation between occupation and religiousness, while the Terman study only deals with those with IQ >140. I am skeptical that there are no views presented in opposition - surely they exist if the topic is notable. The Opinions and Interpretations sections should be deleted as POV. michael 08:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think this is the key: I am skeptical that there are no views presented in opposition - surely they exist if the topic is notable. There has been a huge debate on Race and intelligence, for years, and it's produced a notable literature. This just isn't at the same level. You will find that even now the article is essentially single-sourced: a mere paraphrase of the external link provided; and the citations are from that link's bibliography. Demi T/C 17:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • As suggested before, at least move to Religiousness and education, a more accurate title. Beyond that, it's not inherently PoV - it's just reporting the published studies - and it's obviously not patent nonsense or original research. Dan100 10:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you call "Religiousness and education" a more accurate title? If you read the article, you'll see that it discusses a lot more than education. — Asbestos | Talk 13:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to [[Religiousness and education]. Axon 11:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I voted for a strong keep on race and intelligence, but this is far too POV, and it doesn't look salvageable. --Idont Havaname 22:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep GregorB made my points for me. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & no need to rename. For all the users with little experience with science who are voting delete, the article is very clearly about much more than education, and, besides, education and IQ are correlated. Also, the stats about scientists vs. the public are relevant, as, yes, there is a correlation between occupation and IQ, and scientists are at the top of that scale.
Anyone here claiming they can conclude this area of scientific research lacks sufficient data or that the article is an original argument should look at the 43 studies referenced in Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry Magazine, Spring 1986. It isn't available online, but is available by back-order,[8] and a summary of 30 of the referenced studies does appear on a number of sites.[9]
Also, keep in mind the article is currently only 11 days old. Any delete votes claiming the area of scientific research is an original argument, non-notable, or "inherently POV" should be based on a thorough review of the area of scientific research, not on an incomplete article that's only just beginning.
Regarding the question of is this area of research non-encyclopedic, Frostyservant points out above that that is a difficult argument to make when religion and intelligence are both very encyclopedic topics. Also, how could this topic be non-encylopedic when race and intelligence is very encyclopedic?--Nectarflowed T 05:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Some studies do not make a finding. --pippo2001 07:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The article under discussion does not claim this open area of intelligence research has produced an undebatable finding. It presents studies that have produced evidence in an important area (see Wikipedia:Importance, which is what Wikipedia:Encyclopedic redirects to). I don't think anyone here is intentionally saying this area of intelligence research is unimportant. Race and intelligence is likewise an open area of intelligence research, one in which many elements are far from being settled.--Nectarflowed T 10:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not too good now but has the potential to grow into something as good as Race and intelligence. Nickptar 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's say no to censorship. -- Toytoy 18:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because an article is currently POV is no reason to delete it. It needs editing, not deletion. Daekharel 15:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could stand improvement, but the topic is one that has been the subject of legitimate study. *Dan* 19:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Learn Chinese Easy

I don't recall Learn Chinese Easy being an 'Internet phenomenon' where I am, as this claims. This is an insult to Chinese people and to those who work hard to learn Chinese. Also unencyclopaedic and originates from a joke site, also an unfree image. --EuropracBHIT 12:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC).

  • Funny, but I got only 14,700 google hits and I doubt they're all related. Together with a possibly unfree images that would be a delete. Mgm|(talk) 19:05, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke, not notable. Kaibabsquirrel 19:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hadn't they better Learn English easily? delete. Dunc|☺ 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - just a joke. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This gets a Delete vote, easy. Xcali 01:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, prank. Megan1967 04:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Engrish delete. Radiant_* 11:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny-once joke. Delete. Shoaler 12:42, 1 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 23:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of thaumaturgy

If this place actually exists, I think it must be a micronation. Not notable. Sjakkalle 13:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fictional, although based on an actual group that claimed to be a government-in-exile, IIRC. --Frostyservant 13:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no place called "Magic," and therefore a republic of "Magic" is inherently impossible. Geogre 14:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Electionworld 19:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense article, probable hoax. Kaibabsquirrel 20:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, any nation which doesn't have its own Internet domain isn't real. RickK 23:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, micronation cruft. Megan1967 04:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'll stick my neck out and call this patent nonsense, since it purports to be human geography but contains no intelligible location data. AlexTiefling 16:17, 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 - deleted - SimonP 23:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina Ashcroft

Not notable, 1 search hit. Hasn't this name been up for deletion before? Eixo 14:28, 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 - deleted - SimonP 23:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Legion

Parity with Clock Crew. Doesn't appear to be notable. —Xezbeth 15:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: it IS notable, actually. See the bottom of the talk page for the Lock Legion article for reasons why, and discuss the issue there before casting any votes. I am fed up with these pages being deleted with insufficient reason why and request an actual debate on the topic before a decision is made. If you refuse to offer debate and delete this article regardless, I am going to assume the reason you are not giving an answer is because you don't have one, and are doing this as a personal attack, in which case I will take appropriate measures.
    • Listing an article for VfD is not a personal attack. I'm simply cleaning up after the deletion of Clock Crew, and this article happens to be related to it. —Xezbeth 19:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 20:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

=I'm not referring to you (Xezbeth), but to anyone else coming here to vote, and I didn't say "If you put my article on VfD", I said "If you refuse to offer debate".
I know putting something on VfD is not neccesarily a personal attack, I just want to establish why people keep doing this to my articles so I can improve.
To reiterate: anyone who wishes to vote, please read the talk page and discuss the issue there before voting. If you cannot give a reason, then what business do you have deleting my article unless it's a personal attack?

Your article? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as mentioned on the Talk page. --FCYTravis 20:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

=I've had a brainwave. As I've discussed previously, groups like these are mainly popular on Newgrounds. So why don't we create a section either in or linking to the Newgrounds article about popular animations on Newgrounds? It would be like a detailed list of some of the most important groups and animations from Newgrounds and why they are so important.

