Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Devon Allan Macnutt[edit]

Vanity, I think; doesn't seem to be encyclopedic to me. Kelly Martin 00:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Christopher Parham 00:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Revolución 03:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 04:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Jamyskis 14:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can you even suggest that this isn't notable? A guy who, at age 7, could name 95% of the cars going down the highway, and became the best 11-year-old table tennis player in Nova Scotia? If that's not notable, what the heck is? Frjwoolley 18:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about we include the winner of every minor regional sporting event around the world? Jamyskis 13:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 20:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nor currently notable. Denni☯ 20:12, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity - Etacar11 23:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --metta, The Sunborn 03:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 for now. -- Scott eiπ 02:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of school districts in San Francisco County, California[edit]

As San Francisco has a single unified school district, this would be better as a single line in the education section of San Francisco, California. Gentgeen 00:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe Redirect to San Francisco Unified School District Kappa 01:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Leave it up to Tony Sidaway. Kappa 19:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this on VfD? The move function could have resolved this. —RaD Man (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think you mean the "redirect" function. Revolución 03:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a duplicate article already exists, then yes, merge and redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is to redirect to San Francisco Unified School District. Revolución 03:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect. The function of a redirect is to guide users who might type a keyword in to the article. San Francisco only has one school district. This is a no-brainer, folks. Neutralitytalk 03:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It's only a no-brainer, alas, to people who already know that San Francisco has only one school district. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NoAccount
  • Can we merge to San Francisco, California and redirect to San Francisco Unified School District? That would be best. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jjeffs 13:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking of making this into a redirect to the unified district--there are several California counties that have a single unified district. This is part of a fairly large project-in-progress, and the name of this article is part of a pattern "List of school districts in X county" intended to make it easy for the lists to be located by a person with only a minimal understanding of the underlying school system. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - one item doesn't a list make. Gentgeen 02:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually a useful list can even contain zero items. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the article is part of a "list of lists" that is titled "Lists of school districts in California by county" I agree that it would seem strange to omit San Francisco county even if that particular list only has one item. This page should be judged on how it helps a user of Wikipedia, not on the content of a single article. It serves a valid purpose, just as do redirect pages and dismbiguation pages. DS1953 21:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a series. There are several other counties with only two districts, and Amador County and Sierra County also only have one school district. jengod 00:10, Jun 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 redirect to Palestine Mandate. Sjakkalle 11:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of Nations Palestine Mandate[edit]


  • Redirect to Palestine Mandate. I'm drawn on what to do with this text though - something of it could be salvaged to be included in the Palestine Mandate article, even if it is too much quoting and too little objective analysis. Jamyskis 14:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to merge it in, if there's stuff worth keeping. As long as this article is redirected and not deleted, (which seems to be what will happen) then there aren't any GFDL problems. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Palestine Mandate. --metta, The Sunborn 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Expunge[edit]

Dictdef, already in Wiktionary. This page once was marked with {{Pending deletion}}, but someone removed it. A.M. 00:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/speedy: There has been quarreling over speedy deletes of transwiki'd words. Seems like it ought to be straightforward to me, but I think someone used a -bot, and someone else got upset with it. Geogre 03:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That gets me upset whether people use a bot or not. Even I have nominated a "dicdef" for Vfd only for someone to point out its encyclopedic potential Kappa 18:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the mis-use of the speedy deletion criteria that gets people upset. The 'bots have, really, nothing to do with it. That has long since been sorted out, and has nothing to do with this article in any case, whose transwikification and deletion preceded the Wiktionarification 'bots. When this article was speedied, back on 2005-02-18, its entire content was the 5 words "To erase or strike out.", which meets speedy deletion criterion A1. It was only after it had been speedied and moved to pending deletion that what you see now was written. Uncle G 19:11, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef, or thesaurus entry.--Absurdist 03:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expunge. Grutness...wha? 08:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expunge (sorry, couldn't resist :-p). Jamyskis 14:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary article on a verb, not an encyclopaedia article on a person, concept, place, event, or thing. No suitable infinitive→gerund redirects are apparent. It was clearly created by Nobs in order to explain xyr use of the word "expunge" in Talk:Jesus/Archive 16. Show Nobs how to make interwiki links to Wiktionary articles if linking to a dictionary article about a word is required, and Delete. Uncle G 19:11, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. --metta, The Sunborn 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems like a joke created especially for this listing for the fun of the author and the voters. Should be deleted but is likely to be recreated. Irpen 06:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

By strict vote count, I get 13 "delete" (1 anon discounted), 13 "keep" (2 anon or unsigned discounted), 6 "redirect", 2 "transwiki" and 4 that abstained or were too ambiguous to call. The article was expanded some during the discussion period but did not fundamentally change in tone or topic.

There were two suggested redirect targets - both presented fairly early in the discussion. Those arguing to redirect to a Marilyn Manson page did not support the retention of any of the current content. Those supporting a redirect to beauty were mixed.

Re-reading the current version, I find myself agreeing with the argument that even after expansion the verifiable content is nothing more than a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the definition, origins and usage of a word or phrase. I personally see very little possibility of further expansion. I can find no evidence that the term "beautiful people" (as described in this article) is a recognized concept or class in sociology.

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now.

Switching hats, I am now going to act as an ordinary editor and be bold in merging this with beauty. The beauty article discusses aesthetics and their implications across multiple dimensions, not merely human appearance. The social trend of mimicing those who are beautiful certainly seems to fall neatly into the section on Effects of beauty in human society. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful people[edit]

