Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 3

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 08:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen McManus

Apparently some sort of software designer. There are many Stephen McManuses in the world (McMani?): a football player [1], a music teacher [2], a stage lighting designer [3]. The only Stephen McManus I can't find a Google result for is the software designer. Delete as non-notable or vanity: a software designer who doesn't make an impression on the Internet likely isn't particularly noteworthy. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Google finds plenty for Crystal Dynamics but add this guy to the search and you get precisely nothing. Presumably, therefore, not as great as is claimed. Non-notable, delete. SteveW | Talk 00:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable JoJan 17:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete - insignificant. Kingturtle 06:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. --Cromwellt | Talk 23:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pollard and Friends

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pollard and Friends/2005-05-03.

Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• If it's the same content, yes. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Was deleted once before — Linnwood 05:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not the same content, but it remains pure speculation with no sources to verify its validity. (see this Google search) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 08:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IEEE software engineering

Article is a short quotation from an IEEE publication and an external link to a search engine. This appears to be advertising and is probably borderline speedy material. I don't think this is sufficiently notable for an article. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC) amended 03:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• MERGE into list of IEEE Computer Society magazines, and REDIRECT ; note that IEEE-CS is a standards, certification and accreditation body that publishes research journals so a link to the body of research journals is not inappropriate in my view. It's also a non-profit organization. 132.205.15.43 02:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete. The quotation could be used on Software Engineering if it is appropriate there. This page is not advertising though. --Zero 03:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up. Each IEEE Journal is worthy a wiki article as are all scholarly journals.list of IEEE Journals is a needed article. Klonimus 08:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't a journal, it's a web site. The journal is called IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. --Zero 10:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The article isn't even that. It's a redundant dicdef and a link to one page on a website. --Carnildo 20:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's already here: Software engineering--Prem 15:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. The IEEE definition for itself can never be more than this substub-like line, althouhg it of good use for Software Engineering--Nabla 19:10, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Klonimus voted to keep, and besides, we've already got a definition for software engineering. --Carnildo 20:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless an actual journal by this name can be found, of course. Orborde 06:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not an article -- AlexR 07:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 08:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Minot Prescott

Not notable in her own right, part of a major genealogical page I'm trying to get pared down (Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family). Since Betsy Ross is an urban legend, the connection to her is tenuous at best. RickK 00:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep - a minor historical figure in the history of the USA JoJan 17:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. On a side-note, Betsy Ross isn't an urban legend, the story about the flag is. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Borderline notability. Megan1967 11:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Evarts

Not notable. Part of the Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family mess. RickK 00:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable - Longhair | Talk 07:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Jeremiah Evarts is quite notable in five different ways; it was an omission that we didn't have a page on him. He:

1) Was a leader in a movement to stop the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the subsequent removal of the Cherokees from the South in the Trail of Tears (ask them if he is notable) and was the author of 24 essays about it.

2) Was the subject of a full, published book "Jeremiah Evarts, the Cherokee Nation, and the Search for the Soul of America" (1994, John A. Andrew III). His life was notable enough that a 400 page book about his life was published 160 years after he died. (It is not a bad book either, I'm half way through it.)

3) Was the object of his father's concern over the lack of educational institutions in Vermont which is credited with helping start the wheels in motion in the founding of a major, current U.S. college (Middlebury College). This is a significant event in Vermont state history.

4) Was the father of an U.S. Secretary of State (and through William's upbringing, undoubtedly influenced U.S. foreign policy). How can you understand an important political figure like Secretary of State William M. Evarts without understanding that his father was a political figure in indigenous people's rights. The policy debate of that era resonate to this day in the U.S. foreign policy relating to issues of indigenous people's rights, given the dozens of ongoing ethnic conflicts throughout the world and the U.S.'s relationship to each of the parties in these conflicts.

5) Was the editor of "The Panoplist", a religious newspaper in which he published over 200 essays.

This article has considerably more detail than the one in the Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman article, so it is not redundant to that. The somewhat clunky form of another article does not have much bearing on the value of this one. If anything, having a page like this allows his entry on that page to be trimmed in size, since there is this other page.

I just added some more content to the article as well as some links. There are quite a few more aspects to add. In particular, a section detailing his leadership against Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies should be added.

I'm fine with marking it as a stub, but don't delete it. The U.S. policies surrounding Indian removal are a significant topic in U.S. history. Jeremiah Evarts was a significant player in that struggle. It was an omission that he didn't have a page before. (Sorry, forgot to sign - I was the initial author of Jeremiah's page) Brholden around 20:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--we keep notable writers and activists today, why not ones from the 19th century? Meelar (talk) 21:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Meelar.--Nabla 22:06, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have been notable in 5 different ways. Kappa 22:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article on notable person in public affairs in the 19th century. Well done to the anonymous person above. Capitalistroadster 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An ill-advised nomination for deletion. Evarts is mentioned in the first three books I pulled off of my shelf about American Indian affairs in the 1830s, including Trail of Tears by John Ehle. He also has an entry in the Dictionary of American Biography. Please note that "not notable" and "I've never heard of him" are not synonymous. :-) Kevin Myers 04:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not base this on "I never heard of him" and I'm sick and tired of the bleeping personal attacks on people who list articles in good faith. I nominated him because, in the first place, the Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family is an absolute mess. And in the second place, I reviewed the article and felt that none of his accomplishments warrant an article. He was with his father when idea of creating Middlebury College was first brought up? Woo freakin' hoo. RickK 08:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • When you nominated the article for deletion, it contained the following sentence: "He was one of the leading opponents of the removal of the Cherokees from the Southeast." Even that little bit sounds noteworthy to me. Since biographies of historic American Indians and related people are probably covered less on Wikipedia than, say, fictional Digimon characters, it certainly seems questionable to propose deleting "the leading opponent of the removal of the Cherokees from the Southeast." --Kevin Myers 02:30, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is good feedback that my initial version of the article was badly written and that the current version still wasn't clear. I just reformatted it and added more detail to focus on the main acheivement of his life - his battle against Indian removal. Brholden 19:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable person. Klonimus 05:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep.DS 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep. definitely significant. Kingturtle 06:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously notable enough for an article -- AlexR 07:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 08:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Alfredo Guitron"

It looks like a personal bio made by anonymous user, non-notable, etc. Cburnett 00:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 03:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity page. Mariocki ^TALK 16:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, at least as far as the article tells -- AlexR 07:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 08:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soybonilla

Never of them and so I'm guessing non-notable. Cburnett 00:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Their website shows they haven't done anything but a demo album and some online tracks. Non-notable, likely even in Brazil. Postdlf 01:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Mills

Never of them and so I'm guessing non-notable. Cburnett 00:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing on allmusic.com, and his website shows that he's only recorded a couple self-produced albums. Not notable. Postdlf 02:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• I reserve the right to add an actual vote once I've had time to think about it (I'm indecisive at present), but I want to stress that "I've never heard of the guy" does not automatically equate to "non-notable". I, for one, have heard of the guy. Bearcat 03:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why I said "I'm guessing non-notable" but that's why I brought it here, to vote and discuss it. If he's notable, then rock-on. Cburnett 03:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He founded in 2002 and has since then led The New Foundation, a songwriters' collective with 382 members. Positive review of his solo debut from Sing Out! The Folk Song Magazine. Samaritan 04:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mills has released three albums albeit on independent labels. He has completed a national tour of Canada therefore complying with a Wikimusic project guidelines. He regularly attends folk music festivals in the US and Canada. Samaritan has highlighted his work with the New Foundation project. This leads me to the conclusion that he is notable within his genre. As we have people throughout the world here, we should recognise that people who are household names in one country may be nobodies in another. That also makes it important for the authors of articles to clearly outline the basis of the notability of the subject.Capitalistroadster 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Meelar (talk) 06:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes the Capitalistroadster test. Kappa 09:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Svest 11:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Prem 15:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to be barely borderline notable now, even in the Canadian folk scene, but what the heck, "Wikipedia is not paper." Let's check back on this guy in a year or so. Soundguy99 17:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, though the article is extremely stubby, the inclusionist in me changes me to KEEP and to reevaluate at a later date. Cburnett 17:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is added to the article such as news coverage, etc. Gamaliel 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He does exist. He does have recordings. They have been reviewed [4]. Notable is not a reason for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Lack of notability is cause to label it as vanity. I quote from WP:VAIN:

so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and establish as much notability as possible.

So in a way, yes, non-notability is grounds for deletion. Cburnett 04:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 08:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avia Flyr

Searching for Avia Flyr Star Fox on google shows that "Avia Flyr" is a screen name/pseudonym for a Star Fox fan. Cburnett 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fan fiction or autobiography or something, but not even a real fictional character. Or something like that :-) Isomorphic 01:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never heard of this character, and she isn't really official in the Star Fox series. Thunderbrand 01:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• The character doesn't appear in ANY game canon. That + the picture = vanity = delete, though with a certain eye towards Do Not Bite The Newbies: I'm betting the page's creator is like 10 years old. (This is definitely the sort of thing I'D have done at that age.) Marblespire 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not canon--> not notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:11111111111 and IP# 71.111.151.125 are the only people (or person) to contribute to the Avia Flyr article. Both persons have shown interest only in articles pertaining to the Star Fox video games, including an edit of the Falco Lombardi article to "legitimize" his relationship with Flyr. Other than this, however, edits seem mature and intelligent--there's even a certain amount of proof-reading going on. Curiouser and curiouser. Marblespire

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Martin (DJ)

No potential to become encyclopedic

Vanity Page

Created by members of internet message board "Metropol" to potentially embarass and slag off an unpopular member.

NPOV

The article's subject is of little relavance to Wikipedia

Above unsigned nomination by User:62.254.0.38

Attack page, was tagged for speedy deletion before. Also nominated: CRACKING as an unencyclopedic topic (if decision is to keep James Martin article, CRACKING should be merged). Alternative: move to user space. --MarkSweep 01:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Crap. Postdlf 01:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, notability not established, nonsense, greasy singer Peter Andre, underage grirlfriend? Megan1967 02:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- reads like a semi-attack mixing an ounce of admiration for the guy. Regardless, we don't need it about. - Longhair | Talk 02:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Quale 03:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it again. Samaritan 04:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, and also note that one of the authors has vandalised this VfD page once already. What my vote they blanked said follows: Delete. No evidence of notability, his only claim to fame seems to be that he now presents for Rugby FM, a local radio station on which we don't (as I write) have an article and probably don't want one. There's a can of worms here, see User:Billbennett, the original contributor of this article (redirects to an article on himself, vanity?), and Source FM, the low-power amateur Uni radio station from which all these articles and more probably originate. Andrewa 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Watch this space I guess... Andrewa 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Not only does the notice ont he actual page saying this article has been considered for deletion keep being removed, but this Votes For Deletion page keps being vandalised by the authors too. Surely this is vandalism and misuse of wikipedia? Also delete CRACKING. Why either article has anything to do with Wikipedia is beyond me, put people seem obsessed with posting crap to do with this guy. The problem is, even if the article is deleted, the inssitence of these people will ensure it keeps being reinstated. Also, as I stated (before the entire contents of this page were blanked), references to this person keep appearing on theDisc Jockey page, even though he is unimportant, and has no reason to be referenced there.62.254.0.38 08:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This IP has now nominated CRACKING as a separate VfD. Unfortunately they have done it as a personal attack. No change of vote on James Martin (DJ), and I've voted to delete CRACKING on its own subpage. Andrewa 21:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Why is he here, and why is he relavant? And why info about him liking Peter Andre and his sex life?212.219.188.240 09:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Consider creating a userid. Votes from IPs do count, but not much. If a hundred of you vote one way, and one logged-on user with a good contribution history votes against you, then I'd consider the vote won by the logged-on contributor. Other admins may be a little more favourable towards anons, but not much. Andrewa 21:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 08:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Rasmussen

Notability not established by article. Friendmints only gets about 1200 hits on Google, making it a rather minor service. Kelly Martin 01:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity/advert. Postdlf 01:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• In its current state, Delete. 1200 hits would be enough for Friendmints, but this article sure shows no particular value. --AlexR 07:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Friendmints might get an article, this guy doesn't. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Coast

"The Pacific Coast is any coast fronting the Pacific Ocean." Not certain whether stating the obvious is a reason for vfd'ing something, but transwiki'ing is the only viable way I can see of this being saved. Grutness|^hello? 02:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete only because I can't see a way to make this much better, it sounds like a simple definition is all that you will ever have. Vegaswikian 05:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because people will have an automatic tendency to link here, it should remain as a disambig to all the articles on Pacific coasts wikipedia has (currently just West Coast of the United States it seems). I added something about Japan's Pacific Coast. Kappa 08:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable coast. Lots of things are notable about the pacific coast, for example California Sea Lion .Klonimus 08:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I know - I live only 200 metres from the Pacific coast - not that there are any Californian sea lions within 5000 miles of here (Hooker's sea lions, yes). I should add the New Zealand coast to this now-saveable article. Grutness|^hello? 13:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, still stubby, but addition on Japanese coast makes it keepable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Cyberjunkie 14:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and {{split}} —msh210 19:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- article has matured into something worth keeping with some tweaks here and there. - Longhair | Talk 21:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - article is now a huge improvement on original version. Well done, Kappa and Grutness and others although more work still needed. Capitalistroadster 08:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep decent enough article now