  • Delete - vanity/plea for attention. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I'm offended at being told that if I vote delete it's a personal attack. RickK 23:13, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Further justification at the article's Talk page. ESkog 23:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Xcali 01:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Rlw (Talk) 01:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 01:11, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, forum vanity. Megan1967 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Newgrounds#Groups.2C_crews_and_rivalries. --EvilZak 06:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 07:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable -CunningLinguist 00:16, 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.

there should be some logic to delete this - i feel the source and article are authentic

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP23:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Teenman

While the loss of a testicle might be devastating to an amateur porn star, the loss of this (probably vandalous) article would not be to Wikipedia. Denni☯ 16:56, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete, to be consistent with my previous speedy delete nomination. Mindmatrix 19:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I would have been happy to speedy this one, but unfortunately, it is not a candidate. While it appears to be patent nonsense, and Googling for Pro Teenman nets nothing, it is still sufficiently coherent that it needs to pass through the VfD process. Denni☯ 19:55, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • No problem. I was undecided between the two, and chose the faster method. Mindmatrix 19:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity--Sophitus 20:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Denni's summary made me laugh. --Xcali 01:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:30, 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, no consensus to delete, votes evenly split between keep and delete, with the issue being whether or not the group is notable enough for Wikipedia. Pincus 06:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New College Democrats

A local chapter of the College Democrats for New College of Florida. I don't think local chapters of the College Dems are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia--also, this will be very difficult to update. Meelar (talk) 17:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Went through VfD a while ago (see article's page history) and the consensus was to keep. JMaxwell 19:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete No, it wasn't. The user Anthony DiPierro deleted the first VfD table on 8 Mar 2004. If the consensus was to keep then an admin didn't do his/her job by putting the VfD archive on the discussion tab. It is only a local chapter of a notable organization so delete. --Chill Pill Bill 20:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I remember the last VfD vote. I voted and the consensus was to keep. The vote tally must have been deleted. Pincus 23:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kaibabsquirrel 19:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (again) Pincus 23:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more notble than any other college's College Democrats group. It appears that Anthony Di Pierro deleted the VfD header before the 5-day period ended, I wonder what happened to the vote page. RickK 23:17, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • The group is notable in Southwest Florida, and a lot for influential than being a College Democrats chapter would suggest. For example, it hosted all of the debates in the Democratic Congressional party and is frequently mentioned in the local media. Pincus 23:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm in Tampa, some 40 miles away, and I've heard of this group, probably from the Tampa Tribune. JBurnham 00:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with RickK. --Xcali 01:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, local chapters aren't notable. --W(t) 01:13, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep I've been finding that many here have an odd standard for what's "not notable." BrowardPlaya 01:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, sounds notable in Southwest Florida. Kappa 02:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with RickK - local chapters are non-notable unless they have something special - hosting a party debate for a congressional primary is not special. --FCYTravis 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I was originally inclined to vote delete too, but I decided to do a google search before just to make sure that the group's not notable. From googling, it seems as if they special, for one thing, for being the only Democratic organization in the socialist United for Peace and Justice umbrella. [10] Google also reveals some other drives that make them seem a bit unusual for such a group, such as hosting black radical Omali Yeshitela. So what I've been finding from the search makes me lean toward keep. WebLuis 13:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete local chapters arent inherently notable. Megan1967 04:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK and Megan1967. Quale 07:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per JBurnham and Kappa. Wenteng 09:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quale and TCYTravis. Radiant_* 10:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa Xoloz 19:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what Kappa said -CunningLinguist 23:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete local chapters are non notable. JamesBurns 11:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep From googling, it seems to be a pretty active group throughout SW Florida that just happens to be a local chapter. Keep per Kappa. WebLuis 13:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a local chapter of a political party, and unless there's some evidence of historical notability, it ain't enough for an encyclopedia entry. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Only Democratic organization in the country affiliated with the socialist United for Peace and Justice sounds pretty notable. I can't think of any other Democratic organ officially taking on a socialist orientation. Even more remarkable, I can't find anything online suggesting that they have been censored by the party leadership. JMaxwell 20:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete local chapter stuff. Merge anything of value into the parent org. Vegaswikian 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep per WebLuis. DJ Silverfish 19:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Ruy Lopez 20:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per WebLuis. For a Democratic group, they seem pretty innovative. NEW WORLD ORDER 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK. jni 07:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Two main reasons to delete: The most important: 1) Many versions contain/contained untruthful and exagerated information. Which leads to the other reason for deletion: 2) The actual group is very much non-notable. Their political involvement waxes and wanes with the semesters, and the group has been in a steady decline since the past November elections. This information does not come from internet research but from personal experience. User:guslto 10:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is utterly absurd. This is a college club which put on a few debates. There are thousands of nearly identical clubs around the world. Non-notable. Gamaliel 06:52, 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academical Village People

Advertising. (Note the "Buy their CDs ..." link which I removed) TheParanoidOne 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like advertising for some minor college group--Sophitus 20:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - smells like standard minor band promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough information to establish notability. --Xcali 01:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, didn't we already VfD and delete this a while back? --W(t) 01:13, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 04:32, 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krishnaology

"Krishnaology" gives only one google hit. Besides the study of Krisna should be either at Krishna or at Vaishnavism Andries 17:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep - "Krishnaology" is a notable entry. It is a term used by two prominant Vaishnava theologians and is easily distinguished from the historical, literary, and archaelogical study of the Hindu god Krishna. The most distinguished scholar of Hindu Studies at the University of Cambridge, Dr. Julius Lipner, has vouched for this term. There are two quotes from Dr. Lipner that shed some light on this discussion below. The first references Tamala Krishna Gosvami and his work on the Krishnaology of Prabhupada's teachings. The second references the value of his dissertation, the subject matter of which is Krishnaology.

  • "Neither I nor the Faculty ever had reason to regret our decision. Goswami seemed naturally to slip into the academic groove. Accustomed to giving guidance from a position of authority, he also had the ability to place himself with the right attitude at the receiving end educationally. He accepted guidance with grace and humility, read voraciously, worked with great intensity to deadlines, and wrote with clarity and power. His doctoral topic was the 'Krishnaology' of ISKCON's founder, Swami Prabhupada. His personal knowledge of Prabhupada's teaching was vast, he was extremely well-informed about scholarship on the Society, and he had innovative and penetrating ideas. In my view, he succeeded in researching his subject matter with integrity, the requisite criticality, and much originality."
  • "It is my intention to seek to publish the thesis in his name after due formalities have been seen to. If this can be accomplished, the thesis, I am sure, will be of great benefit to ISKCON and the scholarly world."

These statements were published in an academic journal by Dr. Lipner. Such statements by a prominant scholar of Hindu studies (from the University of Cambridge), carry significant weight. If anyone believes that this article is worthy of deletion, they must be able to conter such statements.

MAC 28 May 2005

  • In that case, you might want to put in a vote and back your statement up. Abstain. Mgm|(talk) 20:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One Google hit says it all. Somebody's doctoral thesis is not notable. RickK 23:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep We have an article on Christology, and there is another usage here. Google is not everything. Septentrionalis 18:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this term is too underdeveloped for an article, needs more than two scholars. Buddha, (comment by user:Andries vote made by anon ip user:198.214.51.1)
  • Delete, neology. Imc 20:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 11:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not only a neologism, but a chimaera of Sanskrit and Greek, which is really really wrong. Frjwoolley 02:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:44, 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 - kept - SimonP 00:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stillen

Non-notable commercial Denni☯ 18:06, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Keep Company seems fairly well known within its field. I get over 90k hits on Google for +Stillen +Nissan. --Lee Hunter 18:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - company is a major producer of aftermarket performance parts for Nissans. --FCYTravis 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per LeeHunter and FCYTravis. WebLuis 12:58, 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 speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Videogamegeek91

Vanity, created by user himself. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted, and rightly so, by both Jpgordon and Duncharris. The whole content was "Videogamegeek91 is a GameFAQs user." What a waste of bits. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 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.