If we allow this, we need to allow "Ugly people", "Fat people", "Smelly people", etc. Not encyclopedic Barfooz (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could (doubtfully) be encyclopedic if it had an ounce of content, but it does not. I agree, delete. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV OR. Redirect to Antichrist Superstar. The Beautiful People is probably Marilyn Manson's most well-known song, and that's the album it's found on. AиDя01DTALK 00:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will do this if the consensus is not to delete. -- Barfooz (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this encyclopedic stereotype, if sources can be cited. Kappa 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your response to my comment then? If this starts being allowed, it has no hope of ceasing. I'm okay with User:Android79's idea -- Barfooz (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ugly people" is just "ugly" + "people", but "beautiful people" has a distinct meaning. Kappa 01:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could write this same article about ugly people. I don't follow your logic. I don't think that "beautiful people" has more special connotations than any other "adjective people." I think the content needs to be totally redone, if it isn't totally deleted or redirected. -- Barfooz (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the point is that beautiful people are not necessarily "beautiful". Beautiful people are what the current culture say are beautiful, not what the individual person's subjective esthetics see as beautiful. I found that [1] was enlightening. To compare, the term ugly people does not have the same kind of hidden meaning; they are just ugly :). Thue | talk 20:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Common phrase part of culture. See People Magagine's 50 Most Beautiful People edition for example [2]. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a sequence of two words is common, it doesn't merit an article. To extend your analogy, Time Magazine also has a "Man of the Year." Should we have an article called "Man of the Year" without any references to Time magazine? -- Barfooz (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a phrase in common use and has distinct cultural references ie People Magazine, Marilyn Manson song. Australian Crawl had a hit in Australia with the song Beautiful People referring to a jetsetting elite. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be cited that illustrate that "beautiful people" differs from "beautiful" + "people."--Absurdist 02:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Distinct meaning: [3] Kappa 02:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well. Needs cleanup. - Barfooz (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people? Now that you know who you are." -Baby You're a Rich Man, The Beatles. The primary meaning is not fashion victims but the rich and powerful. cf: Le Beau Monde. It's a phrase with a history but this article is in serious need of cleanup. No vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could that be expanded beyond a dicdef? I'm not so sure. In any case, Wiktionary doesn't have a beautiful people entry yet. AиDя01DTALK 02:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • It could mention that Marilyn Manson wrote a song about them :) Kappa 02:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, change vote to keep, but expand with references and history, and not just to Marilyn Manson.--Absurdist 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if the beautiful people don't care. -- BD2412 talk 03:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dictdefs go in Wiktionary (the concept of the "beautiful people"), unless someone is going to chart its history (with references, and not just surmise). As a particular song by a particular artist, it would have to be redirected or at least moved to Beautiful people (song). Geogre 03:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Beauty -- Revolución 03:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK`
  • Delete - it's not encyclopedic. Belongs under beauty if at all. Anyway, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and so os very subjective. Charlie123 11:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useable to Beauty. This article is inherently POV. Megan1967 06:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to beauty. Martg76 08:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beautiful by whose standards? 'Redirect to beauty - Skysmith 08:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot of these votes seem to miss the point. "Beautiful people" aren't people who are endowed with beauty. It is a term used - often derisively - for what the Kinks so aptly dewscribed as dedicated followers of fashion. People who try to stay up with all the latest fads and fashioons. As such it is a perfectly valid stereotype and deserving of an article. It needs cleanup, not deletion. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I got it, Grutness. The term derives from the 1960's, when it was a term for the "groovy" people. It was an in-group term by the Flower Power set. The beautiful people inevitably included the Carnaby Street folks. In the 1970's, the in-group flower child term got extended over to fashionistas and the "hip" of NYC. Anyway, from there it just got to be the "insiders" and "the chosen by the Bohemians," and from there "the perfection of cool." It could be discussed, but the problem is in writing about it with references and not just folk etymology and pop culture. Geogre 11:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV and pointless. Harro5 08:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and pointless. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with redirect to Marilyn Manson's song. Radiant_* 09:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, common phrase with meaning not obvious from component words alone. Needs some cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:30, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, would either turn into a POV mess or a dic def for a unencyclopedic concept--nixie 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has nothing whatsoever to do with beauty, and everything to do with money, prestige, and power. It is very much a contemporary term. Denni☯ 20:18, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Escort it to the black limo waiting outside and swoosh it off to Wiktionary. -- Hoary 13:54, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Grutness' argumentation that the term could have a wikipedia article, but the current one looks like original research and has no references. Do _not_ redirect to beauty. Thue | talk 20:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep the article but it does need to be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition. The term "Hippie" could also be a dictdef but, as written, the Wikipedia article on that term provides more insight into the word than a dictionary would be expected to provide. Although the term "beautiful people" is not as significant to the culture of the period as "hippie," it still could be more than a dictdef. And in my mind, while moving the article to Wicktionary may make sense if the article stays as it is, moving it to Beauty makes no sense because the term is not really about "beauty" notwithstanding the word "beautiful." DS1953 22:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DS1953. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeek. Barely a dictadef, as opposed to a simple combination of adjective and noun. Perhaps transwiki to wikionary? Sabine's Sunbird 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. --metta, The Sunborn 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- to Marilyn Manson. He has a popular song by this name. - Longhair | Talk 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neat stuff as per Kappa. Klonimus 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add info about Marilyn Manson song and other references, consider disambiguous tag. Don't merge. Internodeuser 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Leanne 05:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs expansion but seems to be a concept as opposed to an adjective. Vashti 09:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reason same as Barfooz. utcursch | talk 12:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Online Etymology Dictionary says under "beauty", "beautiful people. "The fashionable set" first attested 1964.". Also, the Hippyland Glossary describes "beautiful people" as "Used to described hippies or cool persons". I've heard both of these senses used; it's a phrase with a history and what looks like two conflicting standard meanings, not just an adjective + noun construct. However, it's going to need some serious research to expand the article. Vashti 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is full of POV. The page on beauty describes it as a matter of perception and therefore anyone/anything could be viewed as beutiful. We already have a page on beauty so this is unnecassrary.
  • Comment The solution to POV content is to edit the content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change to clean up tag, possibly later to merge. Anyone have a sociology textbook handy?
    Unsigned vote by Tznkai. 24.224.153.40 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 24.224.153.40 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all the discussion on here I've decided to reverse my vote. Accordingly, I have added more content to the article, based off of comments by Geogre and Thue, and some poking around online. I think it's more appropriate now. -- Barfooz (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Barfooz, nice job. Kappa 19:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Protraction[edit]

Dictdef, already transwikied. A.M. 00:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic, belongs in dictionary--Absurdist 02:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's already been transwikied. Jamyskis 14:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. --metta, The Sunborn 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Diaphanous[edit]

Dictdef, already transwikied. — A.M. 00:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic, belongs in dictionary--Absurdist 02:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's already been transwikied. Jamyskis 14:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. --metta, The Sunborn 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary definition. –DeweyQ 19:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictdef. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Navarose[edit]

Dicdef; has been Transwikied. -- Grev -- Talk 01:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, no clear need for this. Kappa 01:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 08:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. --metta, The Sunborn 03:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - important information is already in Super Mario Bros. 3. CDC (talk) 21:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tanooki Mario[edit]

A page about a transformation of Mario. Fancruft and beyond! A Link to the Past 01:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Redirect, no merge. A condensed version of the information in this article is already present in Super Mario Bros. 3; I would have suggested a merge if it weren't. (Change vote; that's what I meant in the first place.) AиDя01DTALK 21:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but make sure all accurate information is present in Super Mario Bros. 3--Absurdist 02:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mario is perhaps one of the most notable video game characters ever, so no, a transformation of Mario would not be "fancruft". If the consensus starts to lean towards delete, I will change my vote to merge with Mario and Super Mario Bros. 3. But if it doesn't, I'll still be voting keep. Revolución 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • HUGE flaw in that - you're arguing that a variation of Mario deserves its article because the transformation is of a popular character. Well, go make an article about Mario's Hammer. I'll be there to recommend it for a Speedy Deletion. -- A Link to the Past 03:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3 and include a section in that article about Mario's various suits that appear only in that game. (This would include not only the Tanooki, but Frog and Hammer suits as well.) Firebug 05:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate content, cruft. Megan1967 06:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3. the wub (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Super Mario Bros. 3 by expanding the small section about the Tanooki suit. Sjakkalle 10:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought the info in the SMB3 article is more concise and better, so just redirect. Sjakkalle 09:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3. --bainer 12:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. --InShaneee 17:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do NOT Merge this. The SMB3 page already has this information, condensed. -- A Link to the Past 19:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3. No merge, as this is already covered by the article. --Carnildo 21:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no need for breakout. I'd agree with Link to the past that the SMB3 page deals with this adequately, and more consisely, without losing anything but unneeded wordyness. Sabine's Sunbird 01:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3. --metta, The Sunborn 03:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Super Mario Bros. 3. Andre (talk) 00:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

A Man Named Eric Imken[edit]