• Keep revised article --AYArktos 23:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stereo nightclub

I remain unconvinced of the notability. About 1000 google hits for "Stereo nightclub"+Montreal, but for a dance club that's a piddling number. Grutness|^hello? 03:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep because... "stereo nightclub" catches just a tiny sliver of people talking about it. Nearly the whole first page for +Stereo +Montreal and many more beyond it are all about it. "In 1999, just a year after it opened, Stereo was voted the fifth best dance club in the world by Muzik magazine (the only North American club to make the top 10) and as Stereo's international reputation grew, so did its clientele. Soon clubbers and DJs from all over the world were lining up to get in and Stereo's following became nothing short of fanatical (some of the hardcore Stereo-philes went as far as getting tattoos of the logo)." [5] It seems their current canonical use might suggest a move to Stereo (nightclub). Samaritan 03:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' passes pokemon test. Klonimus 08:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Samaritan. Also 1000 hits sounds like a good number for a dance club. Kappa 09:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Samaritan. R Calvete 19:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 21:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 1000 for a club just isnt that notable sorry. Megan1967 11:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of the most popular clubs in Montreal. Should probably be at Stereo (nightclub), though. Darkcore 22:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sessile

Virtually identical to its wiktionary entry, and not likely to grow further. Grutness|^hello? 03:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• It could describe sessile organisms in nature, common threads among and differences between them, evolution and adaptation, etc. It could provide context beyond what could be included in the article of any given sessile organism, and unless there's a synonym for sessile, elsewhere that I can think of. Inbound links. Keep. Samaritan 04:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• (expanded) Keep, potential for further organic growth and possible budding off. Kappa 10:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sessile critters live on the Pacific Coast Klonimus 05:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Legitimate biology article. Megan1967 11:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PROPER

Obscure dicdef. Fredrik | talk 04:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fredrik | talk 04:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neologism. Delete. --Slowking Man 09:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition, local term. - 81.70.91.207 09:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. dicdef. utcursch 09:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• I have no idea what this is, but I do know it should be deleted. Edeans 23:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, non-notable. Quale 05:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cburnett 06:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grahm Junior College

"Closed in 1979" does not an article make. Grutness|^hello? 03:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC) see below

• There's much more to be said, but the article has a long and painful history with copyvio, and see this vandalism alert. That Andy Kaufman studied television there seems to check out externally. Junior colleges are community colleges and notable. Keep and expand or allow organic expansion. Samaritan 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Colleges and universities are inherently notable... even after they're gone. --BD ^thimk 04:41, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing to merge anywhere - Skysmith 08:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Every educational instition is notable. Each and every one. Klonimus 09:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There is zero content here. I would vote keep if there were any, but this is not an article, not even a substub. Gamaliel 09:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BD2412 has started to expand it now. Samaritan 12:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't it widely accepted here that terciary educational institutions are inherently noteworthy? Tallyman 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 3dary educ inst —msh210 18:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Closed in 1979" should be deleted but not the current version.--Nabla 19:29, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Keep. While original version may not be worth keeping, current revision has actual content. Topic inherently notable. R Calvete 19:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been significantly improved since the VfD was created. The article is already useful, and can probably be expanded in the future. Topic is encyclopedic. Quale 20:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Much better article now, and certainly keepable. Well done folks. Grutness|^hello? 02:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep colleges and universities are all above the notability standard.  ALKIVAR™ 06:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another example of articles being improved out of site in vfd. Capitalistroadster 11:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a college. Nuf said. --BaronLarf 22:06, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A defunct school that lasted 29 years? How is that notable? Noisy | Talk 10:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't understand why everyone votes keep. The article doesn't contain any useful information. Grue 19:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, knowing Andy Kaufman went there is useful, or at least interesting. Kappa 22:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Andy Kaufman went there. Its notable. Keep please. -CunningLinguist 23:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe D'Amone

Vanity. Google says 44 hits. Grutness|^hello? 04:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, but he sounds like a wonderful kid. Less-than-stellar article history. Samaritan 04:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 05:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 07:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• He sucks (er, I mean, delete). DS 22:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Schneider

Previous editor notes in edit comment: zero hits for "Joseph Schneider" hvac 1927

Curiously, there is a rather substantial Wiki page about Josef Schneider.

• Delete. Article is a decent start, but stops short of showing notability. Being an associate professor isn't enough on its own to be notable. Quale 22:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock goggle fantasy

Non-notable band. artistdirect and allmusic doesn't know them. The last paragraph of the article is rather vague as to whether they even actually exist any more. RickK 04:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet music notability guidelines. Bratsche^{talk random} 20:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norris, Illinois

According to the 2000 US Census, it had 194 people living in this town. How is this notable? I think it should be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I can remember people having this debate before, and the result (which I agree with) is always to keep. I'm not prepared to sludge through months of pump archives, but rest assured this won't gain consensus. Sorry. Best, Meelar (talk) 05:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm going to go for VfD case by case. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real places. See List of places with fewer than ten people. Hi, TBSDY, welcome back. RickK 05:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Great to see you again, TBSDY. I'm with most Wikipedians voting keep on real places, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real places with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All real places have great potential for expansion. Unlike fancruft, for which we only know what the fiction is willing to tell us and what we can reasonably deduce from that, any real place has an expansive history that can be unearthed through personal observation and research and hundreds of potential contributors with firsthand experience of the topic. Take, for example, Lincoln Park, Michigan, a little suburb of Detroit I stayed in once. Until recently this was pretty much just a Rambot page, but then someone added some interesting local news stories and a history including Chief Pontiac's attack on Fort Detroit. I know these pages develop slowly, but give them time! Deco 05:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would have thought that the encyclopedic nature of a real town would be obvious. Quale 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All cities and towns are noteworthy, regardless of their populations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all cities, towns, villages, hamlets, boroughs, postal locations, and census-registered mobile home parks. Gazpacho 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cburnett 06:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 07:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real places are encyclopedic. Let's not undo Rambot's work. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely clear precedent. Samaritan 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been fought out many times before -- see the history of the Rambot articles. --Carnildo 20:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Named places with census statistics, especially incorporated communities, are per se notable, because they impact more than just residents, and information about them is easily verifiable in a manner that other subjects that only 194 people may have direct, regular contact with are not. Every incorporated community, no matter how small, has lawmaking powers that greatly affect residents, people who work there, businesses there, and people who even just pass through. Postdlf 20:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Like all articles edited exclusively by Rambot, this is a complete mess, but deleting it isn't the way to resolve this. JYolkowski // talk 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Bah! What a useless waste of time to see something like this with such overwhelming support in VfD. Keep, obviously. older≠wiser 00:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Just because a town only has a couple hundred people that doesn't make it any less worthy of an article. 23skidoo 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons cited by Postdlf. Most of the noises about "precedent" (yes, I've read the appropriate page's section on this) don't give an actual reason whenever someone nominates a small-town or Southern-Hemisphere-city article for deletion. Some of the template voters don't sound like they could give a reason if you asked. Barno 02:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is disappointing to see a timewasting nomination which was certain to be defeated from an experienced user. Oliver Chettle 02:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent. I've been there too. K1Bond007 15:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I think every community should have a page of their own.--Sultan Q. Khan 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep it is a real town after all Yuckfoo 23:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep - all legally official locations should be chronicled. Kingturtle 06:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I just spent the better part of three hours looking up any information on Norris...and was hard-pressed to find anything to add. I *did* however, find three people who claimed to actually *be* from Norris..which might just prove it exists. So, like the otheres, keep all real places. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:48, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Army diet

Delete - looks like the regimen for Yet Another Fad Diet. Unencyclopedic -- no potential for expansion. FreplySpang (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite, CapitalistRoadster. But I still think there are a group of diets that are exactly the same (except for the specific foods), and they should all be merged/redirected under [[Fad diets] or dieting. FreplySpang (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This will probably get a bunch of merge votes, but since there are no sources in the article I caution that merge without verification would be foolish. Poor scholarship is probably WPs greatest failing. Quale 05:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks Capitalistroadster. Fine article. Now that it is sourced, definitely encyclopedic. Quale 20:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with you. It may surprise some to know that The Israeli Army Diet, Mayo Clinic Diet, and Heart Foundation Three-Day Diet have nothing to do with their claimed sources. Svest 06:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rather inappriate nonsense I see; In this form that actually makes sense. I have heard about similar fad diets (someone should definitely write an article about them) - Skysmith 10:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep fad diet. Klonimus 09:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Israeli Army diet was a popular fad diet in the 1970's. My father and I both went on it at various stages. There were four stages of eating apples, cheese, chicken and salad. While we lost weight, the weight loss was temporary. I have expanded the article explaining the background and outlining the nutritional criticism of it as a fad diet. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite, ty Roadster. Kappa 10:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; usual great work by the Roadster. Samaritan 12:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —msh210 18:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable 1970s fad --AYArktos 00:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ti Alan Chase

Non-notable filmmaker. 4 Google hits. He does have an imdb entry, but it only lists him as a production assistant on one film, which is a short. RickK 05:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Possible vanity. 141.211.138.85 05:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable. Postdlf 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 06:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listing someone because they were the production assistant on one film would be like listing everyone who has had their name listed on an academic paper published in a journal. Average Earthman 11:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I listed Ti (as my first entry) because I know firsthand that he will have two films in distribution within the next year and at least two others in production during that time. He has also worked with me in translating some documents containing ancient legends which we expect to see print within the next two years. Knowing that Ti will be a notable name within the near future, I was interested in watching how an article on him would develop over time from a simple outline in the Wikipedia world.

In that case, come back in a year or two, when he's actually done some things that are notable. There's no hurry -- this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Carnildo 21:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:AnnE removed the vfd header from this article. I have restored it. RickK 04:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 14:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zarm

As much as I love Captain Planet, this guy is a minor character at best, appearing in only a few episodes. This article could not be expanded beyond a paragraph, which will comfortably fit in the main Captain Planet and the Planeteers article, or at least a character article. Deco 05:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, microtrivial fancruft. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The interesting content of this article is already in Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Quale 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per WP:FICT. Meelar (talk) 06:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Megan1967 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above reasoning. Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per all above. Samaritan 12:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Captain Planet and the Planeteers. If the content is already there, just redirect it. Sjakkalle 13:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above. But I too love Captain Planet! Bratsche^{talk random} 20:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm, I apologise for listing this. This is a clear Merge and redirect. Deco 00:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I respectfully beg to differ. I have followed the model of the other articles of Captain Planet villains: character, appearance, modus operandi, mode of transportation, etc. Zarm may have had relatively few episodes, but I argue that this did not reduce his importance to the show; one of the most important episodes is centred around him, and he has a place as representing one of the 'pollutions' the show rails against: war, and is arguable the most powerful villain. By that logic, one could argue deleting the article on the Star Trek character Q, who was a formidable nemesis, but only appeared once per season. I don't mean to sound like a petulant newbie, but I see no reason why Zarm should not have his own article with the other Eco-Villains —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acolytexiv (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twilightus

Advertising for an RPG of dubious notability; 196 Google hits. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:25, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable. Postdlf 05:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I took a look. Itwas never very popular and now it's basically dead as a doornail because the operator keeps taking long absences in the real world. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric rifle

A fictional item designed by "Turkish Union Manufacturing". No Google hits for "Turkish Union" "electric rifle". If there really is such a fictional item, it is not notable. Eric119 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV, original research, speculation. Megan1967 06:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• DEL, fiction/story, non-encyclopedic entry Who 06:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PUMB

Message board. Doesn't seem notable. Fredrik | talk 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Non english site. - Longhair | Talk 07:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Non-english" is not a reason to delete, but non-notable is. Sjakkalle 09:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep Very active board, and yes it really does have an astonishing number of users (now nearly 5000, growing all the time). --Tony Sidaway|Talk
  • Big Boards lists about 1100 forums with over 5000 users, and that is not even a complete catalog of web forums. I think you should adjust your definition of "astonishing" ;) - Fredrik | talk 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I find boards with around 200 users just about manageable. 5000+ is surreal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As internet forums go, 5000 users really isn't that many. My benchmark for notability is ocforums, a forum that isn't strongly attached to any particular website. As of right now, it has 55,900 members, 160 of them online, with 200 anonymous users browsing the forums. For contrast, the PUMB forums (if I'm correct in what numbers are what; I don't read Chinese) have 4800 members, with 6 of them online, and 12 anonymous users. --Carnildo 21:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Adjust your benchmark. There are many, many forums that we could make perfectly good encyclopedia articles about that don't have 160 people online at a time. Rapture Ready forum, Infidels Forum. This isn't a willy-size contest, it's just a test to see if it has more than a tiny coterie of regular users. It does, which means people will want to read about it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 11:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory, no exceptional notability to counter that rule. -- The Anome 11:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mirror Universe (Star Trek)