Several voters argued that it might be kept if expanded. The article was extended during the discussion but subsequent voters appear to have discounted the additions and none of the previous voters returned to change their votes. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Room parties

Room parties are parties in (private) rooms. According to the article it's a phenomena at SF conventions but it really happens with any kind of convention or event. Seems a bit obvious.--Lee Hunter 18:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Possible dicdef. Xcali 01:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see this becoming encyclopædic. --W(t) 01:15, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep under the condition that the topic be expanded. If not expanded within a reasonable period, I will support its deletion. — Phil Welch 02:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concur with Phil - give it time to expand. Megan1967 04:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xcali. Quale 07:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Radiant_* 10:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Room parties are...parties that happen in hotel rooms. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential, obvious. CDC (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded. JamesBurns 06:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If anybody can see a way to expand this article, they should go ahead and do so. In the meantime, I vote DELETE. ----Isaac R 21:46, 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 - kept - SimonP 02:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Humphreys

There's not much here to qualify as an article... maybe it could be mentioned in New South Wales Rugby League or something, or seriously expanded. In fact, I'm not sure whether this is deletion worthy, so I will abstain from voting and leave it to my fellow wikipedians to decide the fate of this would-be article. M412k 18:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep expand and cleanup. This man was in charge of running Australia's premiere rugby league competition for ten years between 1973 and 1983. The Four Corners program alleged corruption in the dropping of charges against Humphreys in 1976 involving Premier Neville Wran. Wran was cleared by a Royal Commission but Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Murray Farquhar ended up in jail in connection with the matter. I would love to clean it up myself but will have limited opportunity in the next few days. See [11] for an explanation of the Four Corners program. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not much of an article, but we might as well keep it since the subject is reasonably notable. --W(t) 01:16, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TICalc.org

Appears to be non-notable. Calculator programming organizations are inherently non-notable. Frenchman113 18:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sholtar 18:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unofficial calculator programming organization. Nestea 20:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I should vote now I guess.Frenchman113 22:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering that many middle and high school students spend large sections of their class time on games downloaded from this website, it might be at least somewhat notable. But no vote. PlatypeanArchcow 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Xcali 01:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Within its field, this is the premiere website for information about and resources for owners of TI graphing calculators, and I speak only as a longtime user of the site. This site has very possibly the largest archive of programs for TI graphing calculators as well as other features such as tutorials and articles about various aspects. M412k 00:03, 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. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honor by association

The creator of this article decided that the logical fallacy of guilt by association must have an "opposite" called "honor by association". That's not logical -- honor is not the opposite of guilt. In any case, the concept is not one I've seen in works on logic or philosophy, or indeed any place outside Wikipedia. So even if the concept were logical ("innocence by association" perhaps?), it would be original research.

A request: please don't vote to keep this article just because the concept appeals to you. You should only do so if you can cite use of the concept (under this name or another name) in pre-existing literature or other sources. ----Isaac R 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Halo effect Xcali 01:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • "Halo effect" describes a psychological phenomenon, not a logical fallacy. ----Isaac R 01:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original "research". --W(t) 01:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Comment The exact same text appears here, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/Ho/Honor_by_association.htm, leaving me confused. Xoloz 19:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • A Wikipedia mirror, as the bottom of the page indicates. ----Isaac R 19:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a concept -- whether this is the name for it, and whether or not it oughtn't to be merged with other articles on logical fallacies .... --Simon Cursitor 07:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a neologism with no usage outside of this particular article. Quale 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever it is, this concept can also be included in the Guilt by association article. E Pluribus Anthony 07:29, 12 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 02:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnnssie Maneiro

Vanity in a foreign language. Not notable; Delete. Physchim62 19:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity--Sophitus 21:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Sietse 13:26, 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seyyed Amin Mirzaei

A vanity page. Note Wikiquote and Wikimedia entries, which should also be deleted. GregorB 19:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. btw, the w/quote and w/media entries don't exist. Dunc|☺ 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, wq and wm are boxes only, no real entries fortunately... GregorB 11:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more stupid vanity--Sophitus 21:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:35, 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tricky The Clown

Another Newgrounds related article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lock Legion. This one is about a single animation, and again doesn't appear to be notable. —Xezbeth 20:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you're going to delete, at least explain why in detail. That way I can learn and better articles can come from the info you give.

  • It's quite simple, really. While all of the single animations above may have been popular among many sites. Tricky The Clown and it's legacy have only been popular along Newgrounds. Thus, Newgroundscruft. Nestea 20:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

="Your search - Newgroundscruft - did not match any documents." I presume that means Newgrounds-only. Fantastic idea: let's create a section dedicated to popular animations on Newgrounds, and have it either as a section on or linking to Newgrounds.

See cruft. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
See Fancruft. Nestea 01:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - more Newgrounds trivia. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newgrounds users are now trying to point to the existence of this Wikipedia article as some sort of notability of the thing. http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=271476 RickK 23:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, they're using their self-proclaimed notability on Newgrounds to justify having a Wikipedia article so they can proclaim their notability on Newgrounds. This going in circles is making my head hurt. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Xcali 01:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 01:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 04:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ESkog 07:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Someone needs to build a Newgrounds Wikicity or something. The information is interesting and would be a shame to lose, but it's probably only of importance for Newgrounds users. 10:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with the Newgrounds Wikicity or something meme. Orbital habitats, visible from 'cyclo~, and accessible by portal but not directly hard-dock-connected. --Simon Cursitor 07:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newgroundscruft. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Vargas

All listed achievements are from 2005. Listed TV shows and films have no articles. And on the article's talk page her co-hosting has been questioned. The only fitting hit I got of IMDB was this unrelated page. DELETE as vanity. Mgm|(talk) 20:11, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, if her album went platinum twice, why does google and allmusic have nothing on her? Pure vanity, I'm guessing.--Sophitus 21:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a person that likes to read a lot of Seventeen magazines and watching MTV. BTW, it seems someone has deleted the VfD table. I reverted back. --Chill Pill Bill 21:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Karol 21:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fantasy. "Cynthia Vargas" +"Alberto Sanchez" gets zero Google hits. I can't find anything about he grandfather being a music mogul. See also Elizabeth Sanchez. RickK 23:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence to verify that she is noteworthy enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete everyone already knows my thoughts. <>Who 03:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for same reasons as above. Ruakh 19:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a hoax. There is no Forbes Top 200 Celebrities category. RayGirvan 23:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of rubbish is what makes Wikipedia look bad. Kel-nage 23:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the obvious reasons.dunerat 12:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing that hasn't already been said Antares33712 17:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment, curiously enough a search on "Robert Sanchez" does turn up something. He is a liutenant in the Klingon army. Star Trek anyone? HAHAHA Antares33712 17:36, 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy lights