Vanity. Funny though. Barfooz (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No evidence of notability. Delete.-gadfium 01:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, would belong in Geocities--Absurdist 02:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Brought a tear to my eye. Choose the fields, kid! Choose the fields! Don't buy dreams from merchants! Don't let the merchandisers and marketers into your fantasies: invent your own. Geogre 03:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to BJAODN. CDThieme 04:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I laughed. I cried. I went to see it again. Eric where's your user page?! WP:-). DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN --the wub (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't wait for Part Two, but reluctant delete. BJAODN though. Proto 10:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I BJAODNised it. Delete it now. --bainer (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before he writes Part Two. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to WP:-), vanity, original research and BJAODN. --metta, The Sunborn 03:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN for others to enjoy. --Fazdeconta 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pantheognosticism[edit]

Neologism, no Google hits. Delete.-gadfium 01:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Old wine in new skins. Apparently, it's easier to coin a term than read a history of philosophy. Private word for a very old bit of philosophy. Geogre 03:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is even not a neologism. Mikkalai 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 0 Google hits. Revolución 04:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jjeffs 13:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and confine to Hell/Hades/Shoel/Jahannum/the underworld of your choice (or all of the above)--Doc (t) 15:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. --metta, The Sunborn 03:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 UTC

Princeton High School, now moved to Princeton High School, Sharonville, Ohio[edit]

Nothing separates this from the thousands of other high schools across America. It should be deleted. Crotalus horridus 01:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia:Schools. Kappa 01:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is going to pass BEEFSTEW. - Barfooz (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • BEEFSTEW is just a list somebody drew up. It isn't a bad idea but my problem with it is that it seems to discount things that one would want to know about a school (sports, academics, etc). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Gamaliel 01:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT goes on to say "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" and doesn't say anything about deleting all schools. Kappa 02:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the deletion policy and general consensus on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable. And wrong title, by the way. Mikkalai 03:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per the deletion policy and general consensus on Wikipedia. Unless the article demonstrates that this particular high school is significant among high schools, it has no identity and cannot be discussed. Every donut shop "affects thousands of lives," as does every phone book, every traffic light, etc. Rows of things performing identical functions are not responsible for nor creditable with the individual experiences of that function. Geogre 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This donut shop analogy is kinda surreal. Anyway if there was a general consensus to delete high schools, schoolwatch would get them all deleted instead of the reverse. Kappa 17:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revolución 04:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NoAccount
  • Keep, at least pending schools discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 04:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - offering the International Baccalaureate program indicates to me the school is notable. Valid stub but needs to become an article. DS1953 05:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IB programs are common and not notable. Gamaliel 05:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be your opinion and you are entitled to it, but at least in Illinois applying the word "common" to IB programs would be a real stretch. And as long as we are stating opinions, I think to put a school stub on VfD two minutes after it is created is absolutely ridiculous. The whole purpose of any stub is to create an article. Regardless of whether a school should be "notable" to get an article, I would venture to say (again, only my opinion) that most people who are voting to delete are doing so on the content of the stub without any investigation of the "notability" of the school. Give it time to develop, IMO. DS1953 14:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in Florida, but there are a great many states that have a mere handful of IB schools (sometimes only one). Mike H 19:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools belong on WP. They also serve as an excellent starting point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sharonville, Ohio#Education, which already duplicates most of the text. Average Earthman 08:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above and delete- Skysmith 08:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I understand the merge--I can understand someone wanting to do that--but why delete? Redirects are cheap and anyone typing or wikying to the name of the school would still get a link to the information. So why delete the redirect? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question, and having done a quick google I think the name should be used as a disambig (linking to the education sections in the geographical articles rather than redlinks), since there appear to be numerous high schools in the US with that name. Average Earthman 09:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I teach at the school - and in fact began this article on 5/22/05, then posted a link to it on my webpage asking my students (those from the advanced placement and IB program mentioned in the article) to improve upon it. They have begun to do so already. The school is significant within the Cincinnati area and within Ohio - just having been named #1 fund-raising school in the nation for Leukemia & Lymphoma (raising over $35,000 this year) and having a student score a perfect 2400 on the recent SAT. The article needs improvement, yes, but not deletion. As a rookie, I am thoroughly open to advice - particlarly from the user who mentioned that the article title was incorrect. Just checked the BEEEFSTEW page and understand a bit better. Gimme a couple of days to write a better article before evaluating, please. --phschemguy 08:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Merge would also be acceptable. Quale 08:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely and utterly non-notable schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Here we go again, perfectly good school stub. I think this is the only public high school within the Princeton City Schools area and it's got over 6,000 students (how on earth do they cope with that? this must be a massive institution) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion please[edit]

I urge everybody accept the fact that this vote will end in 'no consensus', and to not increase VfD size by adding more votes. See also Wikipedia:Schools. Radiant_* 09:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep please it is important and verifiable too Yuckfoo 18:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Princeton City School District, Hamilton County, Ohio, per my proposed naming convention and post the material there. PedanticallySpeaking 18:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Princeton City School District, Hamilton County, Ohio --Carnildo 20:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another cookie-cutter school. Denni☯ 20:31, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was only funny when Neutrality did it. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I may be biased, since my first cousin is a recent graduate, his brother is a junior there, and I've attended many swim meets and other athletic events on their impressive campus over the years (and played many a touch-football game on the Princeton Middle school grounds across the road). Still, they have a near New Trier High School-like status, (which is exactly why my aunt & uncle shelled out big bucks to live in that district). They are not just "another cookie-cutter school" (as was my high school, unfortunately). --Jpbrenna 22:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the correct choice here. The school district is already set up at Princeton City Schools. All votes to keep should be ignored since the article at Princeton High School has to be a disambig page. This shows the weakness to those who vote to keep everything without considering the impact or the logic behind that choice. Vegaswikian 04:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Needs disambiguation" is not a reason for deletion. Kappa 04:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I said MERGE. I did not say delete. But in any case, that article needs to be a disambig no matter how the VfD turns out. Vegaswikian 04:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if all the keep votes are ignored, it will be deleted. Kappa 05:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who is suggesting that the keep votes will be ignored and the text will be deleted? My position is that it needs to be moved or merged. Vegaswikian 07:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 05:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schools are generally not notable. Cedars 12:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preference is to merge with school district. But I'll pass and go with the discussion consensus. — RJH 18:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you want to stop timewasting please close down your hopeless attempt to reach a partially-deletionist "consensus", which will not be accepted by inclusionists CalJW 18:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please end the discussion, as stated before. But anyway, *keep.192.152.5.250 15:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. WP:SCH. --BaronLarf 00:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has been significantly improved upon since it was listed on Schoolwatch. [4] --Bahn Mi 19:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Eric imken[edit]

Vanity. Eric Imken's had enough fun for one day. Barfooz (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. -- Scott eiπ 03:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tarek Shawki[edit]

Vanity bio nominated by User:Ravenhull Samw 01:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.Mikkalai 02:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.There are plenty of places online to post a C.V.--Absurdist 02:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CV. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Geogre 03:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is not vanity. Tarek Shawki is the "Adviser for Communication and Information in Arab States" at UNESCO. [5] -- Revolución 04:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure the article is about him, not about my gardener? Mikkalai 04:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would a gardener have a Ph.D. in Engineering? Revolución 04:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here, go to this link if you don't believe me. [6] Scroll down until you see a link that says "Tarek Shawki", then click. Revolución 05:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be notable in a few years time but at the moment is a midlevel bureaucrat in the UN. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Revolución has edited it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New article now. --Barfooz (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 08:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. DS 18:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, article is clearly encyclopedic. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Scimitar
  • keep please he is not a gardener Yuckfoo 17:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Leanne 05:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Xcali 04:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Scott eiπ 03:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mount Tabor High School[edit]