Original reason: "This does not belong in an encyclopedia -- leave this stuff for the trekkie nerd reference books." added by an anonymous vandal that failed to do steps 2 & 3 of the VFD process and so I'm doing it now. Cburnett 06:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I move to strike this VFD. The poser is anonymous (24.211.174.208 also wrote Cleotus Scott Sipe which is under VFD) and I see little to not assume bad faith here. Cburnett 06:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Bad faith VfD by a vandal. Keep, by the way. RickK 06:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't even listed on WP:VFD, I just listed it to get exposure. Cburnett 06:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, keep. In terms of Trek canon, it's definitely notable. Marblespire 08:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Megan1967 08:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Definitely Keep. Lokicarbis 12:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Notable within the canon, but I think by WP:FICT it should still be a merge and redirect. Barno 16:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC) {'vote withdrawn 4-May regardless of whether I still think so'}
  • I'm not making a statement of agreement by asking this (actually, I 100% disagree) but: merge with what? The article in question is 25 KB in size.....only 7 KB from the recommended upper limit. Merging into any article will either require massive deleting of Mirror Universe or dominating an article's content (then by all means it should have its own article). One key point from WP:FICT is: do not delete meaningful content, which is precisely what you're really voting to do. Cburnett 16:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is 25KB in size because it contains a lot of (apparently well-written) material that belongs in a Trek fan guide or concordance rather than WP. I was a Trek fan (though a little kid) when the original series was first-run, but we have different opinions about what is "meaningful content". About 2KB of that article belongs in a decently-fleshed-out wikipedia, in a section of a parent article, by the way I interpret WP:FICT. We don't have 25KB articles about many factual topics of real-world significance and global awareness; how much fictional detail do we really need in WP as compared to a Star Trek Wikiproject? Unfortunately all that fiction is explicated at length here and will never get voted out, even if a wikiproject duplicates it all. So I don't waste time listing List of Tribbles seen eating quadrotriticale on ST:TOS episode "The Trouble With Tribbles" on VfD, but I cast a merge vote, which loses, when I see such a listing. Barno 17:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • m:Wiki is not paper, space is dirt cheap so there's no reason to chop article A down because article B is smaller. Chopping A doesn't make B any larger. Additionally, WP:FICT is specifically about characters. WP has articles on individual episodes (and might I add that Jimbo thinks an episode should have its own page) and the Mirror Universe spans no fewer than 9 episodes. Comparatively speaking, Mirror Universe would be a major plot line not a minor one (otherwise all episode articles would be deleted). Cburnett 17:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I support Cburnett's view. I have major issues with WP:FICT, but I certainly feel that WP:FICT doesn't really apply here in any event.23skidoo 01:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know a bunch of fans who would insist that Star Trek isn't fiction, but I'm not that extreme. The fiction policy applies; we simply disagree which part of it is most relevant here. But I recognize the consensus is to keep this, so I won't tribble, er, quibble. Barno 02:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't think either 23skidoo or I are contending that ST is non-fiction, but that's not the point. Comparitively speaking, the Mirror Universe is not a minor plot theme which makes WP:FICT (even if you turn a blind eye to "character") inapplicable insofar as a "merge" vote. Cburnett 03:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
            • I concur with Cburnett. Clearly there was a misunderstanding of our comments on this matter. (Although I do agree there are some folks who take Star Trek a little too seriously! ;-) 23skidoo 04:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 17:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just as wikipedia-worthy as any other Star Trek related article. -- Old Right 17:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable R Calvete 19:43, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Keep Mirror Universe is a common sub-genre of Trek (amounting to 10 episodes now, including last week's ST:ENT, and at least six books.); if Trek belongs, this does. Comment made by 141.211.138.85
• Keep. Major concept within Star Trek, and still current, too. 23skidoo 01:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep :: concur with earlier reasons --Simon Cursitor 06:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There are Trek articles for less notable concepts here, so keep this one. Ben Babcock 12:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• From a post on Slashdot: "...Enraged Trekkie __________ attacked Orson Scott Card today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Card to death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Card had made the mistake of making comments in a Los Angles Times op-ed piece about the Star Trek franchise that did not deify all people ever involved in the series, including bit-part actors who barely had speaking parts. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Star Trek was not the best TV series of all time. "He made some good points in the article," said a fellow sci-fi writer who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Star Trek. I'll miss him." Barno 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • *laughs* Okay, but, so what? Marblespire

Strong Keep: This is a major popular culture reference in the United States. If we delete this how will the rest of the world understand Americans. Would they all be forced to read a book by Michael A. Bellesiles? :)

• Keep. This storyline is a very well known Star Trek storyline. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - important trek aspect and pop culture reference. -- taviso 10:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very notable in Star Trek. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Also, Anonymous users cannot nominate articles because a vandal could nominate thousands articles for deletion daily. — Ŭalabio 06:54, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article about a well known concept of a well known series. Interestingly, in an unusual show of unity, consencus is near universal. What an apropriate hommage to Star Trek, albeit ironic given it's over the Mirror Univerese.- JCarriker 01:42, May 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. Postdlf 09:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polysonic Techtronic Music Machine

Zero Google hits. Created by a vandal. RickK 06:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Hoaxish. Delete. Deb 07:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 08:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hoaxish, gibberish, nonsense Sjakkalle 13:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seductive lying

In my opinion this is not a subject. Worse, the title is ambiguous. Deb 07:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We already have an article on lying, and this doesn't add anything useful. It's an invitation to original research, too. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What TenOfAllTrades said. Quale 23:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- only 1 live link-to. Also possibly contentious -- resds like an ex post facto part-justification for a one-night-stand -- ?NPOV? --Simon Cursitor 06:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And I wouldn't have bothered to vote except that I like the idea of an invitation to conduct original research on seductive lying. Dystopos 03:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 00:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poon Ming Chung

This looks like an attack page. Uppland 07:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Google didn't provide much info. Hoax or student prank. - Longhair | Talk 07:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, attack page. Megan1967 08:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly rabbit, you can't put "also" and "too" in the same sentence. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 09:06, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Speedy as attack. Samaritan 12:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bjartveit

Looks like vanity. Can someone else check? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• It is true that Norway and Denmark are still facing the surnames´ problem. Many people with the same forename and surname is confusing in both countries. This is all what would be notable about the story. Indeed, the Bjartveit article sounds a bit like vanity. Delete. The article can have an entry as a line or two in a would be Culture of Norway. Svest 09:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CRACKING

Unencyclopaedic topic, designed to try and promote an unknown, and uncared about person62.254.0.38 07:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: This was originally nominated together with James Martin (DJ). See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James Martin (DJ). --MarkSweep 16:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 07:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless neologism. Nestea 11:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unencyclopedic topic. Verifiability is also questionable. --MarkSweep 16:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to a page about cracking of software. Meelar (talk) 20:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of a larger vandalism, and ironically, so is this nomination! But unlike the article, this nomination has something to recommend it. Both are personal attacks, and the perpetrators are in dire danger of blocks and bans. Redirect is pointless, owing to the irregular capitalisation. Andrewa 21:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to cracking. -Sean Curtin 00:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canvasion

Yet another finnish band stub. Canvasion gets only 150 google hits (several of which seem to be about ornithology rather than music). Grutness|^hello? 08:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to finwiki and let them deal with it. Klonimus 09:05, 3 May 2005
• Delete -- band vanity - Longhair | Talk 10:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. And the Finnish Wikipedia won't want it -- it's written in English. --Carnildo 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "non-professional" and barely a substub is just asking for deletion. The JPS 23:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Sockpuppet and anonymous votes were disregarded. Including User:Turkoftheplains as the likely article author does not change the outcome. Postdlf 00:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Rømer

This looks like a hoax. Uppland 08:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteTotal hoax. No doubt about it. Svest 10:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can show any truth in it. One live link-to, orse zero. --Simon Cursitor 06:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Romer EXISTED, at the very least, and he was a falconer, if not necessarily a paleobotanist. I chanced upon him while working on a project for my intro Danish class at Penn, although not in any Danish books... I also happened to be looking up Falconry at the time (for personal interest and for an anthropology class, but let's not get into it...) I'll try and keep you abreast as I try to get these books back, and verify the information on Romer. I can tell you this off the bat, though-- he was NOT Dutch. At least not in his mind; his mother may have felt differently. --Turk of the Plains 05:54, 5 May 2005 (GMT)
  • Only edits are to the article and this VfD.[6]
• Keep Looks real enough to me...a bit out there for a hoax, no? --psu199 17:14, 5 May 2005 (GMT)
  • User's only contributions.[7]
• Keep Why not, looks legit.
  • Only contribution by anonymous IP.[8]
• Comment: Adding false references to the article doesn't really improve its believability, does it? -- Uppland 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Eesh. That random Danish link missed my eye; sort of an asinine thing to put in, don't you think? The falconry book is at least plausible, although I'll grant you that plausibility and accuracy are not quite the same. Being that I don't currently have access to a large body of foreign-language falconry literature, and that, alas, I can't exactly be reading about falconry in twelve languages anyway, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, making up garbage about Romer is a pretty stupid way to blow smoke up our collective orifices, although it would appear that someone has done that. Alternatively, someone has cooked up a hastily cobbled-together collection of half-truths, fairy tales, and skulduggery, then thrown in a dash of chicanery and called it a legitimate article on Romer. As I hope you can all see, I've been working to remedy this (I'll get on those references in due time), but Uppland and others can hardly be faulted for their skepticism. -- turkoftheplains 04:59, 9 May 2005 (GMT)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nic Petit

Google won't find much for Nic Petit, since his name's actually Nic Pettit, but even then, Pettit+"Devonport High" only gains 100 google hits. Grutness|^hello? 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedare Christian College

Non-notable high school in Adelaide, Australia. I know the school, trust me, its not notable. - Aaron Hill 08:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopaedic. Klonimus 09:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• That makes absolutely no sense. Gamaliel 09:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Short form of every public/educational institution is worth of inclusion.Klonimus 09:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why not just say that then? You could say that in eight words too, and it has the added advantage of being comprehensible. Gamaliel 09:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What, precisely, is incomprehensible about the word "encyclopedic" ? Encyclopedic = all encompassing. Encyclopedias were first conceived and intended as universal repositories of all knowledge. Note, universal and all. Wikipedia is the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that even has the remotest chance of being truly, actually, really encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an attempt at creating an anaemic electronic version of Britannica.--Gene_poole 01:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 09:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good short article. Kappa 09:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not establish notability. Megan1967 10:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 10:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article. Capitalistroadster 11:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with local geographic article (Golden Grove, South Australia), nothing in the school article currently suggests that this school has any particular note nationally, so any interest is purely local. Average Earthman 11:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article - not merely a stub --AYArktos 11:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article. Ambi 12:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like quite a good article - SimonP 14:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Worth the information.--Prem 15:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another non-notable high school. Quale 17:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with those voters who say it's a well-written article. That doesn't mean it's notable. Yet another 2dary (high) school: delete or merge per Average Earthman 11:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC). —msh210 18:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't agree that high schools are inherently non-notable. R Calvete 19:39, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  • Ah, but the real question is: Do you think all high schools are inherently notable? If your answer is yes, you should simply say so. You will vote "keep" for any high school. If your answer is no, then you should explain what makes this school notable enough to be encyclopedic. Quale 20:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, then i'll be voting "keep" whenever i come across a high school on VFD. R Calvete 22:19, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Klonimus voted "keep" --Carnildo 21:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA Klonimus 05:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That wasn't a personal attack. That was an explanation of why I voted to delete. --Carnildo 22:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep the school deletionists are heading for another defeat and i think it is time for them to cease their time wasting activities. Oliver Chettle 02:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Golden Grove, South Australia and delete - Skysmith 09:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lovely article. It's about a school in Golden Grove, South Australia. Jolly good stuff! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It would make the Golden Grove, South Australia article unbalanced to merge there. Author should be encouraged to write more articles. --ScottDavis 00:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please the article is good Yuckfoo 00:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-"notability" not established. Censure nominator for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Gene_poole 01:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are enduring social and physical institutions and are inherently encyclopedic. Tobycat 03:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good short article. Alphax ^τεχ 11:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable school. Grue 19:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Great article sheds light on its noteworthy history. Samaritan 23:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article doesn't establish notability -- says quite a lot about the school, but no particular reason why we should care. Haikupoet 00:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What would "establish notability"? One of three schools sharing facilities on a single campus? A school run jointly by two different denominations of the Christian church? Or does it have to be at least <x> years old or have at least <n> alumni listed in Wikipedia to count as notable? --ScottDavis 03:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's one of those I-know-it-when-I-see-it things, but I'll try to explain anyway. I think notability is a function of the school having played a significant role in something historic, even if somewhat minor. Check the VfD on Framingham High School -- Pres. Clinton kicked off a significant initiative there, therefore it just barely meets the bar for notability. Eton, on the other hand, is notable primarily for being the iconic British public school with numerous significant graduates and an influence on modern UK society. On the other hand, my own home town high school is primarily notable for having been briefly host to Crown Princess Masako of Japan, which I suspect does not meet the bar of notability (unless you're a bored Japanese tourist in Boston). It's definitely a hard thing to quantify. Now I'm not saying this place isn't notable in some context -- I don't know much about Australian culture, so for all I know it could be Australia's Stuyvesant High School, but this article doesn't demonstrate that. Haikupoet 04:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable for its origin and shared facilities between public and private educational institutions as explained in the article. --Takver 01:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. JamesBurns 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Intrigue 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ezequiel Santamaria

This was marked as a speedy delete, but isn't a speedy candidate. Using google I can find evidence that he has participated in some (what I assume is) mid-level tennis tournaments, but nothing that would make him notable. The article looks a bit like self promotion. Remember to look take wikipedia mirrors into account when searching. Thue | talk 08:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- reads like vanity. - Longhair | Talk 10:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Much is vanity wittering about his computer science studies, and tennis claims would require him to have competed for his country in the Davis Cup, competed in ATP Tour events, or at the very minimum have won Challenger level events to qualify as verifiably notable, I feel. I've found a site on the internet where they have been logging all the ATP rankings [9], and no Santamaria appears on the end of year rankings from 1997 onwards, so it would appear that he's never been in the top 1000 in the world. Average Earthman 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aticle claim he is a well known tennis player from Argentina, but it's not even well known in Argentina. Irrelevant to the Wikipedia. --Marianocecowski 14:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drlegend

This seems to be a advertisement, pure and simple. Certainly not worthy of encyclopedia article.