I believe this is second-hand band vanity. I get the feeling that it's written not by the "certain someone named Patryk," himself, but by the people who'd like to release his CD, but can't quite come up with the money. Joyous 20:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weyes is said to have voted Delete on this article at 01:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC).
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:38, 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darragi

Vanity Denni☯ 20:56, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • No claim to notability, though that may be the article's fault. Still, delete. --W(t) 01:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:38, 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team Quiz

Not notable. Fredrik | talk 21:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

(restored Fredrik's comments after Team Quiz's author altered them -Xcali 21:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC))
  • Speedy nn. Just like bandcruft. Xcali 21:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, games cruft. Megan1967 04:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

`===Poetry X=== Non-notable website. Denni☯ 21:10, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

  • Delete - agree with Denni, plus the anon user has been spamming the link to dozens of articles (now reverted). -- Solipsist 21:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Xcali 01:03, 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 - It's clear the content should be kept. Also clear that it shouldn't exist as an independent article. However there are three different merge targets, and sorting out where the content should go isn't a matter for VfD anyway. - SimonP 02:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Odyssey

Page for a Star Trek starship that appeared briefly in a single episode. Content already covered adequately by Galaxy class starship. And nothing links here except a redirect page called Uss odyssey, which nothing links to. AlistairMcMillan 21:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --- Not everything about the Star Trek universe is notable. Especially when it's obviously invented because Rick Berman saw Independence Day and said to himself, "That's why the ratings are so low -- we don't blow up enough stuff!" ----Isaac R 22:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What does that have to do with anything? People will look for any dubious excuse to bash Rick Berman. Anyway, redirect to Galaxy class as mentioned above. 23skidoo 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, I was just looking for an excuse to bash Mr. Berman. Poor Rick, nobody likes him. Can't imagine why! ----Isaac R 00:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the content. If it only appeared in a single episode perhaps merge it into the page on the episode. - SimonP 00:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Xcali 01:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dominion War. — Phil Welch 02:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The destruction of the USS Oddyssey was several years before the outbreak of the Dominion War and was not connected to it at all really. Just merge it in with the relevant episode or the Galaxy Class article. --New Progressive 06:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to episode article. In canon, notable as 1st Starfellet ship openly attacked by Dominion forces: pace Archduke Ferdinand. --Simon Cursitor 07:14, 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. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gümbadey

Seems like utter nonsense. Only one Google hit. Fredrik | talk 21:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn Xcali 01:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --W(t) 01:21, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if this term actually exists. Martg76 08:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:39, 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 wasdelete. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nytharese

Conlang. - Cymydog Naakka 22:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete totally non-notable. Dewrad 22:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable conlang. Megan1967 04:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but see note below. IJzeren Jan 09:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Note (copied from Talk:Nytharese):

To the creator of Nytharese:
Wikipedia is not the place for grammatical descriptions of conlang projects. Therefore I have to support the deletion proposal. First of all, because this is an encyclopedia, it should contain a description of the language instead of a grammar; and that's exactly what I cannot find in the article: info about the person who created it, the year in which it was started, the purpose of the language, etc. Secondly, we need to restrict ourself to constructed languages that have proven their importance in whatever way. A barely started project IMO does not count like one. And even worse: it gives ammunition to those who think the whole conlang stuff is crap from the beginning and are waiting for a chance to kick it out of the wiki altogether.
Now I suppose you have been adding your conlang to the wiki with the best intentions. And let it be clear that I welcome your efforts to give Nytharese a web presence. But wiki is definitely not the place for it. Let me instead point you to another wiki, specially designed for constructed langages: http://conlang.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page (on the main page, you will also find links to other conlang wikis). I'm sure your language and all of its grammar will be welcomed and appreciated there much more than here!
Good luck, IJzeren Jan 07:46, 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 ambiguous.

I count 9 clear "delete" votes to 19 "keep" votes (4 anonymous or probable sockpuppet votes discounted). While that would normally be considered an unambiguous "keep" decision, I find it in direct contradiction to Wikipedia established policy (which was carefully cited below). A few keep voters explicitly expressed that they understood the policy and found reason to request an exception in this case. The majority of keep voters appear from their comments to have voted in ignorance of the policy.

I am going to call this decision as a "no concensus" (which defaults to keep for now). All participants are encouraged to carefully review the relevant policies before voting and certainly before renewing this debate. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie)