This article says virtually nothing. Similar articles could be written about 10,000 other schools. Crotalus horridus 01:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... and indeed they are. Why shouldn't they? Keep. — Timwi 01:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of this article. I have added more information to the article, and it is continually being updated. Keep. — Itsah2 02:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contributed to this article. The article was put up for deletion very shortly after creation, and enough content was unavaliable at that time. Now the article is significantly longer, and contains better content. Keep. — lookitzatree 02:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is indeed far better than it was when I posted it here initially. However, I am still not certain that this school is distinguished enough to warrant an article. - Crotalus horridus
  • Keep pending discussions at Wikipedia:Schools. Kappa 02:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the deletion policy and general consensus on Wikipedia. See also: Schoolwatch for additional cases. —RaD Man (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just a school. See also: Arbcom on GRider's actions. Geogre 03:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 03:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • To you its just another school, but to those who go there, and those who have contributed, its more. This article has been vastly improved, I dont see how it violates any rules in its current state. The arguement about allowing schools belongs here: Wikipedia:Schools — lookitzatree
  • Delete. NoAccount
    • Comment: Above user account created less than one week ago. —RaD Man (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Gamaliel 04:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good and improving article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 04:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Mikkalai 04:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a good start and should not be deleted. DS1953 05:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ranked in top 500 high schools in the US.Capitalistroadster 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools belong on Wikipedia. Good content, good entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 06:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Good article, notable. -CunningLinguist 07:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a very cut down version. The article gives no suggestion that this school has no influence outside of the immediate geographical area, and no suggestion that it achieves anything else that a thousand other schools don't, so padding it out with lists of sports clubs doesn't make it worth keeping on its own at the moment, and there is no suggestion that it can be expanded usefully. Merge the few useful facts with the Winston-Salem#Education, section, or spin that section off into its own article. Average Earthman 08:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Winston-Salem, North Carolina and delete - Skysmith 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. It's nice to know that it is currently a "North Carolina 4A school", but the article doesn't explain what that means or why the reader might care. Merge would also be acceptable. Quale 08:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Stop disrupting Wikipedia by listing obviously notable schools on VFD. NSR 09:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete!!!! stop filling wikipedia with schoolcruft!. Dunc|☺ 11:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The style is somewhat hyperbolic, but that's a content problem. Otherwise good article, fairly well researched. I especially like to see links to school report cards, HMI reports, etc in school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete!!!! Wikipedia could be full of high scools and primary schools arround the world if they all produce pages like this. -- Chris Q 12:20, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. JuntungWu 12:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Polly on Pills 13:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Editor now blocked as suspected sock of Willy on Wheels. No substantive edits. Appears to be created solely for voting keep in VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jjeffs 13:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is more than a stub Yuckfoo 18:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bloating VFD.  —TeknicT-M-C 01:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another cookie-cutter school. Denni☯ 20:32, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep as written. While far from perfect it is a reasonable article. Yes it could use some cleanup, but not a delete. Vegaswikian 04:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good content for an encyclopedic encyclopaedia. Klonimus 05:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preference is to merge with school district. But I'll pass and go with the discussion consensus. — RJH 18:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could choose to Be Bold and do a merge when you find articles that you think need to be merged. Vegaswikian 19:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please close down your ill judged discussion and start voting keep instead. The only way to resolve this is to break the spirits of the deletionists. CalJW 18:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, secondary schools are notable. Agree with Tony Sidaway; as long as people keep nominating schools for deletion, the VfD size is going to keep growing. Get people to stop nominating them and we'll stop voting. But I agree with Radiant that this sort of thing should be decided at Wikipedia:Schools, not here. --BaronLarf 18:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

End discussion please

I urge everybody accept the fact that this vote will end in 'no consensus', and to not increase VfD size by adding more votes. See also Wikipedia:Schools. Radiant_* 09:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it may even be heading for a clear majority "keep" rather than anything close enough to call "no consensus". I don't see any reason to urge people not to express their opinion on this unpopular listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus or keep, the result is the same. There should be no reason to add lengthy repetitive arguments to VfD - it's all been said before. See Wikipedia:Schools. Radiant_* 12:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Kazaa. Sjakkalle 09:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K-lite[edit]

  • Delete This is blatant advertising. Nothing more than telling us what the product does. --Mgstone 22:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs cleanup and expansion, but the topic is no less encyclopedic than any of the other thousands of software stubs we already have. Kelly Martin 15:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not my nomination, but hadn't been put on a VFD page, so I've added it to May 23. Keep, needs cleanup but agree with Kelly Martin above.-gadfium 01:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is just a Kazaa variant, Merge with Kazaa. AиDя01DTALK 02:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge whichever would be most convenient for users. Kappa 02:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kazaa or keep, but do not delete. DS1953 02:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kazaa or delete. Kazaa itself didn't have spyware; it was the distributions that got rolled with spyware. At any rate, this is just a variation and ought not be broken out. Geogre 03:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --nixie 04:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Kazaa People should be aware of the alternatives to Kazaa, rather than getting Kazaa and being exposed to spyware. -- Revolución 04:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kazaa. Megan1967 06:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-CunningLinguist 07:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Geogre at 03:25, 23 May 2005. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luke zaporzan[edit]

Vanity -- Barfooz (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ooopsie daisy! Criterion #1 + attempted libel. Geogre 03:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. (Nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rob Harris[edit]

Skysurfer who was killed during filming of a Mountain Dew commercial in 1995. Some of his footage appeared in Mountain Dew ads, though none from his fatal jump. (See Snopes for details [7].) Wikipedia is not a memorial, and while this was tragic, skydiving accidents happen. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'll go to the newspaper for my obituaries. -- 24.251.108.47 01:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, world champion sky surfer [8], subject of a notable urban legend. Kappa 02:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, but needs expansion.--Absurdist 03:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per Kappa -- Revolución
  • Keep and greatly expand. Sounds like there should be quite a bit of stuff on this guy. Harro5 05:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Kappa. the wub (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Aecis 23:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which wasn't even 24 hours ago! -- Longhair | Talk 05:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I see all these "keep and expand" votes with none willing to even write a stub. I'm secretly hoping that Capitalistroadster will come along. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded it to a decent stub (I don't care much about the topic, but then again, I like a challenge. Consider it my good deed for the day). Now I want to keep it, of course. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

British Legalise Cannabis Campaigns[edit]

  • delete nonnotable. Mikkalai 01:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • is there a wiki page for cannabis legalization organizations?... merge(?)--Absurdist 03:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even merging requires some of notability. Anyone who smokes pot can set up a webpage and claim a bunch of supporters. Mikkalai 15:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep look at their website [9] -- Revolución 04:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by now-hard banned vandal. RickK 04:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the article says nothing more than that the BLCC is a U.K. group that petitions for the legalization of cannabis in the U.K., Merge to Legal issues of cannabis#Decriminalization_campaign_in_the_United_Kingdom. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Merge as per the above--Doc (t) 19:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Uncle G.Leithp 21:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Legal issues of cannabis. Megan1967 05:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, have been around since at least ther late seventies, and were certainly active at the time, SqueakBox 03:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Evidently some notability, but probably not enough (and certainly not currently enough content) to justify a separate article. Alai 08:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