• Delete -- promotional article - Longhair | Talk 10:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Longhair. Purely promotional. The editor can have a look at how companies' articles are edited. Svest 11:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. Quale 23:17, 3 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 - merged - SimonP 14:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhoom (movie)

There is already a page on Dhoom -- Unsigned VfD submitted by User:Sabretooth -- Longhair | Talk 10:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- and redirect once merged. I've added merge notices to both articles. - Longhair | Talk 10:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. No redirection necessary. utcursch | talk 08:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qaryanism

This is an article about a new religious movement written by an insider, this makes it original research and unverifiable. Members of the project seem to be against publicity at this early stage. For this reason, some want it deleted, but, if verifiability can be achieved, it might simply need improvement. --Gareth Hughes 10:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. I'm curious about how you can be sure that this was written by an "insider." I'm also unsure just what should constitute an "insider." If work by insiders is to be considered "original research," does that mean that a supporter of a political party cannot write about that party, for example? Or a mathematician about mathematics? Personally, I would far rather leave the article there, but have someone knowledgeable do some heavy NPOV work on it. David Cannon 10:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As per David arguments. The discussion page can serve to discuss with the editors about the article. Svest 11:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The editors seem not ready to discuss anything. Indeed, The person who wrote this aritcle and the other article about Qaryanic Aramaic does not have the support of other Qaryanic believers in his free exposure of our religious practices and beliefs, as per User:BarShamashel below. Svest 09:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & clean-up -- I don't believe it should be removed because project leaders want it removed, and I believe it should be cleaned up. However, verifiability is almost impossible. --Gareth Hughes 11:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, verifiability can be done in the discussion page. Svest 11:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unverifiable advertisement for non-notable micro-movement. Google gets exactly 1 hit, and that is from a Wikipedia mirror. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As an adherent of Qaryanism, I can firmly say that the Qaryanic movement is not a movement at all, at least not at this point in time. There are only a few actual "Qaryans", and I place that in quotes because each adherent of Qaryanism is technically a Southern Baptist with Karaite and Aramaic inclinations. The person who wrote this aritcle and the other article about Qaryanic Aramaic does not have the support of other Qaryanic believers in his free exposure of our religious practices and beliefs. I, personally, would like to see some information about Qaryanism (not Qaryanic Aramaic) remain on Wikipedia, but not necessarily in the form of a full article. When I have some time I will try to condense the article to a short summary paragraph and place it inside another article about modern Messianic or Nazarene movements. User:BarShamashel

• Delete. The only Google hit for "Qaryanism" is a Wikipedia mirror. Even our own page doesn't show up. See also Qaryanic. This guy is making it up as he goes along. RickK 21:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified and notability established. Gamaliel 21:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well written, but needs sources so that it can be verified. Non-verifiable = non-encyclopedic. No google hits is a very bad sign. Quale 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable and probably in too small a scale anyway to be important - Skysmith 09:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted non-entity. Tomer ^TALK 20:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although I don't know if there are any REAL follower of this doctrine, it is worth to keep it. unsigned vote from 129.107.37.87

• Why keep a doctrine that no one has ever followed? Gamaliel 17:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unsigned vote from 68.226.229.230
  • note: this delete vote was made by a user at the same IP addy as the original author of the article itself

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WKMX FM Tower

I think any antenna owned and operated by a station should be described in the station's article. List of masts can have a section for antennas owned and operated by a station. Gazpacho 10:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Please see the policy discussion taking place on mast articles at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. There are currently hundreds of similar articles, and handling them one by one through VfD probably isn't the best way to deal with them. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with 10Trades: please withdraw the nomination. Otherwise, I vote to delete. —msh210 18:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, directory style information. WP is not a mast directory. Well, actually it's becoming one, but I think that's a mistake. This information can be obtained from the FCC for masts in the U.S. I've seen the policy discussion, but if vast majority of the masts are to be deleted, we have to start somewhere. It's unfortunate that WP has hundreds of articles on non-notable masts, but here is an opportunity to make it a little bit better. Individual articles providing directory-style info for each insignificant mast are a profoundly poor way to present this information anyway. Quale 17:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This information can be obtained from the FCC for masts in the U.S. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. All our information is available from elsewhere--if it wasn't it would be unverifiable and unencyclopedic. I do have some sympathy with people who would like to see them grouped together, but this can be done by having a separate list article as at present. So keeping separate articles and lists is quite easily achievable and, in fact, what we have now. No change is required. You don't have to read the articles if they don't interest you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Tony, with all respect, I disagree completely. Encyclopedias are not directories, and the information collected on masts is not encyclopedic. Some mast information also requires constant update, something that the FCC does but that we are not equipped to do. Compare with directory information on restaurants in a city. It's constantly changing, so any entry gives only a point in time when the article was created. It's quite possible that the restaurant will be out of business when you read the article, and its very likely that WP wouldn't have correctly updated the article. (This isn't an argument against WP articles on notable restaurants, just that WP should not have articles on all restaurants.) Directories require regular maintenance, with entries updated every year or more often. WP is not set up to provide that. Nor are traditional encyclopedias, which is a large reason why directory information is considered not encyclopedic. Everything in the yellow pages is verifiable, but it isn't encyclopedic. THe mast articles are yellow pages for masts. There's a reason why encyclopedias, almanacs, and directories are separate works. WP is an encyclopedia, or at least it's trying to be. There are better places for directories. Quale 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — RJH 19:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, or wait for the policy discussion. Kappa 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that no more votes should be made on this until the policy discussion is complete. Until then, all comments should be addressed there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per the developing consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. --Carnildo 21:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until a policy is established. I didn't know about the discussion. Gazpacho 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Big towers are notable. Klonimus 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote since these latest contributions are under scrutiny, but as someone who works in the broadcast industry, towers and tower sites are just a part of doing business. Unless we're talking about a landmark tower like Mount Sutro in San Francisco or a well-known site like Mount Wilson in LA, we're not talking about anything even remotely resembling encyclopedic IMO. AM arrays are big, tall steel trusses and FM arrays look like they're made up of rototiller blades. One FM I worked at had a solid state transmitter installed in an old portable shed and the rototillers were mounted on a wooden pole. If anyone wants info on US broadcast towers, let 'em go to the FCC. - Lucky 6.9 21:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It dawned on me that this is really good info for articles on individual stations. I still think that these don't make for particularly useful or even necessary articles. I don't think I'd look up the tower coordinates before looking up WKMX. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qaryanic

This is an article on a conlang based on Aramaic that only a handful of people know. As it's a recent invention it cannot be verified and is original research. --Gareth Hughes 11:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

At this point in time, the Qaryanic dialect of Aramaic is incomplete and is still in an experimental state. Its usage is limited to a small, privately funded circle of Syriac researchers at the University of Louisiana. There presently exists no published evidence of the language, and as far as the public is concerned, Qaryanic is invalid and nonexistant. This article should be deleted. --User:BarShamashel

• let's see. . . . 4 Google hits (all wikipedia mirrors), 0 Ask Jeeves hits, 17 MSN search hits (all wikipedia pages/mirrors), 11 All the Web hits (again, either wikipedia articles or mirrors) Delete, original research. Plus we need to check a variety of other wikipedia articles; apparently the author has been adding references to this "language" to those. Soundguy99 16:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable conlang. --Carnildo 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research, not to mention possible original creation, not important as of yet at least - Skysmith 09:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research. Megan1967 11:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as much as Jewish Languages is kind of a pet project for me, and I'm interested in learning more about this little project, at this point, this article and its content is wholly unverifiable. Tomer ^TALK 20:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I posted this information without having full knowledge of the language. Because of this, some of the information in the article is inaccurate. Also, this dialect is not called "Qaryanic". I made that name up because I didn't know what to call it. The people using this dialect are not even Qaryans. They are just Hebraic-minded Baptists. "Qaryan" is a term I made up to describe my own beliefs. So...this information should just be deleted. This all turned out to be a big mess. Sorry.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JJ Illin/JJ Diamond

Not notable - Longhair | Talk 11:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can provide evidence that any of these short-lived bands were at all commercially successful or influential, and that the accusations of anti-social behaviour are not abuse. Average Earthman 11:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- article has been updated since I submitted the VfD listing. The article has degraded. I strongly doubt it'll improve. - Longhair | Talk 12:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- reverting VfD vandalism by article author - Longhair | Talk 13:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable and the origional author keeps trying to remove the vfd notice. Mariocki ^TALK 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serpent´s Wall

The article would be encyclopedic in case it would talk about the Wall instead of Ms Elena -- Svest 11:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe the article was changed after the nomination but it definitely talks about the wall now... keep. Grue 19:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• strong delete unless someone starts to write something about the Serpent's Wall... -- 84.176.222.27 08:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Teegarden & Van Winkle

The entire contents of this article are "Had a song titled "God, Love and Rock & Roll.". This VfD was originally submitted by Quiggles. -- Longhair | Talk 13:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

* Delete -- article does not establish notability. - Longhair | Talk 13:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- changed my vote to keep based on Billboard success. Needs cleanup. Longhair | Talk 14:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Just call me Darth Google! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This one song was #22 in the Billboard Top 40 for the whole of 1970. I'll do a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Apart from the hit, this band seems to have worked with notable musicians such as Bob Seger and J.J. Cale wrote a song for them. All Music Guide has a detailed article on them [10]

Capitalistroadster 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swagat Thorat

Poorly written article on an obscure person. also nothing links to this page & no links in the article either I am thinking of either a Delete or whatever is appropriate.--Idleguy 13:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Kelly Martin 13:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- needs cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 13:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Idleguy puts it. --Mecanismo 20:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nearly all of the 165 google hits are wikipedia mirrors; I guess that's what happens when an article survives on here for five months. —Xezbeth 21:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Word Salad. Klonimus 05:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shortwave bands

Extremely badly written, I believe it would be better to get rid of it completely and start from the scratch. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly encyclopedic. Just needs a tweak here and there to turn the jargon into English. Delete the article and we'd lose the information, which would not be very sensible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic although the article needs cleanup. Capable of significant expansion if we can get an experienced ham to work on it. Quale 17:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — There are a bunch of redirects to this page from amateur radio as well. — RJH 19:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; if a cleanup tag wasn't enough, Wikipedia:Cleanup would be the place to take it. Samaritan 20:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Golden Age of Wireless Klonimus 05:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but oh, dear mother of Wiki, let's clean this up. DXing and shortwave listening are old hobbies of mine. If I can decipher this, I'll try cleaning it up. - Lucky 6.9 03:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a massive rewrite. This article appears to have been written by a barely-literate ham who has virtually no shortwave listening experience -- these are ham bands, not broadcasting bands, and as such wouldn't be the bands a shortwave listener would be looking for unless they were specifically looking for ham communications to listen to. This article, based on its title, should have the SWL bands listed most prominently and have the ham bands as second-string. Haikupoet 01:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've degarbaged it. It still needs work (particularly in relation to marine and commercial applications of shortwave) but it's at least readable. Unfortunately, since I am a lowly Technician and not a General or Extra I don't know enough about the amateur bands to rewrite what was originally there in a coherent fashion, so that could use some love too. Haikupoet 03:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Lobotomies

Lobotomy is lobotomy. Distinguishing between capitalist lobotomy and socialist lobotomy is silly. Sjakkalle 13:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE This "article" is barely grammatical nonsense, and its outside link is silly and fairly pointless. --Stan
• Keep and cleanup. There's a tale about this that shows up on NewsMax and other like-minded websites. It seems to be unsourced, but I will work on it and hope to turn out a short article about this phrase, the "socialist lobotomies" anecdote, and whatever lies behind it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 156 hits for "Socialist Lobotomies", 6 for "Socialist Lobotomy"? Neologism, junk science, whatever. Not encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 15:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Now agree with Niteowlneils. I traced this to an anecdote by Ronald Radosh in his book "Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left". It's been cited a few times in reviews and limbaughist rants. Not enough to be worth an article. Perhaps may make it into Radosh's entry as it grows beyond a mere stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neolojunk. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is just POV taken from WorldNetDaily attempting to skewer "leftists" for alleged hypocrisy with regards to the Castro regime. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Firebug 00:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but it should be noted that many people have undergone socialist lobotomies. Klonimus 05:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While noting that many people have undergone lobotomies, I fail to understand how a lobotomy may be "socialist". --Tabor 20:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How else do you explain people who spout leftist nonsense think George Monbiot and Robert Fisk . Klonimus 21:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Because they disagree with you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ben-w 00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC).
    • Most socialists are not lobotomized. Should we make this a socialist deletion or a capitalist deletion? Sjakkalle 09:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Keep and Cleanup. Play nice guys. Maybe we should link this to hypocrisy, or link it to Government of Cuba or Communist excesses or something similiar. It's encyclopedic in that it is a common reference to an actual event that was an excess of the Castro regime. It needs more background and expansion to give it better context. Sory for the brevity. I searched for a origional reference (I wanted to quote who had made the origional comment), someone with a Lexis-Nexus account should give it a whirl. If you are going to get rid of this you should get rid of Iran Contra too.