This article is about a movie about which very little is known about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete, or at the very least, redirect to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Hermione1980 22:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The film will eventually be made, and the article recreated, and untill then it serves as information about cast, etc. Many articles on Wikipedia are about things that have yet to happen, this is no different from the rest of them. Orange Goblin 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, WP has many articles about "things that have yet to happen" but it's just too far out to have an article. 2007? Come on. At least let the fourth movie come out first. There hasn't even been a big media deal about this yet, which is a possible qualification for future events/releases. Heck, they haven't really even gotten started for the sixth book yet, let alone even the fourth movie. Information on the cast can be found on the actor/actress's own page, most of which can be accessed through the articles for the other four movies. Not only that, but nobody's officially been confirmed yet, AFAIK, except the director. Sure, we presume Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and the rest will be coming back, but we don't know. It's just too early to know. Speculation is inherently unencyclopedic. (I'll quit speechifying now. :-) Hermione1980 23:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • IMDB has the cast list so far - only two, but its still there. If this is delete, someone will just come along and recreate it, it'll get deleted again, etc etc, untill it is 2007. So why not just leave it? Orange Goblin 23:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be far off, but all the info is confirmable and it states all speculation, which really isn't too wild, upfront. I think it's got sufficient info available to keep. Mgm|(talk) 23:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article states the cast have not signed on but are expected to. How can a movie that does not yet have a cast be anything other than speculation? Recreate when a firm release date is published. --Allen3 talk 23:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There has even been speculation that the original kids would not make any more of the movies. RickK 23:32, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
With few exceptions, future events are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:
  1. Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event; planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Filming isn't even supposed to start until spring 2006. I doubt they're even in pre-production yet. How many other movies coming out in 2007 do we have articles on? If there are more articles than just a couple of stubs, I will be quite surprised. Hermione1980 00:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per What Wikipedia is not, no specific dates have been set yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a crystal ball. Xcali 01:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's no reason to assume this won't be created, and we can fill in the info as it comes along. --W(t) 01:22, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
    • There certainly is reason to assume this won't be created, if the teen actors decide they aren't going to do it. RickK 05:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • You think that given the choice between takign up the chance to make vast profits by recasting and abandoning the project Warners will do the latter!? CalJW 23:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • In which case there's a wonderful article to be written on which actors didn't want to join in, what (if anything) the studios did to try to persuade them, why the studios didn't contract them for all films in one go, etc. --W(t) 12:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep normally I vote delete on films that havent been made however the imdb entry as well as media coverage on the proposed film indicates some notability for me. Megan1967 04:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Possibly Redirect to the book. Radiant_* 10:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an exceptional case, in the same class as the three Star Wars prequels. Revenge of the Sith, for instance, has been on Wikipedia since June, 2002, just a month after the box office release of the preceding Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones. The information on this much-awaited Harry Potter movie seems to be out of sync with IMDb, which lists the producer as David Heyman, not Chris Columbus, but if the Wikipedia version is wrong this problem can be solved by editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough despite being two years early. —Xezbeth 13:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable information about a movie which is notable even if it doesn't ever happen. Kappa 13:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway Xoloz 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Calling this "crystal ball" gazing is silly. There is virtually no doubt that it will happen, it is of interest to tens of millions of people, and in the very unlikely event it doesn't get made it will still merit an article. Please don't try to cut out high profile, verifiable material which will interest people and thereby help Wikipedia to grow. CalJW 23:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the "crystal ball" argument, but I think the fact that this is an inevitable movie in a major series weighs more importantly. I think that the "speculation is well documented" and that this makes this article worthy of inclusion. Sjakkalle 06:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or something. I might as well add a movie stub for the unreleased 6th book. The cast will probably come back for it. - Stoph 04:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Hermione1980. --OGoncho 05:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- will remain notable for foreseeable future because of doubts as to whether the major cast will be able to return -- the further the movies slip behind chronological time, the harder it will be for the stars to avoid being overtaken by new, younger (and cheaper) ingenues --Simon Cursitor 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: there will inevitably be information about this film which needs to be recorded and this is the best place to record it. I'm inclined to think that some of the worry about future events is over-blown: the preparation for a major event which fails to happen is likely to be just as encyclopedic as the event itself might have been, and writing the article months afterwards is bound to introduce inconsistencies and inaccuracy. --Phil | Talk 09:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikipedia should be in touch with the future. Edits will be made as time develops.
    ↑This vote placed by 70.185.179.4 at 00:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by others. Academic Challenger 20:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure crystal ball stuff until actual filming begins, and even then borderline. "It is rumoured to be rated PG-13 for violent content"? Give me a break. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep exception should be made with crystal ball rule with regard to notable sequals. This is a highly anticipated movie. JamesBurns 06:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 09:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it turns out not to be made, that's a notable ommission. -- BD2412 talk 14:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. The PG-13 rumour will be proven true at a later date, and Jason WAS the first to announce that he will return. (Previous unsigned vote was by User:Ryanasaurus0077 16:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC). Hermione1980 19:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep. I thought it was a little odd that the movie had an entry at first, but an established link with limited appropriate information should be more static than an entry that's constantly being re-created and re-deleted. If deleted, at what point will the article "suddenly" become encyclopedic? --1pezguy 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because it is going to be a movie. (Previous unsigned vote was by User:65.198.249.86 at 00:30 5 Jun 2005. Hermione1980 13:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep. This film is already in production. Go look at a movie that's not yet released. There's a Batman Begins and War of the Worlds page. Those aren't yet released. Why should this? Plus this wiki has more information than the OotP book page.

(Previous unsigned vote was by User:TheSiGuy 16:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC). Hermione1980 19:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Please do not impersonate other users. I did not make that last comment. That last vote and the "attribution" were both done by User:71.65.193.30. If the IP address corresponds to the username, User:TheSiGuy has a grand total of 16 edits. Hermione1980 20:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The movie is already in production and has a page on IMDb. Even if the movie isn't produced, its production and the reason for not being completed will be notable enough for Wikipedia. As for such an article being too speculative and too premature, what's the point in deleting it and then having to write it again?Kostja (Talk) 12:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This movie will definately be made! And the notability outweighs crystalballery. The answer to crystalballery is not to delete, but to edit. I have put a list on the talk page on things that need to be addressed. Sonic Mew 14:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.This film will be made, its just a matter of time. The page can be updated when new information becomes available. 69.89.38.36
  • Comment. The IMDb notes that the film is in "pre-production." Therefore, as per the What Wikipedia Is Not wording, planning or preparation is worthy of an article. I'm not voting yet because I'm not sure how reliable IMDb is in these matters. I just offer that for you to consume and think about. -Tadanisakari 06:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMDb isn't always reliable, but The Leaky Cauldron reported on this a few days ago, also confirming that Daniel Radcliffe is almost certainly going to sign on. Perhaps I should withdraw this request. Hermione1980 13:10, 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 delete. (The writing made me chuckle: off to BJAODN.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popcorn trick

Unencyclopaedic, orphan. Orange Goblin 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this as nn porn-hoax. Describes a process by which a man on a date at a movie sticks his penis thru the bottom of the popcorn bag and offers the bag to his date; 580 googles for "popcorn trick" +penis. Meelar (talk) 23:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 500 Google hits is a lot for a childish, moronic prank, especially if you consider that it's probably known by many names. The person who wrote this needs to grow up, but it sounds to me like he's describing a significant social phenomenon. The fact that it's engaged in by idiots is neither here nor there. ----Isaac R 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. I would expect a "significant social phenomenon" to have far more than 580 Google hits. The fact that it doesn't suggests it is no more than a demented figment of the oversexed and underimaginative middle-school-dropout set. --FCYTravis 01:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence is provided of this actually being frequently done. The logistics seem a little unpractical. --W(t) 01:23, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete While I have heard of this "prank", I doubt it is done nearly as much as it is talked about. Denni☯ 02:01, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Comment towards notability. This phenomenon was referenced, I believe, on "Chappelle's Show", in such a context that the implication was that the audience would understand and be familiar with it. — Phil Welch 02:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Addition: I just happen to be watching "Chappelle's Show", and they just had this sketch again, where it was called "penis in the popcorn", which gathers 72 google hits when it's all in one quote. — Phil Welch 05:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify/cleanup. It may be stupid but it does seem like a very commonsocial phenomenon. In reference to its notability, it was even done in a Blink 182 music video as well as the above noted Chappelle's Show and the audience in both knew about it beforehand. I also agree with Isaac R that 500 Google hits is massive since this is a social phenomenon with no prior label or name and thus is harder to google for. -CunningLinguist 05:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the all-time classics. Agree with Isaac R that it does not carry a singular name (making it difficult to get google results in large amounts), but I remember many references to it, including as Phil stated in "Chappelle's Show" and in french film "Le boum" --- Da 'Sco Mon 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiotic. Certainly this "prank" has appeared more than once in popular culture, but there's nothing encyclopedic to look up about it. Each appearance tells you everything there is to know about it. Quale 07:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 11:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's hardly something we want to promote, but that does not mean we should delete all references to it either. Almafeta 19:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment that's not true, the encylopedia does not promote anything. An article just needs to meet a minimum criteria. Vegaswikian 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 19:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable prank. --Calton | Talk 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think the article's as much a prank as the prank described. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. not encylopedic and the other reasons above. Vegaswikian 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable prank. Leanne 10:39, 9 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?) 16:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaccolyn Penrose