United Kingdom Cannabis Internet Activists[edit]

delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 01:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Killtacular pack[edit]

This is not encyclopedic. Crotalus horridus 01:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the poster of this article deleted the entire contents of the article soon after I put the deletion notice on it. Crotalus horridus 01:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While very cool, (Halo 2 rocks!) I am going to have to agree. This isn't encyclopedic. User:Darkest90 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, people. Sorry, I was just kinda anxious to add an article. I also just want you to know I deleted the contents because I thought that would delete the article. I know how this site works now and we shouldn't have anymore problems. User:Hfs991hfs
  • Delete: Advertising. No one blames you for your eagerness Hfs991hfs, so don't take it personally. Geogre 03:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 03:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kenneth roy watson[edit]

You can always tell when a page is going to be a problem when it's not capitalized properly. Classic vanity. Barfooz (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to user page and speedy--nixie 02:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 04:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User already has a User page, although it's blank. Can't move, would have to cut and paste, which violates GFDL. Delete. RickK 05:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails Geogre's Law. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Noige[edit]

This "international phenomena[sic]" has 858 Google results, few of which indicate that it is a swear. Non-notable neologism. --EvilZak 02:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You beat me to this one. Delete. - Barfooz (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just an ejaculation. Geogre 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Zantastik 21:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable, neologism, and there is a remote possibility that the article is vanity: the article makes mention of someone in Spokane, Washington, while the IP relates to a server in Denver, Colorado, covering the western states of the US. Aecis 23:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. --metta, The Sunborn 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ninjas Without Pants[edit]

Gaming clan vanity. Google search result. Barfooz (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. (unsigned vote from Christopherparham) (Sorry about that Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 2005 May 23 (UTC))
  • Delete vanity. Fire Star 02:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it were notable, which it really is not, it would need much expansion.--Absurdist 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Guys who come together to have fun with games, as opposed to those who come together to play games and be bored. Game clans are not notable. Geogre 03:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, clan vanity. Megan1967 06:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clancruft. Nestea 11:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddelete. Hedley 15:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

ABob[edit]

Vanity. If not vanity, unnotable. Barfooz (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Supreme Overlord Shimrra. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shimra[edit]

Shimra is the incorrect name of the character; it is Supreme Overlord Shimrra and there is already an article for the character. This article is completely useless and incorrect, and should be removed immediately. - Eisenh0wer 02:52, 23 May 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Jaaga language[edit]

This is sort of a weird case. It looks like a copy-paste of a student essay, and I was about to slap a {wikify} tag on it...but I can't find a useful reference anywhere else to the purported language or its discoverer, Pierre Chambertin. I can't locate any Google hits for the other languages mentioned in the article. Unless someone more knowledgeable than I can substantiate this one, then delete as hoax. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wacky Wells[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 03:00, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 03:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Suburban cuisine[edit]

"Suburban cuisine" is no more a cuisine than ramen noodles constitutes "College cuisine" or pop tarts is "Trailer cuisine". Google test [11] gives primarily Wikipedia mirrors and link farms. Article should be deleted and what little content that exists possibly moved elsewhere. -- Bletch 03:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Make sure that at least a bit of the content is moved to some suburbia-related article. - Barfooz (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Absurdist 03:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is true that much of this food is consumed in suburbs, but the proper term for what this article describes is convenience food, which there is already an article for. If there's anything salvageable and non-redundant, merge it with that article, but I rather doubt that there would be. Haikupoet 03:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I've made a note that convenience food should include info from this article. --Bletch 03:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jjeffs appears to be an account set up for the sole purpose of voting "Keep" in VFD discussions. --Bletch 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research if not hoax. --metta, The Sunborn 03:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is real phenominon. The food industry is having a hard time giving it a name though. But if you ask most food scientists working for major US companies, they agree that in the future all home cooked food will be made in 15 minutes or less. convenience food doesn't involve any preparation. Where as the stuff this article is talking about i.e Tuna Helper requires a small amount of preparation but very little culinariy skill. Klonimus 06:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a real phenomenon, but it certainly isn't a cuisine. If Suburban cuisine can be considered as such, then we should start working on Dorm cuisine, Airplane cuisine and Service area cuisine. As for "convenience food doesn't involve any preparation", the actual article disagrees (it states "These foods require minimum preparation") --Bletch 14:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyology[edit]

  • Delete Possible neologism (not found in any dictionary). Revolución 03:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought so too, but then I googled it. Also a dictionary entry. Seems legit. - Barfooz (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Explore-dictionary" is not really a dictionary. It's a mirror of Wikipedia. Revolución 03:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this seems to describe the same thing as sclerology and iridology, both of which get many more hits than this. Revolución 03:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your first point is valid. However, if your second point is true, then this page is doing exactly what it should be doing because it can't be a redirect. - Barfooz (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a valid term, then mention Eyology on iridology. If that doesn't prompt complaints then keep. Cannot be a redirect if eyology can refer to either iridology and sclerology--Absurdist 03:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Utterly ugly neologism. Sciences don't form their names with half English and half Greek roots. Geogre 11:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Understanding someone's personality by scrutinising their eyes? That's about as much a science as astrology. And it seems to be a neologism. AlexTiefling 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a science publication. It's a publication about everything, so everything from chemistry to alchemy belongs here. And the google searches prove that it's not a neologism. --Barfooz (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can't be redirected. Google results indicate notable use. Ugliness is not a reaon for deletionKappa 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Borderline. Could do with more peer reviewed sources. Megan1967 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Uglines" and "Prettyness" are inherently Point-of-View. Who says that sciences have to adhere to some archaic notion of linguistic purity ? The term 'eyology' is on target to encompass disciplines of study that have to do with the eyes. 68.107.99.243 15:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merlon (Mario character)[edit]

Just as important as Merlee, Merlow, Merluvlee and all the other Mers out there without Wikipedia pages. -- A Link to the Past 14:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Paper Mario or Super Mario Bros whichever is more appropriate.--Absurdist 03:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On Google merlon + mario returns 1,090 hits. Revolución 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but you have to consider the number of FAQs for Paper Mario and Paper Mario TTYD. I personally believe Kammy Koopa BARELY dsserves her own article, and she's much more important than Merlon. -- A Link to the Past 07:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mario cruft. Megan1967 06:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to a larger page that contains more than just the single entry. Possibly Paper Mario? --Figs 06:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with as we usually do with fictional characters (WP:FICT). Paper Mario looks like the best page to merge this with. Sjakkalle 09:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 17:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, merge, and redirect as per WP:FICT --Carnildo 21:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge sound sOK to me Yuckfoo 21:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect. Sabine's Sunbird 01:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article on all the various Mario wizard character things. 216.64.249.47 02:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Andre (talk) 00:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Luckyholics[edit]

Neologism. --W(t) 03:50, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Delete. Lucky Octavian entry, submitted by me, links to this. -- Barfooz (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic.--Absurdist 03:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We all miss User:Lucky 6.9, but I don't think anyone is addicted to him. (Neologism for a silly bit for a TV show.) Geogre 11:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 or merge (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lucky Octavian[edit]