Above vote and comment by User:12.8.34.199, the creator of the article. Sjakkalle 09:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC) .

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Gamaliel 02:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose these changes: The quote should be attributed to Suzanne Ross – then with the Indochina Peace Campaign, who later went on the found the Committee in Solidarity with the Peoples of El Salvador (CISPES) The citation for the largest proportion of lobotomies in the world is from the article [[11]] - User:12.8.34.199

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 articles on individual games should be merged into the main page. - SimonP 15:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reality-on-the-Norm

A gaming community centered around submissions of games generated by a freely available adventure game creator. The official web site for this game has an article that says 'Richy has created a RON entry at Wikipedia, which can be found at'... indicating one of their own has created the page. The forums at the official site has just 194 registered users at the time of this VfD submission. It gets worse. They're in the process of creating character pages for each and every one of the characters from their 60 or so games. -- Longhair | Talk 14:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity -- Longhair | Talk 14:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- Actually, the front page is wrong, I didnt create the page, It was here already, I just put a lot of work into it, and posted in the forum, asking for help updating it. The admin, put that on the main page. Also google returns 1750 results for "reality on the norm".--Richy 16:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- This is true. I found this entry about 2 months ago, and all that was presented here was the brief two/three sentence description present at the top, which is in itself woefully inadequate. When Richy said he wanted to improve the article, I offered to help.--Dark Comet 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- If you wish to vote to Keep your article, please indicate that in your comments thanks. I'm open to change my vote if notability can be proven. You are welcome to continue work to improve your article whilst the vote is in progress. -- Longhair | Talk 17:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Games-cruft. I guess we can keep (an edited version of) the main article, but there is no need for separate articles on every character in every game - delete related character and game articles. SteveW | Talk 17:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note to RON people - why not create your own wiki at Wikicities for this? Articles on the game's characters are likely to appear on Votes for Deletion - there is a debate as to whether individual pokémon are important enough to have their own articles and many more people have heard of the pokémon characters than the characters in your games. If you do make a new wiki at wikicities, there could always be a link to it on the main Ron article if people wanted more detail. SteveW | Talk 17:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- I can see where you're getting at. I think it would be important to keep the main article itself, but RON is a pretty detailed project, and the current layout will mean at least 80+ different pages. Popularity doesn't really come into the equation with claims of vanity, but even the most popular thing in the world will be hard justified to cover 80 or so seperate articles...

Comment: How about this for a slice of fried gold - a Timeline of notable events and stories, with some of the more important characters thrown in for interest? That way we can stream it down to about three or four new pages (maybe not even that) and make it look presentable and informative. Would you agree to keep it then? Richy, whaddaya say? Dark Comet 20:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think what's being inferred is that your game(s) may be notable, but expanding any information about characters is going a little overboard. Focus on reworking the main article, and consider deleting all the character / game cruft in the remainder of the articles. Vanity usually refers to people making pages about themselves in a vain effort to gain exposure. Whilst this may not be the case here, you're certainly contributing to the artcile to improve it which some may see as vanity. Adding character information about your game won't ensure its' articles' survival here. Proving your game is notable to those outside your own user base is what we require. -- Longhair | Talk 20:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Thats a good Idea about the cities thing. Ill work on it asap--Richy 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the main page, Merge or Delete (as relevance demands) the individual characters and user-created games. If a single game is relevant enough that an encyclopedic treatment of it alone becomes necessary, it could break out, but I would probably err on the side of brief summaries of some of the most popular games in the main entry for RON. ESkog 04:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: That's a excellent notion, ESkog. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. In the meantime, if notability is what you want, check out this article published on an outside adventure gaming website. -- Dark Comet 13:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who changed the world greatly

I'm sure there's a multitude of reasons why this should be deleted, but for now I'll stick with inherent POV. This appears to have been moved into User:ImpalerBugz's user space, but was moved back; hence I'm listing it here. —Xezbeth 14:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete near-exact copy of article recently deleted (actually userfied) and apparently recreated or moved back. We were urged to go easy because author is a teenager. While I do value our younger contributors, I don't think they should be held to any less a standard regarding article retention than the rest of us. This should be deleted, whether the author is 6, 16, 60, or 106. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. Saw the move a few hours ago and my heart sank. This could be named "List of people an American twelve-year-old can be expected to have read about and been impressed by" and it would still not be encyclopedic. If he can't keep it in his userspace, it should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not only it is extremely POV but it is also an article list doing the job of a category without bringing any added value whatsoever. 2x delete. --Mecanismo 20:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe speedy delete as recreated content. Didn't this go through VfD recently? In any case, inherently POV. --Carnildo 21:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, still misguided. Gazpacho 22:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for POV, and I take personal offense at the suggestion that no "Y's" have affected the world :) 141.211.138.85 00:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you name one? (LOL) Kappa
    • Besides myself :), Chuck Yeager, Brigham Young, William Bulter Yeats, Yogi the Bear...
• Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Including Jimmy Wales was a nice bit of flattery though. FreplySpang (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Carbonite | Talk 12:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. Jonathunder 05:20, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Delete POV, alphabetized by first name, useless. Howabout1 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 05:39, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hypocrites

POV-hell. The article name is not what the first line reads atm: A list of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another. Who is a hypocrite is POV. But Who has ever been alleged by some of being a hypocrite is not POV, since sources of the allegations can be dug up. But, man, that could be a long and rather uninteresting list.

So I vote Delete on an article with this name. Secondary move to List of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another, but I'd probably vote delete on that too as being unencyclopedic. Shanes 15:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Next we can expect to see List of people who have acted perversely at one time or another. etc. this is a useless POV list. biased and boring.--Idleguy 15:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as totally and unsalvagably POV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, written entirely by 63.202.172.90 in a single edit, reads like a soap box, and borderline unencyclopedic. As it stands, it's baseless POV soap box ranting and doesn't belong on WP. Cburnett 15:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I've laid out my reasons on the hypocrisy talk page. -- Temtem 16:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of those lists that you could add everybody to. Mother Theresa, Saint Peter, Nelson Mandela, Jesus, even Bob Geldof, nobody would escape. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic delete. Not only impossible to categorize but insanely non-neutral POV. How this could ever be considered encyclopedic is beyond me. Onlyemarie 16:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, and too broad. List of famous individuals and organizations alleged by some to have acted hypocritically at one time or another would encompass just about every biographical article in Wikipedia.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the above reasons. DJ Clayworth 16:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but merge the examples from movies and literature into hypocrisy. Martg76 17:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Where appropriate, I agree with the merge. Hypocrisy needs some examples and those in film & literature are likely to be less debatable and much less POVish (the whole fiction bit). Cburnett 17:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above. (Selective merge/delete.) Samaritan 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Selective merge/delete also concur Kappa 16:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV.Feydey 18:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- POV - Longhair | Talk 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV, or move to List of People. --Carnildo 22:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - could as well be "List of people even peripherally famous in one extent or another" or something like that. POV pusher magnet - Skysmith 10:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hopelessly POV and utterly unmaintainable. Some selective merging in the film and literature categories is a good idea. - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am so proud to stand alone as a lone voice in the wilderness of Wikipedia's decay into NPOV Encarta-ish blandness enforced by all the self-appointed NPOV Nazis. Quirkiness and POV is what keeps things interesting. That one cannot any longer cite evidence that there is even one liar or hypocrite alive on planet Earth without the NPOV Nazis; censoring such information is just another sign of these Orwellian times. ---- 63.205.185.5 (sig added by Cburnett 03:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC))

• Delete - It'd be nice if, one day, Wikipedia were widely respected enough to be permissible as a cited source for academic research. It's articles like this one, however, that make it an impossibility. Lets try to keep in mind that this is a database of knowledge, not a soapbox. (note: please stop editting my posts. edit your own. there's entirely too much usage of IPs on this website as it is, I'd rather not advertise it more than I absolutely have to on here.)
  • Note: The above was added by an anon with serious objections to having his IP address added as a sig. --Carnildo 01:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomatterware

Advertisement

• This is just advertisement, no encyclopedic content Matteo 16:30, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement by the anonymous user 142.179.158.252 who's only edits are this "article". Cburnett 16:45, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - promotional JoJan 18:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:14, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War Crimes in Asia Mainland

This is barely intelligible, also POV issues - who does "you" refer to in this? Appears to be a list of alleged war crimes by one army during one war so in any case the title is incorrect. I can't see that much could be salvaged from this mess. Delete - SteveW | Talk 17:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an article covering war crimes committed (or allegedly committed) by the Japanese during the Second World War/Pacific War. It has two "sister" articles War Crimes in the Pacific and War crimes in Manchukuo. All should be deleted IMHO or at least redirected, possibly to Japanese war crimes although that might not be NPOV. Leithp 19:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Charles Matthews has made a good start in sorting this out and judging by Talk:Japanese war crimes there seems to be no way that this could be merged without exacerbating an edit war. Leithp 19:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Japanese war crimes, which probably can do with some expansion (even though the format of this page is also an atrocity). Martg76 20:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Japanese war crimes, no redirect. Megan1967 03:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Firstly, a VfD listing means no one can move the page, so please don't complain about the title. Secondly, this contributor has added very detailed information to around 30 pages, which I have listed at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. When people listed those at VfD, rather than asking for clean-up, they are making a major mistake. The English is bad - you is for its, by the way. But I am going to clean this up now. Charles Matthews 04:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this can be integrated into some sort of better article. Japanese war crimes, War Crimes in Asia etc Klonimus 05:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (partially?), as it has some useful information that may be better placed elsewhere, and Keep/Move to retain an article on war crimes that have happened in Asia. - Orborde 06:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and let Charles Matthews clean up. Kappa 06:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Charles Matthews has done excellent work cleaning this up. The information might ultimately be merged as users Martg76 and Megan1967 suggested (together with other articles named). But for the present, keep it. Fg2 04:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Lozano

Non-notable individual whose name was inadvertently found in a US Army report on the shooting of Italian Nicola Calipari. Listing of this particular individuals information may also have serious repercussions to his personal safety. I also recommend his name be removed from all related articles. Delete TDC 17:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep — Notable. Spc. Lozano was found by the US Army report to be the only person who fired on Calipari's vehicle, ergo, the individual who fired the fatal bullet. As of today, his name has been widely mentioned in the press, both foreign and domestic, including in America's newspaper of record. [12] Clearly, listing a name widely known poses no security risk. Also, he is the subject of a possible indictment by the Investigating Magistrates of Rome in their ongoing criminal investigation into the shooting. Furthermore, more pertinent information about Spc. Lozano is likely to come to light in the subsequent judicial inquiry, more than could be included in the page on Nicola Calipari.69.67.230.91 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: User's second edit.Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Please note that I have edited and created numerous articles, but always anonymously, and from various university computer labs, which bear different addresses. This is just where I am today.

• Delete — Not notable. The same information is listed on the page for Nicola Calipari. Why it would matter I have no idea, unless there is an agenda at work there. — RJH 19:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Notable. I fully concur with the second comment (User:69.67.230.91). In addition, given the saga of the rescued journalist, the extent of the US and Italian disagreement on the details of the incident and, the length of the rancur, this information is no less relevant than knowing that Sirhan Sirhan and Chapman were the killers of Bobby Kennedy and John Lennon, respectively.