No information exists on person outside Wikipedia. No way to verify person's purported accomplishments. Vote to delete article. SwissCelt 23:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Xcali 00:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, unverifiable--Sophitus 01:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

[edit] User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Personal attacks page. It wouldn't be so egregious, if it weren't for the fact that Jack is signing all of his postings with an enormous link to this page. RickK 23:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC) Jack has changed his signature, I hereby withdraw this VfD. RickK 05:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Content deletion because user behavior How dare you Usnigned comment by 63.209.14.211
  • Delete. El_C 23:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep user page, thesis inaccurate because there are no personal attacks on the page Click here to report admin abuse 23:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By putting people on a page that is called "Report rougue admin" you are making a personal attack against them. gkhan 11:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We've already got WP:RFC#Use of administrator privileges to report abuse of admin powers. This is an unnecessary fork. Mgm|(talk) 23:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that there is not a single entry on that page is rather telling. This is a badly needed fork. Click here to report admin abuse 23:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that tells anything but the fact you haven't posted these complaints there as you should. Mgm|(talk) 23:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Mgm, Jack has no compelling evidence. Note how historically-vulgar his "evidence" was against myself. This is why he resorts to making such allegations on his user page rather than following policy and appropriate channels (of which he is well aware). A quick glance reveals that his evidence reflects more poorly on him rather than myself. His evidence on socialism: I withdrew out of the Socialism article because Jack used BS in an edit summary to revert my changes. (WP:Civility) [12] His evidence on User:Shonre: I recall the dust-up with Shorne quite well, and I remember that El C was a voice of reason even when things became quite heated. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)[13] Et cetera, etc. El_C 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Your building a case against yourself w this "jack" business. See [14]. Click here to report admin abuse 00:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • What!? You sent me, personally, and the public mailing list, an email signed as Jack. So I figured that was your name and I can use it interchangebly with Sam Spade. If that isn't the case, you need to explain that beforehand. I am not a telepath. El_C 00:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
            • You needn't take my word for it.[15] Click here to report admin abuse 00:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
              • I was too upset to read that closely. Anyway, now I know. El_C 00:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
                • He doesn't like people to refer to him as Jack because he'd rather that people not remember him as Wikipedia contributor User:JackLynch. He'd have more success if he stopped using the name himself! - Nunh-huh 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep as is user page, like the detective agency page we voted to keep, and Sam should be allowed user spaces to work in. At least he is being open, and a Vfd won't stop him, but it will stop others monitoring him, SqueakBox 00:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • If those reports have any substance they should be posted on RFC and survive it. Like anyone else, Sam may use his userspace to work on such a report before posting, but here he's talking about several admins and he seems to have the intention to keep the edits there. Circumventing the official route shouldn't be allowed. Mgm|(talk) 00:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I am using that page as a staging ground for cases I am building, and the signiture to solicit help, as well as to learn about others who need my help. Click here to report admin abuse 00:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, I would like you to rewrite the introduction of the page to state its intentions more clearly. As they are now, it's completely incomprehensible to me. Secondly, I'd like to ask you to make the signature a bit smaller and maybe make it say just "Report admin abuse", so it's shorter and doesn't take as much space while still being quite visible. Keeping it a normal size and changing the color may attract just as much people and is less intrusive on others. Mgm|(talk) 00:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. I am willing to accomodate reasonable requests, and to engage in constructive dialogue with those who assume good faith. Click here to report admin abuse 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dude has a chip on his shoulder, but so what? You can't censor user pages. If you think the guy is misusing his account, you can ask for sanctions. But it'd be a lot better if you tried to address his complaints. The sad truth is, he has a point -- some admins do not see community building as a priority, and are damned rude to users who question their actions. ----Isaac R 00:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • we can censor user pages (mostly under dissurption and personal attack rules). generaly however we do try to avoid doing this.Geni 00:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Right, I shouldn't have said "can't". But you don't without a good reason. I don't see any good reasons here. Hurt feelings? ----Isaac R 01:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abstain. While it is true that many users do keep 'evidence' pages in their user space, for example in preparation for possible ArbCom disputes, the way this page is structured ("Report Rogue admins below, and / or contribute specific cites of their policy violations"), and also advertised through the signature, circumvents the established process for dealing with complaints against admins. This is not an evidence page, it poses as WP:RFC. This may very well confuse newbies and others. I will change to abstain if Sam Spade's signature is changed to not link to this page. --bainer (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I note that Sam Spade has changed the page to now read "The purpose of this page is compile data for upcoming RfC's and Arb Com cases." see diff This occurred three minutes after my vote. I maintain my position that this page was not created with these purposes in mind. --bainer (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (and sanction user). 172 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if Sam promises to go back to using a sensible sig (linking to his normal user page and of normal font size), otherwise delete. — Chameleon 00:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary fork of RfC procedure. It is ok to have a space for preparation of evidence, but soliciting for abuses is ambulance chasing (imho) which (again imho) is not within the Wikipedia philosophy. Thryduulf 00:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Following his removal of my report from the page [16] it is clear he is only interested in those administrators he has grievances against. Thryduulf 01:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course he deleted it. The page is for reporting administrators who abuse their powers. If you feel admins are abused, you can go elsewhere. Mgm|(talk) 01:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Chameleon. Is there any way we can just force a change of the sig? Xcali 00:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