Minor game show contestants are not encyclopedic. Google search turns up 108 results. Barfooz (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic.--Absurdist 03:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why doesn't this rule apply to American Idol contestants as well? I see many articles about them. Revolución 04:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • American Idol is, I believe, the most watched TV show in America (Not a minor game show). Wikipedia has a definite American bias. That being said, if it was up to me, I'd only allow articles on the winners, or the runners-up who signed record deals. -- Barfooz (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the American bias which includes all of the Australian Idol and Pop Idols contestants? The American bias which includes Big Brother contestants from every country in the world? The American bias which puts the winner of the Eurovision song contest on the Main Page? RickK 05:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is estimated that there are 335.5 million native speakers of English. The 2000 US Census estimates 281 million United States citizens. It further states that 47 million of the respondents do not speak English at home, leaving some 234 million English speakers in the United States. Now I realize that speaking English at home is not an indication of native speakerhood, but the majority of those people are going to be native speakers. That's a big chunk of the English native speakers. Therefore, I would expect viewpoints on English Wikipedia to have an American bias, if only because a majority of the users are likely American. That said, this is completely irrelevant to Lucky Octavian. :) -- Barfooz (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, spam. — JIP | Talk 04:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this constitutes either vanity or spam. This guy may be non-notable, but I doubt he or someone related to him created the article. Thus, it's not vanity. Revolución 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The standard should apply to American Idol, Australian Idol, and all the other anglophone -Idol shows. Game show contestants and reality show participants are not notable until after their win and subsequent achievement. Geogre 11:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or maybe merge somewhere. Let's try to avoid Anglophone systemic bias. If Geogre thinks all idol contestents should be deleted, he should try to get a consensus for that. Kappa 18:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why can't game show finalists be notable? They count as celebrities nowadays, so surely that's a kind of notability? — P Ingerson (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Indonesian Idol; barring that, cleanup and keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep if we're keeping all the American Idolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Indonesian Idol. --metta, The Sunborn 04:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Vegaswikian 04:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Leanne 05:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Contemptibles[edit]

A south Florida street punk band that has released a demo and reportedly recorded but not released an album. As far as I can determine, they are unsigned by any label. The band "called it quits in May 2005". Delete, even though they put a lot of effort into their Geocities web page. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable... maybe if they hadn't 'called it quits' they could have been notable someday--Absurdist 04:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 04:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Arcadian 04:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. - Etacar11 23:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Délèté. Not-notable and not Wikipedia style. 68.255.237.76 14:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gluonic vacuum field[edit]

There is such a thing in physics as a gluonic vacuum field, but this article doesn't describe it. This article is a word salad of formulas and terminology culled from theoretical physics. This article belongs to a cluster of related articles, and contains overlapping content from one or more of: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 03:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If there really is a thing called a gluonic vacuum field, then maybe we should clear this content and write up a stub. -- Barfooz (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, well in that case, I'd say redirect to either casimir effect (which deals the vacuum of the photonic field) or color charge. Note that physicists wouldn't actually use the term Gluonic vacuum field, technically, its the vacuum state of the gluonic field. Even so, any such research is at best controversial, as QCD is unsolved, and a general formulation of vacuum is poorly understood. But whatever. I can write a stub that says this.linas 14:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think writing a stub would be a good idea, perhaps also for Quantization of the pionic interaction? Paul August ☎ 20:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 22:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as a stub; or even better as a redirect. This phrase (or something similar) has been used to describe what is more widely known as gluon condensate (no wiki page on this yet!). So my vote is for a stub on gluon condensate and a redirect there through this page. Bambaiah 09:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Stub for gluon condensate added. Bambaiah 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mathghamhan[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogy project. --W(t) 03:56, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Comment, the article appears to be about Mathghamhan the person, from whom names have been derived--nixie 04:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable, whether accurate or not.--Absurdist 04:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Might be a borderline case here for a minor figure in Irish history. A google search for Mathghamhain seems to yield better results. Leithp 07:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable figure, and grandson of probably the most important leader in mediaeval Irish history. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, wikipedia is not a genealogy project applies to random people, not royal families. Kappa 17:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, because articles on Irish people prior to the 18th century are not comprehensive, and only a very few seem to have any knowledge of the people. In other words, the more the merrier, and it can be expanded in time. Fergananim 19:05, 23 May 2005.
  • Keep. Exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is good at -- obscure bits of information that would be hard to look up somewhere else. Frjwoolley 20:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of Irish nobility. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maxwell's nonlinear equations[edit]

There's no such thing. Yes, I suppose one could formulate a non-linear version of Maxwell's equations, but that is not what this article describes. This article is a word salad of formulas and terminology culled from theoretical physics. This article belongs to a cluster of related articles, and contains overlapping content from one or more of: coherence condition, electromagnetic jet, extended Yukawa potential, nonlinear Coulomb field, nonlinear magnetic field, w-field, gluonic vacuum field, Maxwell's nonlinear equations. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 04:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. --Michael Snow 05:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surya Das[edit]

This article seems to be completely POV-pushing by one editor and lacks encyclopedic value at present. If this person is in fact notable and deserving of an entry, the article needs major cleanup, otherwise it should be deleted. Whig 04:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs NPOV work, definitely. I support having a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article. It would be good if we could get some critics of Surya Das to counterbalance it. I think it pretty clearly is a notable and encyclopedic subject, though: Surya Das is one of the more prominent American Buddhists (he was on Politically Incorrect, published a lot of books), and, while this is in no sense an endorsement of his qualifications to teach anybody anything, it does make him fodder for an encyclopedia. - Nat Krause 05:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV not notable enough. Leanne 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, what are your grounds for saying that Surya Das isn't notable? There are quite a few articles on Wikipedia about modern Buddhist clerics who have sold fewer books and appeared on less media than him. - Nat Krause 07:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you list some of these other less notable articles? Whig 13:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'd like, you can refer to List of Buddhists and follow whichever blue links strike you as particularly non-notable. - Nat Krause 15:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made a brief attempt to clean up some of the POV. Surya Das is fairly well known among American Buddhists, and although I am not particularly a fan of his writing, we have read one of his books in my group (a different American Buddhist tradition). I left the "neutrality" tag, but would be happy to see it come down. Bikeable 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry, just isnt that notable. JamesBurns 10:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really find this hard to believe. His book "Awakening the Buddha Within" carries blurbs by Jon Kabat-Zinn, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sharon Salzberg, and Ken Wilbur -- that's practically a who's-who of American Buddhism (ok, maybe not Wilbur). If you're an American Buddhist, you've heard of the guy. I've said already that I'm not a big fan, but notable he certainly is. Bikeable 17:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sympathetic to coverage of minority beliefs and faiths in Wikipedia, but for some reason this page makes me uneasy. Somehow it looks like an infomercial. Sorry. WMMartin 10:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree its an infomercial, Wikipedia needs more information on Buddhism and its leaders. If an article is biased then someone should fix it not delete the entire article. If you think he's unnotable you're probably not an American Buddhist. Redwolf24 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Tolman[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 04:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Vanity. Poor kid, someone should tell him how he can better the Wikipedia cause. Harro5 05:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Chandler... I bet I could go find this kid and teach him. :) -- Barfooz (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: I'm sure he means well, though I'm not sure that this is a good indication of future articles. All the same, it's userpage stuff and probably a new user test (which would make it a speedy delete, if anyone were feeling really mean and devoid of human kindness). Geogre 14:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of vandalism, delete. Geogre 17:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as obvious vanity. User is a vandal per adding "Suck my dick" to an article. Hedley 15:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have been speedied as a content-free article. Denni☯ 20:46, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. - Etacar11 23:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 05:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected. -- Scott eiπ 05:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