• Note: User's fourth edit, first edit since March.Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Even the guy he allegedly shot isn't notable enough for his own article, IMNSHO. And there is nothing in the article which substantiates the accusation. RickK 21:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nicola Calipari doesn't deserve his own article? His death provoked a major international incident, and he's a national hero in Italy (and, per the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, "our hero too.") President Bush and Condoleeza Rice called personally to express their condolences over his death. If he doesn't meet your standards for notoriety, I think your call as to Lozano's non-notoriety is clearly suspect. 128.122.128.41 15:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject isn't notable enough for his own article. This information can go in the relevant articles. (I do object to the idea of his name being removed from the articles, however.) Gamaliel 21:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy is a major figure in the report into the death of Nicola Calipari. I don't understand how this article could affect his personal safety. All the information about the incident is in the public domain since the italian press released the "un-censored" version of the US government's report from which this article appears to be based. Leithp 22:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable on his own. What WP say about him? Mention belongs in Nicola Calipari. Quale 23:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. At least for now, as long as this story continues to develop, a small, but key element, is notable and important. If passage of time proves this man is a non-entity, it can be deleted/altered then. 141.211.138.85 00:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Incident is internationally very notable; this soldier's name and alleged role have been featured prominently in international media, with a lot of short-term notability. Not as much long-term notability, probably, as the examples (who killed in circumstances unlike this one) cited by the anon ... but time will tell. With the major national inquiries still in progress, and many national leaders and major media (except in the USA) up in arms about it, this individual is a topic which may switch from temporarily-notable to trivial or to long-term encyclopedic in coming weeks. If Spc. Lozano's role fades and the meme becomes "US miscommunication leads to shooting of Giuliana Sgrena and escorting agents" rather than "a National Guard soldier killed them", this should perhaps be turned into a redirect to either Giuliana Sgrena (my preferred choice) or Nicola Calipari. Barno 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the US press sure hasn't picked it up. This is the first time I'd even heard his name. A search for "Mario Lozano" at http://news.google.com/ comes up with six listings, two of whom are not him, and only one of which is a US news source. RickK 04:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's more a reflection on the US press than on the importance of the story. Leithp 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Google News does not index foreign language papers. Check out La Stampa, Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, etc. Corriere in particular mentions his name as an important element of the story, and indicate that the story may develop further - the Italian legal system is currently considering a judicial inquiry or a criminal indictment, in which case he would be called as a witness, and his (non)participation would add greatly to the noteworthiness. There are reports out of Italy that he is likely to receive a subpoena. [13] 128.122.128.41 14:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Not true, as I said, three of the four references were foreign press, one being British, one being Australian, and one Italian, "Agenzia Giornalistica Italia". RickK. 66.60.159.190 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Did you notice, RickK, those stories were all in English? If they're in a foreign language, i.e. Ialian, they're not in google news. So here's a link to another Italian story in Corriere della Sera, which of course, was not indexed. [14]. If you want a count of foreign media mentions, you'll have to use Lexis. BTW, a Lexis search also reveals many U.S. media stories that aren't present in Google News - as of 5/04/05, Lozano is named in the L.A. Times, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune.

• Delete, not inherently notable on his own. Megan1967 05:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.- I fully concur with the second opinion and with Leithp. This person is a key figure in a international incident and just because the US press has downplayed his significance, doesn't make him any less important. Bert25
• Keep, per Bert25, and aim to cover each country's POV equally well. Kappa 19:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this was a very significant international incident and Lozano appears to have been one of the primary participants. I suspect he's probably better known in Italy than in the U.S., just as the incident as a whole received greater publicity there. TDC also provided no basis for his claim that this article may have "serious repercussions to his personal safety". Firebug 20:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep because its important. why delete it Yuckfoo 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Huh? This is an obvious keeper. Grue 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I cannot see any safety implication in this case. --M7it 14:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogssary

Neolog, dicdef, advert, del. —msh210 18:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What msh210 said. Quale 23:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 23:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to made-up words in The Simpsons#Kwyjibo. Meh. Postdlf 01:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quigibo

All Web pages with this word seem to be about the word, not about the animal; so, like floccinaucinihilipilification, its only notability is in its use as a word — but in this case it's nonnotable (very few Google results). —msh210 18:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Otoh, if this is a real species (or subspecies or whatever) of animal, it certainly deserves its own page. But I very highly doubt that that's the case. —msh210 18:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to made-up words in The Simpsons#Kwyjibo. --MarkSweep 18:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balram

Balram.S born on april 11th-1988 in india,bangalore. studing in sbjmc,bangalore completed high school in s.k.c.h

• Nn vanity del. —msh210 18:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Vanity. Delete. BradBeattie
• Delete. Vanity, not-notable. Sheldrake 21:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 23:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NPNT Klonimus 05:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted not once, not twice but three times:

• 20:21, 3 May 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Zoom zoom I will butter your cake" (Patent nonsense, possible defamation)
• 16:32, 3 May 2005 Jinian deleted "Zoom zoom I will butter your cake" (non-notable)
• 12:38, 3 May 2005 DJ Clayworth deleted "Zoom zoom I will butter your cake" (nonsense)

Sjakkalle 06:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zoom zoom I will butter your cake

Libelous hoax (zero Google hits). -- Curps 18:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ➥the Epopt 18:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• 20:20, 3 May 2005 User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Sam Caines and the bondage grannies" (Patent nonsense, possible defamation)

Sjakkalle 06:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Caines and the bondage grannies

This looks like vandalism to me, I can't find anything in Google Terrace4 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See also Zoom zoom I will butter your cake by the same anon. -- Curps 18:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedo

Nonsense. Note that the red linked word eunucos means eunuchs in portuguese--Nabla 18:57, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Looks like an attack against the Macedo family. Quale 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 05:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Personal attack. (I would like to know how this eunuchs would reproduce...) --Marianocecowski 11:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobonit News

Not notable, 128 google hits, seems quite dodgy site, not professional, POV.--Silversmith 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that Bobonit is the same article but much smaller and is up for VfD as well.--Silversmith 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I replaced it with a copyvio notice, which the author removed. He's now claimed on the article talk page that he authored the website too. Which makes this an advertisement for a nonnotable website. Delete even if it turns out not to have been a copyright violation. Postdlf 19:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Abysmally low Alexa rating of 4,952,239, for what it's worth. Postdlf 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Only 25 sites link to bobonit.com according to Google. Delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Unless the guy supplies some proof that he is, indeed, the author, it's still a copyvio, and the copyvio process should be followed from here. RickK 21:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • No harm in judging both at once; it's preferable at any rate to assess the notability and...um...encyclopedicness...of the subject matter now rather than waiting until the copyvio is deleted and the article comes back as a rewritten stub. Two birds, one stone, so on. Postdlf 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not notable - Longhair | Talk 21:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as your choice of copyvio, advertisement, or lack of notability. --Carnildo 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem very noteworthy. It's just some guy and a blog. Come on, how is that noteworthy? Oh, and low Google hits don't help his case either. Master Thief Garrett 22:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 05:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Save bobonit

Wow You guys are animals I really feel like a virgin! But instead of all the crtics how about a teacher?. How about some instructive criticism and I will try to learn the Wiki culture and how to navigate Wikiland. I am learning about the Wikiworld very quickly can we all just get along?

Information about reported Google hits!

Google hits for bobonit =  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,940 for bobonit. (0.11 seconds)
Google hits for bobonit news = Results 1 - 10 of about 710 for bobonit news. (0.05 seconds) 
Google hits for bob's blog news = Results 1 - 10 of about 165,000 for bob's blog news. (0.16 seconds)

NOTE: The Blog was number one and the website number two in ALL reports seems somewhat Notable? Image:Clipboard01bobs_blog.jpg

Image of Google results at 11:58 pm 05-03-05

I would like to try to write a much smaller entry if that would help?

--Rocdad 07:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, "bob's blog news" does not exist at all on Google [15]. You may want to try "" next time you google, otherwise every article with the word "news", "blog" and "bob's" comes up, hence the high number of results.--Silversmith 08:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  No, a smaller entry wouldn't help, because the issue in this VfD is whether the subject of the website should have an article, not how it is written. I concur with Silversmith's analysis of the google hits, and restate that the site's extremely low Alexis ranking is rather fatal to any claim that the website is notable. Or do we have other articles on websites that have Alexis ratings of close to 5,000,000? Postdlf 20:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Save Bobonit News: First and foremost there were no copy right violations!. Counting on the Google algorithm to decide if a site is notable seems foolish to me, but since everyone seems fascinated by them and I was quite impressed myself in the results and was amazed at what I thought was extremely positive results in SEO.
• The keyword results from Google for bobs blog news (screen shot) (1, 2 on page one), is NOTABLE by itself since the goal with Google is to get your keywords to return your URL in the top results of at least the first few pages, to actually have the first and second result on the first page out of 165,000 hits with such common words is incredible compare that to the Drudge report (1, 2 on page one), FOX News (1,2 on page one) and those are with only two words much easier than three common words.
• “Bob’s blog news” in quotes is not the point since that is not the actual or full name for the article entry just related keywords. Bobonit or Bobonit News both return 1, 2 on first page with quotes or no quotes!
• I have checked ALEXA and it shows the old website and the entry is at least 2 years old and I have never optimized for great ALEXA results but the result they show puts http://Bobonit.com in the top 10% of World Wide Web I believe I guess it is a matter of perspective. I assume ALEXIS is a misspelling? --Rocdad 10:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• And how in the hell do you get the words to wrap in this text?
• Delete. Self-promotion, not notable. 105 unique hits for bobonit; a whopping 14 for "bobonit news". Being on the first page of results for a Google search this specific is completely meaningless. If your site came up first on a search for, say, "news blog", then we might have something. The Google Test is meant to judge an article subject's notability based on the raw number of hits for a specific phrase. I have no clue where you get the idea that the Alexa ranking means that your site is "in the top 10% of World Wide Web." There are nearly five million sites that are more frequently visited than yours. android↔talk 12:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 15:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BHZ

Any worth while information should be on the Homestar Runner article.--Silversmith 22:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nice little article, could perhaps be a little less chatty. I checked the forum and it seems to be reasonably busy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- They have 3161 members signed up to their forums, which contain 121756 posts. I'll give 'em a chance. - Longhair | Talk 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tiny forum, 3000 members is nothing and 100,000 posts is standard for any forum. 8 users and 3 guests online isn't what i'd call "busy". —Xezbeth 21:47, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the information should be deleted, I just don't think we should have articles on forums. There is very little information on the article, and therefore it can easily be added to the Homestar Runner article, especially if it is formated differently.--Silversmith 21:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Homestar Runner. All forums don't have sufficient notablity for inclusion. 216.165.154.146 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with comment about articles on forums. --TimPope 22:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just another online forum. CDC (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge into Homestar Runner or delete. Brighterorange 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete small time vanity forum page. --69.156.0.58 01:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable forum, promo. Megan1967 05:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 15:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lobsterbacks

wikified dicdef --Allen3 ^talk 19:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to British military history or some more appropriate article. Meelar (talk) 20:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] The Powers

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

Possibly to be merged with Charmed or cleaned up, renamed?