He's changed it voluntarily. It's done. See his user talk page for confirmation. --Silversmith 01:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sam, would you be willing to change more text in the intro. Admins have more than job security, they have a mandate to abuse, harass and shame ordinary users and anons. and While they protect one another in the same fashion in which they bully others are generalizations which could well be considered an personal attack against all admins. Mgm|(talk) 01:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, user space. If there's a problem with his sig, that's a separate issue. --SPUI (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, user page. 578 (Yes?) 01:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Normally I don't have a problem with user pages that are even remotely related to the work being done here, but IMO this one's masquerading as some sort of Wikipedia namespace page. Sam has deleted entries from here without comment ([17], [18], [19]) and deleted objections to specific reports that admins have put here in their own defence ([20]), and presumably if someone were to contest these detetions the fact that it's Sam's user page would automatically weight the argument in his favor. This should be in the Wikipedia namespace or it should be made far more clear on the page that this is Sam's personal space rather than anything "official". Bryan 01:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, free speech on user namespace. — Phil Welch 02:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and sanction user. This is taking things way too far. I'm not supporting this witchhunt so that Sam can try to chase the very hard-working admins on his hitlist off Wikipedia. Sam, if you have an issue with people, use the dispute resolution process, rather than acting in apparent bad faith like this. Ambi 02:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Free speech is the pinnacle of what the Wikipedia stands for — slander, however, is not. Wally 03:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but suggest that his sig be changed (smaller please?). Users have, in the past, used their userspace to gather evidence against others. They have the right, I just wished that they wouldn't use that right. BrokenSegue 03:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A provocative and possibly libelous troll. Sunray 04:10, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky one; I don't see this benefiting wikipedia in it's current form though, and in the end that trumps any legalism or ideals about freedom on user pages. If Sam wants to prepare an arbitration case he's free to do so, many people have done so on subpages of their user page without any serious objections, however this is just trolling. Delete. --W(t) 04:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. This doesn't do anybody any good. In fact the "list of rogue admins" and "list of admins you can trust" that Sam Spade has made could potentially start fighting between administrators. --Chanting Fox 04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User page, not an article. Kaibabsquirrel 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Vorash 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something needs to be done about rogue admins, and I don't mind Sam working on whatever he works on in his userspace anyway. The fact that this would be VfDed and people would vote delete strongly suggests that criticism of admins is not acceptable on Wikipedia and will be punished—essentially, that people are not allowed to criticize the actions of people in positions of power. I suppose some people can justify that, but I think authoritarianism in the project is dangerous. Everyking 06:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's Sam Spade's own user space, so we don't place as many restrictions on the content as perhaps elsewhere on the wiki. Sam Spade is not the only user to list in his personal user space the admins he does and does not like. However, I'd appreciate it if he toned down the content of the article to resemble less of a personal attack, and more of a simple log of information. I understand that there are always some nasty conflicts between users on Wikipedia, but the less the outside world sees of it, the better. I am pleased to see, however, that Sam Spade has agreed to change his signature. - Mark 07:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There is no point just deleting Sam's page; there will be others, and not just by him. If you feel such pages shouldn't be on WP, then do something more determined about it, don't just focus on one. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just a front for more sinister activities - max rspct 10:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are appropriate places to complain about "abusive" administrators, and sub-user-pages aren't one of them. We don't need to host potentially slanderous essays here. - Nunh-huh 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a personal attack to post people here because of (for instance) the page title. You are in effect saying that they are lousy admins which is a personal attack. If you want to build a case against someone, do it on the page User:SamSpade/RFC against XXX. And most importantly don't advertise it, that makes it 100x worse. gkhan 11:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK, I was happy to leave it if it only concerned me; I think that it makes SS look silly, but that's his affair. Still, it affects others, and it sets a bad precedent. I agree with Silversmith, though, that there should be a policy on this, not just a case-by-case debate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reluctantly. There is nothing here that cannot be dealt with much, much better on WP:RFC without use of user subpages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination has been withdrawn. Kappa 13:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RFC, RFM and RFAr are the dispute resolution process. Personal vendettas are harmful to Wikipedia. The mailing list can sometimes help, but not as a rule. Leaving Wikipedia is also possible. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete ➥the Epopt 14:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • keep totally inappropriate but it is his user page. Sam Spade has changed his signature so that is progress. Andries 14:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, userspace is sacred to be deleted at the discretion of the owner. Alphax τεχ 15:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Userspace is granted to further the development of Wikipedia; it is not sacred, and it is certainly not for trolling. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a user space opinion, this isn't so bad. Widespread advertising of it might be prohibted though, as a cause of disruption. Pcb21| Pete 19:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (anon vote) I suggest for the sake of fairness, balance, and symmetry that the existing anti-Sam Spade group formalize its existence with a user page to "compile data for upcoming RfC's and Arb Com cases against Sam Spade." They admit they attack him when he does things they wouldn't attack others for because they say his past behavior makes it ok not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Well, let BOTH sides keep track of their complaints on these twin user pages and all of us can see by the evidence they gather who is doing what. I bet both sides would act better. 4.250.168.100 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given that RickK hsas withdrawn the Vfd why are we voting on it still. Surely the Vfd notice should now be removed from the article, SqueakBox 20:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have we decided that people are allowed to do that?Geni 20:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing a nomination only stops the voting if it's done before other people vote, or if everyone voted "keep". Of course, to avoid discussions, usually someone else who voted "delete" steps up to replace the original nominator. (This is all from personal experience; I don't recall seeing a policy or guideline about it.) --cesarb 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not recall seeing any set guideline either. But as long as there are people on both sides on the debate, I think it should be continued so that others can make an opinion (like me). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I do not see that there is any point to just delete user pages if they want to use them to criticise admins. On the other hand, I am unsure where to draw the line between constructive criticism and blatant personal attacks. Maybe we should move this debate to a policy discussion page when this VFD has run its course. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We tried that a few weeks back. Nothing happened it appears that the consensus is that the stautus quo is ok.Geni 21:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean a policy discussion like the last one? --cesarb 21:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, sigh... Sam sure keeps this place fun, huh? ;-) func(talk) 00:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in the spirit of wikikpedia and as MGM notes above WP:RFC#Use of administrator privileges already exists to report abuse of admin powers. FeloniousMonk 01:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since it is in userspace. I think RfC is a better place to discuss this if that is needed. Sjakkalle 06:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because users should be allowed to compile evidence for dispute resolution in their own user space, no matter how idiotic the position they support is and also because nomination has been withdrawn already. jni 08:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and request that I be watched very carefully over the coming months. You just can't be too careful, you know! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's userspace and all. Let Sam Spade have...well, whatever the heck this is supposed to be, I guess. A Man In Black 09:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, its in userspace. Allegations of rogue admin's would have to be documented, and there is no enforcement mechanism without proper RfAr, etc. If there is real evidence reported there what is the use of deleting it other than to suppress that information. Trödel|talk 20:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I requested it be deleted due to concerns that it was creating an unpleasent work environment. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies. Sam Spade 23:58, 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.