History of Rastafarians[edit]

Should be merged into Rastafari Movement Whig 04:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have done this as {{merge}} Whig 06:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE and delete this VfD, please. Whig 07:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most of the content can already be found in Rastafari movement. Megan1967 05:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of it can, yes, but there is some info here that is not in the main article, and ought not to be lost. Whig 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Yes there is redundant material that can be removed. But the Rastafari Movement page is already pretty long, so a separate article on the history is needed. — RJH 17:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplicate content. Leanne 05:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 10:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and cut the duplicate content out of the parent article, leaving a summary and a pointer. Kappa 19:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Wikisource. – ugen64 19:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles, 1783[edit]

Move to Wikisource. RickK 05:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikisource. Megan1967 06:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Treaty of Paris (1783) and move to Wikisource. Revolución 15:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of disambiguating your link. Thue | talk 20:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and move to wikisource. Thue | talk 20:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame that Treaty of Paris (1783) and Treaty of Versailles (1783) were merged. For, as comparing this text with the Paris Peace Treaty text at Wikisource demonstrates, they are two different treaties. Wikisource and Redirect to Treaty of Paris (1783) is correct given the current merger, but really this should Redirect to Treaty of Versailles (1783). After all, this demonstrates that there's a separate article to be had on this specific treaty. Uncle G 02:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • By the way, you didn't need to come to VFD to get something transwikied to Wikisource, RickK. Transwikiing does not require special privileges. You could have just done the transwikiing. It's only one more page to be edited than it is to nominate something for deletion. Uncle G 02:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
      • I think it would still have to be listed here in order to get it deleted. Kappa 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but that's assuming that after transwikiing deletion is what one wants. If RickK had known about Treaty of Versailles (1783) xe would probably have done the redirect after transwikiing. Uncle G 11:16, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Technology Roadmap[edit]

Non-encyclopedic speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RSpeer 05:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. sjorford →•← 08:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wryyyyy[edit]

What in the world? This has no potential. That image will have to be removed also. Barfooz (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY: It's just the /b/tards messing with the Wikipedia again. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 06:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't make Wikipedians vote on utter nonsense. Just speedy-delete it. --Wetman 06:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Angr/comhrá 06:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologize for cluttering the page with patent nonsense. What are the "/b/tards"? -- Barfooz (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denizens of 4chan's /b/ forum. They're mostly low level trolls and Internet nucences. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 07:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable scream. Article has an image though and it seems be about something so I'll defend the decision not to attach a {{delete}}-tag on it. Sjakkalle 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Don't ask me why I think it's funny, I just do. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Szylak that this is funny, but I think in this case it would send the wrong message to preserve it in BJAODN. -- BD2412 talk 12:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete: A kid prank. Spoon is a better battlecry anyway. Geogre 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this please Yuckfoo 21:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonsense - Etacar11 23:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , WP:-). --metta, The Sunborn 04:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonsense - Etacar11 23:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 05:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF..? BJAODN. Eixo 08:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete /b/cruft-- not quite BJAODN quality, if you want more like this you can take a trip to /b/ any day. Ashibaka (tock) 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 4chan crowd is extremely unlikely to give up on this one, folks- already they're calling for setting up "WRRRRRRRRRYYYYY" etc. Just leave it be. Trust me on this- if you start into a "delete vs. create new entry" war, you'll loose- because they'll either recruit people to make new pages, or just write a script to do their side of it (and run it through proxy networks, of which they know all about for getting into Japan-only websites etc), and you'll have to "vote" on each one, or delete them by hand. They may even start defacing other pages en-masse. Right, you'll win that one. Oh, and believe it or not, the origins of memes are pretty funny sometimes. Just ignore it, for chrissakes (it's actually quite amusing how up-in-arms you're all getting about it- find something better to do, please).
    • There are more of us than of them; don't think you can threaten Wikipedia so blithely. Kelly Martin 02:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gods & Heroes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RickK 06:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as premature. Computer games are notorious for becoming vaporware so an article on this should wait till the game is actually released. 23skidoo 14:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mythical Chronology of Greece[edit]

Original research and general kookiness DreamGuy 06:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The dates are not speculative and are accepted by most modern scholars. They are taken directly from extant chronologies and king lists such as The Parian Marble, Castor, Diodorus Siculus, Apollodorus, Tatian, Eusebius and Jerome.--Argyrosargyrou 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: In the Greek mythology#cosmology, the rough events could be listed. Without specific references for each date, it's speculative to surmise that it was at year X BC or Y BC for an event. Geogre 15:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case you might as well throw out all the Egyptian chronologies and king lists which at best are only accurate to +/-5 years and at worst could be centuries out. In fact in the case of Egypt there are 3 different chronologies that have been reconstructed because nobody can agree on how long each pharaoh reigned and when a battle took place. Since margins of errors have been given on all the dates, the Greek chronology is no different to the ones used for Egypt. In fact the traditional Greek chronology is considerably more accurate than the Egyptian because every ancient historian agreed that 1183 BC was the date the Trojan War ended and 1103 BC was the date of the Dorian decent into the Peloponnese. --Argyrosargyrou 18:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand, don't you, that the problem here is not with a scholarly dating of Greek legendary events, but that these are legendary dates deduced solely from literary evidence? The dating for Egyptians comes from modern archeology. Modern archeology also indicates that the Trojan War, whatever it was, was probably 800-900 BC. The dates you have here, though, include the gods, etc., and come entirely from legendary speculation. Jerome is a great authority on a lot of things, and he's a saint and one of the brightest men in history, but he wasn't an archeologist. That's why this material shouldn't be presented as fact and should be put in the cosmology section of the Greek myth article. Modern scholars don't even agree on how and what the Greek gods were in origin, whether they were cthonian gods, hero cults, or nature gods, much less how and when each migrated into the Greek isles. Geogre 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is the result of the personal academic and religious bigotry of DreamGuy who wants to censor this article because it does not fit in with his prejudices and misconceptions of Greek history and mythology. The chronology for this article was primarily based on Jerome's Chroncon which was the standard historical text http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_02_part1.htm
  • Jerome's Chroncon is now available for the first time in English so you can check it out for yourselves. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_01_prefaces.htm
  • I vote that the article stays unaltered using the chronology given which is the most accurate available. Before considering any decision to remove this article I demand that it be peer reviewed by PhD's and experts in the field not by people that have no idea what they are talking about and who have not read even one of the sources I quoted as has been revealed by the discussion. The removal of this article would amount to censorship.