--Wm 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• It was a copyvio from [16], tagged as such. —Xezbeth 21:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld:The Quiz

This is not, and never could be, encyclopaedic Suggest deletion. --bjh21 20:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously, a quiz is unencyclopedic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What, like Jeopardy!, you mean? sjorford →•← 21:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • sjorford, I think you took my comment a little too literal. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, you got me. :) (Oh, and delete, obviously.) sjorford →•← 11:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Is it even worthy of inclusion in Seinfeld? I think not. - Longhair | Talk 21:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete That's an obvious vote 216.165.154.146 21:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Damn it I can't remember the name of the coffee shop. Can somebody help me out? I do remember it was JFK Jr who caused Elaine to lose the bet. Oh well, delete. Everyking 22:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Monk's. I think it had a different name in the first episode, but it eludes me right now. Quale 09:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Quale 23:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, cruft. Megan1967 05:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a quiz. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Nestea 11:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Bennett (DJ)

Non-notable university student who works as a volunteer DJ and organiser at their community radio station. Andrewa 20:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment/Further info: Part of a complex larger vandalism, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James Martin (DJ), and this diff, lots of other examples, and some good edits from the same IPs too, some of them at least are proxy servers unfortunately. Whether he is a ringleader of this, a victim or something in between may never be known, but in any case there is no evidence he's notable or encyclopedic. He does seem to exist, see the website of Source FM, and someone has created a userid which redirects to this page. So deleting this page is just part of the work required, and ongoing! Andrewa 20:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 23:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Bill Bennett here. Just to say, I made the pages about me, James Martin, and Source FM originally in good faith. As far as I can see from http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2520 the users of Metropol247 Forums edited James' page because they hate him. My vote: delete the whole lot and have done with it :)
  • I have moved this vote to delete by user 194.66.42.43 to a more logical spot. Thank you for your contribution. Please sign your posts here, and consider creating a userid. It costs you nothing, and helps communication a great deal. Andrewa 19:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It appears from email contact that the person above is probably Bill Bennett as claimed, and is also user:Billbennett but they didn't sign on before making this post. See Talk:Source FM#Is this encyclopedic?. Everyone has gone very quiet since I refactored the intro to the Source FM article to make it a bit more obvious that it's just a glorified in-house PA system (which the article already said). Andrewa 15:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, this forum is implicated, as others have commented, and they seem well aware that we could waste a lot of time trying to sort out who is who. But there's no need to. The fairest thing we can do to the real people who are quite possibly innocent victims of this (although I am of the opinion that it does nothing but good to their chosen careers as DJs and that they would know this) is to delete as much of the mess as is unverifiable and/or unencyclopedic. I'd be fascinated to know whether Wikipedia is mentioned on the programs they host, and what they say about us, and I guess they'd love to have our interest, but again it's not something we need to know. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (I Can't Get No) Stupefaction

• BJAODN! BandannaMilkshake 13:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently never listed, no vote --Dmcdevit 00:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. RickK 05:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic nonsense. Megan1967 05:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wasn't it (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction? Delete, unless artist is added and shown notable. Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but this is a parody song with no evidence of existence. Delete. Samaritan 11:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• WTF?--uh, I mean, Delete... Master Thief Garrett 09:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yet more nonsense from 205.217.105.2. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what the heck?
  • sorry, forgot to sign. Sensation002 13:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It probably exists, many versions of it might, but there's no evidence that any of them are encyclopedic. Andrewa 00:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Useless article Stancel 21:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American_Surrealism

Obvious attempt at a bad joke and blatant lack of notability Sheldrake 21:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article admits non-notability, plain awful. Quale 23:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Bie

Possible vanity. --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense, vanity, not notable, etc. Sheldrake 21:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. It's not even possible vanity - it's patent nonsense. Should have been under speedy delete. --khaosworks 00:06, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 05:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 22:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middle East peace according to religion

Pure original research Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme POV and original research. --Neigel von Teighen 21:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- POV - Longhair | Talk 21:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, essay. Quale 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though an article on the role of religion in keep the ME conflict hot would be a nice. Klonimus 05:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 05:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it's Mumbo Jumbo. IZAK 21:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This subject is perhaps encyclopedia-worthy, but not with this name, and not with pretty much any of the material in this incarnation of the article. I'd vote "Wait", but this entire thing is in need of a rewrite and a move, so I'm gonna just be content with Delete. Tomer ^TALK 17:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - moved to user space - SimonP 15:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Particracy (web game)

The game is non-notable and only just started with few features implemented. At the moment it is just not big enough for Wikipedia cap601 21:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't aware that 178 players isn't enough, but I (as author of the game, and the page ;) ) am willing to accept it. I wasn't trying to advertise it or anything, I just figured it'd be worth a place on the wikipedia. If it's not, fine by me. Wouter Lievens 22:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking (and my format), but what is the grounds for the VFD besides not being big enough for wikipedia? Are we saying that it isn't notable enough, as if that is so then I'd suggest that 200 people is enough to qualify as possibly notable. The game has excellent growth potential, moving from less then 64 when I joined less then two weeks ago to near 200, only limited because of how Patricracy forms itself into nations of 8 parties each, generally limited by the number of new nations added by Mr. Lievens. In all honesty, since when is notability a criteria for VFD? There are more obscure topics around, including the mess of demographic ones that serve little purpose. I do not see how an open encyclopedia, which seems to lend itself to being a repository for all sorts of obscure information, can consider deleting articles for a lack of notablility. Sorry if this is formatted wrong/done badly, I'm new at this, and thanks for listening.69.136.240.8 01:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Classy! Thank you Wouter for your show of good faith. Userfy to User:Wlievens or a subpage, with no redirect from the article space. Samaritan 23:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC), who had cleanup-importance-tagged it

• I think that the entry should be given at least enough time to be finished before it is assessed as being worthy of deletion. As was written above, the game has a lot of potential. It could end up being much more interesting than NationStates, which is all the rage at the moment. If that were to happen it certainly would be notable. I think patience is in order here. --TB 04:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it were moved to the creator's user space, it could be returned to the main article space when it achieves a larger following. Samaritan 10:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In principle I agree with the idea, but I can't really see why a 200 player active webgame is less interesting than List of people on stamps of Gabon :-) Wouter Lievens 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] CityDesk

Was posted as {db|advertising}, but has no peacock language. Information about a product for sale is not necessarily advertising, so I changed it to a VfD.--64.254.131.93 21:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is not advertising, it is linked from List of content management systems, as are a bunch of other CMSs. CityDesk cannot be removed unless they all are. Also, this language has a CityDesk page: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityDesk which appears to be fine. 137.186.22.250 15:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that anonymous votes are not counted in VFD debates. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • To quote the vfd-header "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may (my emphasis) be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Anon votes are not automatically discounted. Sjakkalle 08:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided, but if this article doesn't get fleshed out into a real article in the next few days, I will change this to a delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless hugely Expanded. This article tells me absolutely nothing. Well, it does, but that's like telling me Microsoft Word is a word processor by Microsoft. States the (fairly) obvious, but no detail. It's got even less content than a Google Directory entry would. So if it's hugely expanded into a useful article it can remain, if not it goes. Master Thief Garrett 22:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Personal bias: I'm interested in content management systems. On the other hand, anybody can release yet another tiny, or fork from one of the large, open source PHP scripts, so I approached this with skepticism, but it turns out it isn't such a beast. Keep it. This 2002 weblog post suggest it's quite notable in that software giant Macromedia subsequently released something very similar. Any Macromedia software product would clear the bar; why not this very close forerunner from a little guy, which seems to have a respectable user base? Samaritan 23:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs definite expansion. 80,000 Google hits - appears to be notable, [17]. Megan1967 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Master Thief Garrett -- no useful link-tos, but might be the Next Sliced Bread. --Simon Cursitor 07:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: advertising IS NOT a WP:CSD. Meelar (talk)
• Keep per Samaritan. Kappa 18:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if CityDesk itself deserves an entry, but Fog Creek Software, the vendor, probably does. It has gained quite a bit of fame in the IT community for founder Joel Spolsky's blog Joel On Software. Firebug 20:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is relevant to content management systems in that it is one of perhaps two client-side packages available.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobonit

This was originally listed as a CSD by User:Silversmith, but the original creator (User:Rocdad) protested, so I changed it to a VFD. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I personally vote to Delete, as non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

no, it wasn't me who did the CSD, it was User:Feydey, I've put Bobonit News up for VfD, which is pretty much the same article, so at least one of them should deffinitely be deleted.--Silversmith 22:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem very noteworthy. It's just some guy and a blog. Come on, how is that noteworthy? Oh, and low Google hits don't help his case either. Master Thief Garrett 22:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising by the website's owner. CDC (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 05:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 16:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 15:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TipiWiki

Not to be confused with TikiWiki. Aside from being a direct text copy from here I don't think this wiki software is notable enough to be included. There are a few google hits, though they mostly point to the source forge domain where this project resides. The homepage at [18] strikes me as a bit odd as well. CheekyMonkey 21:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Update. The homepage has now changed to a typical wiki front page (at time of nomination it was full of viagra spam type links). It seems MediaWiki is not the only wiki to suffer vandalism :) CheekyMonkey 22:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of wiki software, where it's had an entry only slightly more terse than this article since June 15, 2003 (this diff from Wiki software, which most of the list was split out of). —Korath (Talk) 01:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle 14:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan Youth

Non-notable. Does not meet music notablity guidlines. Bratsche^{talk random} 21:48, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• As nominator, I vote Delete Bratsche^{talk random} 21:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • After a great rewrite by Soundguy, I change my vote to Keep. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, probable hoax. Quale 23:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a substantial part of this article looks like nonsense or a personal attack. Megan1967 05:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, definitely a real band; not only do I remember them, but Google "Reagan Youth" + band. Still may not be notable enough, but I can't investigate/expand right now since I'm already late for work. . . . . Soundguy99 16:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I distinctly remember this band from my high school days. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 14:28, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Keep, performing regularly at CBGBs is good enough for me. Kappa 07:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vain, questionable factual basis. Despite instantly thinking "Hitler Youth!!!" when I saw the title, it's nothing of the sort. Master Thief Garrett 10:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• While I do hate to encourage people to use VfD as a way to get articles expanded, I have just done so to this one. Obviously, I vote Keep. Soundguy99 21:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bands with allmusic.com entries. Gamaliel 02:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As has been noted, this was a real band, not a "hoax." of any sort--Wasabe3543 17:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilbanked

and Wilbank You can't get much more of a neologism that this (24hrs max)--Doc Glasgow 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Probably a very smart girl. Revenge isn't worth it. Even wiki style. Delete the other similar article also. - Longhair | Talk 22:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. The correct term is Munsoned, anyway. Quale 23:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, neologism. Megan1967 05:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Ultraneologisms. android↔talk 12:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• WTF? (do you realise how many times I've said that on Vfd today?!?), nn neologism. Master Thief Garrett 10:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feature (horse)

After doing some digging, I have been able to find information on horses by the names of "Feature Mr Jess", "Feature EM Frost", "Feature EM Blue", "Feature Good", "Feature Jack", "Frosty Feature", "Kass Tuff Feature", and "Quincy Feature" but nothing on a horse named "Feature" outside of wikipedia mirrors. Is this a real horse? --Allen3 ^talk 21:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A perfect example of the type of article that should be eliminated. The entire article is the single sentence, "Feature is the name of a famous American Quarter Horse stud.". Not enough info to verify, and absolutely no loss if it were deleted. Quale 23:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Not only unverifiable, but nearly useless even if it could be verified. IMO, these single-sentence nanostubs should be blasted out of the water on sight. Unverifiable ones even more so. Did I mention delete? - Lucky 6.9 03:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Jenner

Not notable, nothing much on google search. --TimPope 21:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, in fact, all the google hits refer to Wikipedia or a mirror thereof. I would believe that an article on a famous broadcaster would turn up some hits independent of Wikipedia. Probably unverifiable, but I'm not Australian. Sjakkalle 06:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unlesss someone can convince us she's real. Master Thief Garrett 10:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The EWA

"Edwardians with Attitude" not found on Google, and EWA is coming up with everything but. Doesn't seem notable at all.--Silversmith 22:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently no hits on Google. Unverified content. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, zero Google hits. Megan1967 05:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 01:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lars Hyldgaard

not notable Posted on VFD by Ben-w

• Delete Vanity page --SVTCobra 22:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Seven displayed google hits, three of which are mirrors of VfD. —Korath (Talk) 01:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a duplicate of Hyldgaard lars, which has already been VfD'd. CDC (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope's Penis

Article appears to be a joke. A search for "pope's penis" invariably links back to poetry by Sharon Olds. No mention of note that I could find in Google, groups, news. Delete Wikibofh 22:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete for being a recipe, not notable, and therefore probably vandalism Brighterorange 23:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FroggyMoore 01:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This is just a hoax. Shoaler 12:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should we not keep cocktail recipes regardless of obscurity?
  • (unsigned vote by originator of Pope's Penis article.) Shoaler 16:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. We get these coctails in some bars around Edinburgh.
  • (another unsigned vote by same originator of article.) Shoaler 16:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen this in plenty bars, not just down south, but up North too, where its been introduced, and is a local favourite.
  • anon's only edit RickK 66.60.159.190 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Never tried it, but seen it in a few bars around edinburgh BuzzMobile, 19:56 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit RickK 66.60.159.190 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sockpuppets go to Wiki-Hell!!!. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:34, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• WTF? (Delete) all non-notable joke/fake entries. I dout this is a real drink, and even if it is it's in very bad taste. However, if that very-bad-tasteness results in someone suing the bar, THEN we might want a WP article about it!Master Thief Garrett 10:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I thought it was a joke too, but wasn't sure, so I brought it here instead of speedy in case I was wrong. Wikibofh 22:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 18:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Odin

Idiosyncratic non-topic - Does this minor fictional character really need an entry? --Wm 22:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• No he doesn't. Delete. Shanes 23:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Charmed#Minor characters. RickK 23:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Charmed and redirect. Megan1967 05:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 18:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exigo

Utterly unverifiable speculation about an unreleased, nonnotable piece of software. CDC (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons listed above. -- taviso 06:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I put it up because of a request for it on the BTE talk page. Delete it if you like.