Having noted that the concensus is "keep", I note that there is far less concensus in what form to keep. Several voters recommended keeping this only as a redirect. Others as a merge and redirect. Several argued to keep it as an idependent article but did not address the original objections raised in the nomination - is this or is this not prohibited original research?

The copyright issues do seem to be adequately addressed. The source, however, is neither peer-reviewed nor independent. The assertions in the article are not easily verifiable and, based on the evidence presented below, may be fundamentally unanswerable. Similar analysis in, for example, Star Wars, would generally be categorized as non-canon or fan fiction. Because of those concerns, I am going to have to add my voice to those calling the content unsuitable for Wikipedia. Acting as an ordinary editor, I am going to be bold and turn this into a redirect. (I note that the source website for this content is already included as a link and can't think of anything more to merge.) Rossami (talk) 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow

Original research, reproduced from another source (although the page author claims to have permission from the original creator). Seems pretty pointless to me. ESkog 23:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: now someone else has put the Copyvio tag on the article as well. ESkog 23:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless it really is a copyright violation. This article is a set of technical annotations of an extremely well-known comedy skit. You can argue that the author needs to get a life, but not the material isn't of wide interest! I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK!
  • Note: I was the original author although at the time I didn't have an account. I did contact the author of the website that the information was found on and I received a fairly quick response. If you don't believe me, simply ask him yourself. The email address is listed at the page (info@13pt.com). The actual text of his response was:
    • >airspeed velocity of swallows onto Wikapedia.
    • Hi, yes, you're welcome to use some of my article for that. I think there may already be a link to the article under the Monty Python entry ... haven't checked in a while.
    • best,
    • j.
    • Aznph8playa 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journal. Even if this weren't silly beyond words, it has no more place here than a technical paper on 'the breeding bahviour of Cave Swifts in secondary rainforest in 1985-1997' or sucjhlike. A single line, or even just the link to the page this came from, on the Hirundinidae article will suffice. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Your cave swifts example isn't relevent. This isn't a random wildlife reference -- it's about a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A technical discussion of that scene might seem pointless to you, but not to any Monty Python fan. ----Isaac R 02:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay then, a study on 'agressive behaviour towards humans by Western Gulls', which would tie into Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (they were one of the species in the film.). At the end of the day to make the old airspeed velocity etc etc article wikiworthy it could be pared down to maybe three lines, all of which would be better merged on the swallow page than needlessly split out into it's own page. Are we also going to have a page for the weight of a Mallard.(laden or unladen?)? Sabine's Sunbird 02:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Except that people don't stand around at parties quoting Alfred Hitchcock movies.----Isaac R 03:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • A couple of Comments:
        1. A scientific breakdown of a humorous sketch is simply not encyclopedic. This would be like taking the lines from the Philosophers' Soccer/Football Game, another Python sketch, and comparing them to the philosophers' own writings. Fun to put together? Sure. But it doesn't belong here, IMHO.
        2. It may be a humorous anecdote that someone has actually done this work to calculate the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (African or European), and this may warrant mention on the movie's main page as others have suggested. Stating the conclusion of this primary source may be worthwhile somewhere herein, but don't just text-dump someone's paper onto WP, with or without permission. ESkog 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well the skit itself is already covered by the Monty Python and the Holy Grail page. I can't imagine this being a very weighty article, so I guess a footnote could be added to the MPatHG page. So merge non-copyright material, unless substantial content. — RJH 05:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into hirundinidae. Information on the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow belongs somewhere on Wikipedia... Almafeta 07:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Merging would probably be the best idea I suppose. And I can understand why one would say all of the technical information being redumped onto Wikipedia isn't a great idea but it should be somewhere. Regardless of the apparent ridiculousness of this information, a simple google check for the information would show the enormous amount of intrigued people. This being so, I believe it would be useful somewhere in Wikipedia... Aznph8playa 10:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Semi-notable meme, so redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Radiant_* 10:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Article is useful for its technical content, not it's meminess. Coconut transport issues are big enough to rate their own article. ----Isaac R 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, but for its technical content I'd like to see some verifiability first. A bird beating its wings twenty times per SECOND sounds rather unlikely unless it's a hummingbird. Radiant_* 11:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • If you're questioning the credibility of the information, take a look at the site's references http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/#1 Also you seem to think it unusual for a bird to beat its wings more than 20 beats per second and you mentioned the hummingbird but let me remind you that the smallest hummingbird beats its wings 80 times per second. Aznph8playa 19:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but a swallow ain't a hummingbird. Still, it doesn't matter. That just means the guys in the castle are right and King Arthur is wrong -- which is valuable information to any serious Pythonophile. ----Isaac R 15:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important comedy skit that is referenced in popular culture, I can certainly imagine someone entering this query into wikipedia. -- taviso 13:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- strong concur with Taviso. --Simon Cursitor 07:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Analysis of a fairly famous aspect of a notable comedy movie. Sonic Mew 07:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with a rewrite re: copyvio. Agree with Taviso. JamesBurns 06:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 09:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As well as there being no such thing as an African Swallow (a problem dealt with in the article by assuming it's a South African Swallow) there is also no such thing as a European Swallow. None of the five species found in Europe are called that, none of them are endemic to Europe, and the one that is probably refered to is the Barn Swallow, which lives across Asia, North America and Europe and migrates to every other continent on earth (including as a vagrant to Antarctica). Incidentally, here is the Birds of America's (put out by Cornell University) statements on swallow wingspeed Flight speed is not much greater than that of other swallows, but with straighter flight this species covers ground more rapidly (see Blake 1948). Speed estimated at 8.0 m/s ± 2.0 SD (range 5–17), which matches the speed predicted if birds were flying to maximize rate of food delivery to nestlings - quite frankly a more reliable sourse. Why have a page devoted to someone's back of the envelope calculations when science already knows these speeds? (PS sorry if I'm being all bird geeky but I'm drowning in python geekyness at the moment.) Sabine's Sunbird 11:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why are you apologizing? If we weren't all geeks, we wouldn't even be having this discussion!----Isaac R 20:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but make a link from Hirundinidae. - UtherSRG 03:01, 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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Sanchez

More fantasy from the same author as Cynthia Vargas. Allmusic doesn't know anything about this multi-platinum recording artist, and I would think her website would be something more professional than a geocities page. Every Google hit I do for her turns up nothing. "Elizabeth Sanchez" +TVyNovelas, "Elizabeth Sanchez" +"Tyler Hilton", "Elizabeth Sanchez" "On the Run", "Elizabeth Sanchez" "Trouble Today" are all zeros. RickK 23:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Chill Pill Bill 00:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Xcali 00:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fight the vanity--Sophitus 01:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete everyone already knows my thoughts. <>Who 03:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Geocities web site made up my mind about notability. Mr Bound 17:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, vanity. dunerat 12:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love it. All this money (she's an hieress) and all we have is geocities? This made my day. I'll be laughing for another fifteen minutes. WOW!!! (Ryan Cabrera is her opening act? Hmm, no info on Ashlee's show, nor Ryan's website, nor Billboard no a listing in Sam Goody (I can't believe I walked to the store to ask). No alberto or Cynthia in Sam Goody's catalog either. Nothing on Amazon (and ANYBODY can sell, even an underground indie indie there). Everyone say it with me. PSYCHIATRIST  :-) Everybody sing!! Antares33712 17:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment, curiously enough a search on "Robert Sanchez" does turn up something. He is a liutenant in the Klingon army. Star Trek anyone? HAHAHA Antares33712 17:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, she has a hit. 152.163.101.9 02:23, 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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Sanchez and Alberto (album)

More fantasy from the author of Cynthia Vargas and Elizabeth Sanchez. RickK 23:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Xcali 00:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vonspringer 00:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, future debut album. nn. --W(t) 01:24, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete still fighting the vanity--Sophitus 01:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete everyone already knows my thoughts. <>Who 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, vanity. dunerat 12:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ROFL, LMAO, hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm still laughing. That was good. Antares33712 17:26, 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.