Most info is correct, yet no one of the exigo project has put this information here. I don't know if it's worth keeping it here, it doesn't really seem of any use. Maybe we can put it back when Exigo is released. (aRAchNiON, distrotalk.net Staff member)

• 'Delete We will make it when we have an iso and its ready (sethgeek, Exigo dev) --68.234.79.140 18:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• We (the Exigo devs) are very sorry that this page was made. We wanted to wait to make this page till our 0.1 release was released. But some other people *cough, BTE devs,cough* made this page. I don't care if this page gets deleted or not. As long as we are able to create it when we have our first release. (DNAku, Exigo developer) --213.119.93.40 18:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to create it, but just making a release available doesnt nescessarily demonstrate notability, it could well be nominated again. Perhaps you're looking for a software directory, such as FreshMeat? -- taviso 19:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I noticed most of the linux distro's have a page on wikipedia. What do we need to demonstrate notability? We're working on the Exigo website at the moment. We have a logo and we should have our first release finished by the end of may. (DNAku, Exigo developer) --213.119.93.64 20:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BTE

A mostly-unverifiable article about a Linux distribution that hasn't released anything. Looks a lot like vanity to me. CDC (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Unverifiable (the only proof of existence is a text file on a p2p network?), and non notable (no releases yet) -- taviso 09:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- They are just trying to give the distribution Exigo a bad name. --193.216.24.197 19:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- They are lying that Exigo might be Closed Source.And they use this page to humiliate Exigo and Exigo-devs --213.119.93.240 20:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- They are only out to give a Exigo a bad name! --68.234.79.140 20:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Idem as ^^
• Don't Delete -- The page doesn't say Exigo is closed source anywhere. The page is not out to give Exigo a bad name: It's out to tell people about BTE. Since one of BTE's goals is to be "Better Than Exigo," it's hard to write an article about BTE that doesn't mention Exigo... Also, the BTE devs put up a website at http://nandu.berlios.de so there is a source for the article now.
  • Comment made by 66.31.245.175

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stancel 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Beer Party

Non-notable. - Stancel 15:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The nominator did not submit this to the VfD page. Although my vote is to keep, I will now. Samaritan 23:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Article and VfD moved from Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party to Draft Beer Party. Samaritan 09:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: What is your point? There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability. He expressed this view in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. It is verfiable -- the information comes from the PEI government. It is not vanity. The article is written by and large in a Wikipedia style. It is linked from other related articles. Could you provide some valid reason for wanting to delete this article? Ground Zero 20:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ground Zero. --Spinboy 21:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A political party on the ballot for a senior level of government. The Polish Beer-Lovers' Party became a genuine political force, winning 16 seats in the Sejm in the 1990s (before splitting into "Big Beer" and "Small Beer" factions). It's quite interesting to know they weren't the first party to run on such a program (apparently - organic expansion is our friend). See also Marijuana Party, List of frivolous political parties. Samaritan 21:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "The Draft Beer Party ran in only the 1979, and ran only a single candidate". Come on! IF they continued to run candidates and had become some sort of viable force, then, okay, yeah, maybe. But that is not what happened, and they no longer exist. RickK 21:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Rick, that the party was a small and short-lived venture in a small political jurisdiction. But why isn't there room for an article about them? What will be lost if the article remains? We know what will be lost if the article is deleted -- a little bit of information that is difficult to find elsewhere. One hopes that in time someone who remembers the PEIDBP will add more information. It probably won't happen, though, if there's no article. Ground Zero 22:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A noncopyvio deleted article would stay on the Wikimedia Foundation's hard drives anyway, just without public access. And about the only bandwidth this would use up would be people looking up the party, and eventually some of them would know more ("It arose after a controversial change to the province's Liquor License Act led to the closure of the province's last local beer plant..." or not. But without finding the sources ourselves we'd not otherwise know.) Samaritan 23:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So we're supposed to have an article on every so-called political party who has ever run so much as one candidate for any national office in any country in the world? RickK 23:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • In a word, yes. --Gene_poole 01:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And what harm is done if there is an article on every political party that has ever run a candidate in any national election? It might not be the most important piece of information, but is there any reason not to include every political party ever, regardless of how minor? R Calvete 23:32, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

• I had nominated this, but then I changed my mind after hearing GroundZero's defense of this article. I tried to un-nominate it but I guess somebody re-nominated it. So I now vote Keep. - Stancel 20:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all registered political parties, no matter how small or silly.--Gene_poole 01:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and possible hoax. Only 10 Google hits, most of which seem to be WP mirrors. The article provides no external evidence proving there ever was such a party. Inclusionists would do well to remember that just because somebody writes an article about something doesn't mean it's real. --Angr/_comhrá 02:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you overload the search? If you just search for "draft beer party" you'll come across this link: [19] R Calvete 02:32, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• Keep all verifiable political parties. - SimonP 03:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Vote Miller for president of Beer !!! Klonimus 05:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a one-off one-man political "party" that wasnt even running for a national office. Keeping this would set a bad precedent. Megan1967 05:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above; but wants expanding -- context, outline platform, leader, reason for extinction --Simon Cursitor 07:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I sympathize with the delete votes, people researching Canadian elections would need to look this up, this is wikipedia's job. Kappa 07:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has anyone bothered to check if this is actually true? In any case, this is a one off party for a single failed candidate who doesn't have his own article. Amusing, but astoundingly non-notable. We shouldn't have articles for things which at best only deserve a one line mention in larger articles. If we must keep it, stick it in the trivia section for an article on that year's election. Gamaliel 07:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read above, you will find that R Calvete seems to have verified it. Kappa 07:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• I found another link: [20] It says that Campbell received 200 votes. I'll add this to the article. I just added that he was running for the office of Assemblyman. Stancel 20:09 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added that he lost to James Matthew Lee. Stancel 20:21 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's history and should be kept. It makes a good example of frivolous political parties. --Vsb 08:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 23:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per SimonP and Ground Zero. Leithp 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 18:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noodle Incident

not noteworthy.--Silversmith 23:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Relevant to the Calvin and Hobbes strip, but should be classified as a stub. Not sure about its relevance to other comic strips though. --Chanting Fox 23:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• As of now, Merge and redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. I might change my vote if it is significantly expanded later. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Zzyzx, whose name could be easier to type. Merge and redir unless rewritten and expanded. Meelar (talk) 00:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect, especially since Watterson intentionally never described what the Noodle Incident was, so there's never going to be significant content. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. No hope of expansion, as all anyone knows about the noodle incident is that Calvin insists he didn't do it and no one can prove he did. --Angr/_comhrá 02:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. Wahoofive was correct. This may have been in more appearances than has Mirror Universe (Star Trek), but per WP:FICT, a topic with only a little verifiable ("no one can prove it!") information should be merged into an appropriate section of its parent article. Barno 03:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Calvin and Hobbes. Megan1967 05:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I knew that was what the title was talking about even before I read the votes and opened the article. - Lucky 6.9 03:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, NO redirect. I've read countless "collection" books of the strip and they only referred to this about three times in, what, the five-year run those books covered? Non-notable in the rest of the world, and probably not very notable in the Calvin and Hobbes world either. Master Thief Garrett 10:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mundanischekunst

Three Google hits for "Førmål de Hüydt". Zero Google hits for "Molton Gourd". Zero Google hits for "International Year of Mundanischekunst". Ten unique Google hits for Mundanischekunst. RickK 23:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously a joke. Delete! José San Martin 23:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Megan1967 05:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Osburn

Not note worthy / Vanity. The only Connor Osburn I found on the internet was a Spelling Bee winner. I would imagine that a Nobel Prize winner would have had much said about him on the internet. Delete --Colin Angus Mackay 23:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Umm... Sorry guys - I seem to have messed up adding this entry and I can't figure out how to fix it. Can someone assist? --Colin Angus Mackay 23:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC) It seems to be fixed now. Thanks. --Colin Angus Mackay 09:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The name is also not listed on List of Nobel laureates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Therefore, this could be Speedied since it is a hoax/joke article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think hoax is a speedy criteria. --Dmcdevit 23:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • How about this? Under General section of WP:CSD: 4. Pure vandalism. And under Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: Sneaky vandalism: Adding misinformation ... which is reverted because the source material is easily available. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you're right, but it's just that "hoax" is a common enough thing that I would have thought it would be explicitly mentioned. Especially because it gives admins a lot of leeway to delete unwanted articles without vfd if they can cite "hoax". Is there precedent for speedying hoaxes? I just don't know, so I certainly could be wrong :) --Dmcdevit 02:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • However, I would be reluctant to speedy it right away if someone feels like rewriting it to describe another notable Connor Osburn. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was TRANSWIK and DELETE. Postdlf 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgn

Dicdef of an abbreviation of a non-English word. Already been transwikied, delete. --Dmcdevit 23:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 09:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel_J_Wilson

• Delete. This is obvious vanity, with no suggestion on notability. 141.211.138.85 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- utterly non notable and bad childish humour. Mariocki ^TALK 23:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy if its creator contributes anything else. Samaritan 00:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- When this passes VfD, deal with the associated Mark Nicholas Bell. --khaosworks 00:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity —Wahoofive (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 18:26, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Quote

It appears there is no VfD policy for WP namespace pages. But surely we can agree on the utter uselessness of this page. It was created a year ago with some strange notion of quoting Wikipedians to help newbies, or something. The template that was basically its only content (never updated) was recently deleted, and this orphan remains. Let's delete it finally. --Dmcdevit 23:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect → Wikipedia:Sister projects (like Wikipedia:Wikiquote). —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:31 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, which will be implemented pending resolution of compression block errors. Postdlf 09:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilianization

Delete. 4N: Neologism. Non-enciclopedic (Wikipedia is not a cristalball), No NPOV and non-sense. Personally, I see also as a great offence to us, brazilians. José San Martin 23:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Seems to be a neologism to me--694 google hits does not indicate wide usage. Delete unless notable usages are proven. Meelar (talk) 00:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, derogatory reference to a large population that is inappropriate in an international encyclopedia, at best a dictionary definition. -Willmcw 00:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC) (correction - refers to social system not ehtnic makeup. Other concerns still apply. -Willmcw 02:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Semantically, I'd challenge the NPOV of this entry, especially it's onward reference to US balkanization. --Simon Cursitor 07:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful sociological term introduced by a bestselling non-fiction author. --goethean 18:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 10:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clean-up. This appears to be a potentially interesting topic. It does show some signs of POV issues, which need to be addressed. If we can have unbiased articles on terms like banana republics, the Left Coast, and the N-word, why not this?--MDC 08:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• However, if there does exist some more "politically correct" term specifically describing this phenomenon, I suggest merging/redirecting to that article instead.--MDC 08:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• would :miscegenation" be appropriate merge target? -Willmcw 15:12, May 7, 2005 (UTC) On reflection, it would not be. -Willmcw 02:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• This is biased, isn't it? Banana republic is a generic term. Is Brazilianisation a generic term?

• Keep per MDC. Kappa 22:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• What on earth does MDC mean? José San Martin 23:19, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like Kappa is agreeing with the reasoning of MDC, AKA User:Freakofnurture. -Willmcw 02:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 18:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Disney Ultimate Jams

Non-notable Radio Disney-tie-in compilation album. —tregoweth 06:43, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Radio Disney Jingle Jams and DisneyMania to form Disney compilation albums. Very many albums have their individual article. If these albums are not particularily notable we can merge them together. Sjakkalle 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep is also a possibility. Sjakkalle 14:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable albums, like this one (i.e., it's not just a CD some garage band burned a copy of for their high-school radio station). Meelar (talk) 09:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar. Kappa 12:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge creating new Disney compilation albums article as suggested by Sjakkalle. Consensus in a recent VfD was that most compilations are not notable enough for an article on their own, but are worth listing in a parent article if the performer or theme are worth WP inclusion. This seems to be clearly in that direction: Disney is broadly influential, these albums are not. Barno 19:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Radio Disney compilation albums [[User:Klonimus|Klonimus 06:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - 18:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Disney Jingle Jams

Non-notable Radio Disney-tie-in compilation album. —tregoweth 06:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Radio Disney Ultimate Jams and DisneyMania to form Disney compilation albums. Very many albums have their individual article. If these albums are not particularily notable we can merge them together. Sjakkalle 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Keeping this without merging will also be perfectly OK with me. Sjakkalle 14:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable albums, like this one (i.e., it's not just a CD some garage band burned a copy of for their high-school radio station). Meelar (talk) 09:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar. It's not really helpful to merge them. Kappa 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Same as Ultimate Jams above. Barno 19:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we have lots of these Yuckfoo 23:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - 18:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DisneyMania

Non-notable Disney-tie-in compilation albums. —tregoweth 06:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Radio Disney Jingle Jams and Radio Disney Ultimate Jams to form Disney compilation albums. Very many albums have their individual article. If these albums are not particularily notable we can merge them together. Sjakkalle 07:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course keep is also an option. Sjakkalle 14:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable individual albums. Meelar (talk) 09:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • ... which these aren't, in my opinion. Can you demonstrate individual notability for any of these three? Same as Ultimate Jams above. Barno 19:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO, albums on major labels are all notable. I think this is a disagreement over the definition of notability, not something we're going to settle empirically. Meelar (talk) 01:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when does a major label define what is notable. There are smaller recording companies that make quality albums. Whether or not we personally find it notable, there is and always be a genre of people who want to know what it is, and need a reference point from the articles that point to it. Like every other article about a musical album. (yes i realize i added the article) KEEP Who 03:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep these albums have distinct identities and come from a notable source. Kappa 23:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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