--Argyrosargyrou 17:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs a deal of thought. This is a mythical chronology (since others could be constructed from the legends), but 'according to whom?' A case can perhas be made that this is a fair record of Jerome's suggestions, if so, fair enough, but rename it 'Jerome's mythical chronology', and remove anything that goes beyond Jerome (as original research). The comparison with Egyptology is patently false: the Egyptian dates are a reporting of current scholarly ideas about real history. This article cites no secondary literature - so unless it is simply a record of Jerome's work then it ought to be deleted as original research. In short a) Rename and clean-up – as Jerome’s work b) or delete as original research c) or cite mainstream scholars who also adopt this chronology (but I doubt that’s possible).--Doc (t) 19:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jerome used multiple sources including Eusebius, Castor, Diodorus and Apollodorus it is not actualy his chorology. Technically the chronology in question is referred to as the "Traditional Chronology" and was not exclusive to Jerome. I have already cited mainstream scholars who use this chronology within the margin of error including Michael Wood, Alden A. Mosshammer, and J. C. Stobart. Jerome's main source was Eusebius who he translated into Latin and there are more dates and reigns in Eusebius Preparation of the Gospel where he also cites Tatian. Eusebius main source was Diodorus Siculus who wrote a complete history from the time of the Gods up until about 50 BC. Diodorus considered the Gods to have been real people who were once kings of Greece. Almost every modern scholar agrees with the 1183 BC date for the end of the Trojan War and an 1450 BC date for Minos I of Crete.--Argyrosargyrou 19:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Michael Wood's "In Search of Myths and Heroes"; "The archaeologists' discoveries of Bronze Age (2300-700 BC) artefacts made it clear that the Greek myths and epic poems preserve the traditions of a Bronze Age society, and may refer to actual events of that time"--Argyrosargyrou 20:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I pretty much agree with Doc above, but I think this page has tremendous potential, of comparable significance to the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, or at least Dates in Star Wars. We shouldn't have original research in Wikipeida, but many of our most interesting pages involve original integration. However, I am very concerned about the following sentence near the end: "The author reserves the right to update the chronology at any time as information becomes available." --Arcadian 20:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Useless as it stands, but there could be the seed of a good article in it. Frjwoolley 20:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but sources should be added for each of the dates. Capitalistroadster 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename someting better. Subject matter is completely analogous to the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar. Doc's comments and the original authors have convinced me to vote delete for now. Subject matter is interesting indeed, but it is too much original research as it stands, since the author used multiple sources without citing each entry. Articles on the separate formulated chronologies by Ancient and Medieval authors would be perfectly appropriate by the themselves, but not a chrnology that mixes or combines them as this one does. I would be inclined to vote keep if the author would agree to label each separate date according to its source(s), such the article is not presented as a unified historical work, but an assembling of Ancient sources. -- Decumanus 23:54, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand (with more sources, commentary, etc.) and possibly rename if appropriate. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the comparison to the Usher speculation is not appropriate - precisely because that is clearly designated as Usher's theory/research. This, however, is drawn from a number of ancient sources (although principally Eusebius/Jerome). Unless it is a generally accepted scholarly timeframe (and verifiably such), then it is by definition original research compiled from ancient sources. Further, were Greek myths narrated by the ancients with a consistent and discernable timeline in mind? - Or is that not a highly a dubious theory in itself? I say again, as interesting as this is, this needs labelled as someone's reconstruction (if you can reconstruct history from myths) or deleted. (And if we are combing archaeology with interpretations of the authorial intention of mythic literature then we are doing original research.) --Doc (t) 00:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we get an historiographer in here? --Doc (t) 01:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the page somewhat, and added in a few footnotes. If the original authors of the article are reading this -- if you could get in some more footnotes, it would help the article survive VfD. The books seem legitimate, but if you could help tie the books to specific assertions, not just include them at a list at the end, it would really help. (By the way, I'm not that experienced with footnotes, so someone else may want to take a look and see if I formatted them right.) --Arcadian 03:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This chronology needs more sources to back up some of its claims. Megan1967 05:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creator of this page claims the nomination is due to "personal academic and religious bigotry". This is absolute nonsense. The problem with this is it's all unsourced dates for which the creator assembled willy nilly without references. In fact the article makes no sense at all, as these are straight mythical events with no historical veracity. Assigning dates to them completely unsourced as if they have real meaning is nonsense. I also highly suspect that the creator of the page is a well-known netkook who thinks these events actually happened in history. The "religious bigotry" line apparently refers to his religious beliefs, as otherwise the comment makes no sense. And I wish people wouldn't vote on this unless they take a step back and look at the overall picture of what the article is doing: Giving ridiculously useless dates to events that never happened. What kind of encyclopedia lets people wander onto this information as if it was really real? DreamGuy 07:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Last comment: dates for mythology or even fictional events are not the problem per se (see Starwars etc.). The problem is whose dates are these? Starwars dates exist (consistently?) in the mind & work of Lucas. These dates relate to myths retold and recreated in disparate cultural situations over centuries. Do these narrators share an imagined timeline? Unless they are in the mind of one named author (Homer, Eusebius etc) and titled as such, or are reporting an accepted framework of modern scholarship – then they are original research. Citing different sources for different ‘events’ will not do – as their selection and amalgamation would still be idiosyncratic and original research. --Doc (t) 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Rewrite. I share Doc's mixed feelings. I do not think the article should be deleted, but only because of what I see as its potential. Obviously no one is claiming that these are accurate dates of real historical events. The article is related to mythology, not history. As a chronology of mythological events, I think it can be of great use to any scholar researching Greek mythology. This is because myths are not (just) meaningful in and of themselves, but because they are part of a larger body of literature (i.e. mythology), which has an underlying logic. The temporal relationship between mythic events is one clue to that underlying logic (the chronology in which the myths actually came to exist, to be told, to be written down, i.e. the chronology of literary events, is another matter — these are historical events and provide a whole other angle to analyzing mythology, equally valid, but different from the chronology of mythical events). However, in my own experience people within a culture may have widely varying views of the temporal frame of their myths — they may differ as to the order of events; they may differ as to whether the events occured in sequence or are all different ways of talking about the same moment in their "history;" or they may relegate myths to some ahistorical/nontemporal time. I do not know enough about Greek mythology and the literary and historical study of Greek mythology to know which, if any, of these possibilities applies to Greek mythology. I do know, though, that an article such as this must (1) be as clear as possible about who/what the source is for this chronology; when that source was composed/when its author lived; and an account of the historical context in which the author of this source lived, which gives clues as to how this chronology may have been used. Moreover, if there are differing chronologies, or among Greek writers wholely different views about the temporality of the myths, these views must also be represented. And of course, all properly sourced. Such an article will be worth far more than the "dates in Star Wars" article (which really just give us some insight into George Lucas's creative process); it will be a useful link to the article on Greek mythology, giving, or sparking, some insight into ancient Hellenic culture. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source and expand per Slrubenstein Kappa 19:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's utter tosh, but it's interesting. Perhaps there should be a Genealogy of Greek Mythical Figures article too. Phlogistomania 14:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Genealogy of Greek Mythology would be useful, but this is not it. Consensus om the dates is almost certainly impossible, and IIRC the date of the Trojan war, here, is fifteen years away from the (plurality?) conventional wisdom. Septentrionalis 21:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Francesca Dani[edit]

Um, who is this person other than someone who has one picture under the article "cosplay", and why is she deserving to be the subject of a Wikipedia article? ekedolphin 07:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote, but here's some answers: Official page, Google search - She doesn't look to be noteworthy. -- Barfooz (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Frjwoolley 20:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doubt this is vanity, but if one's only claim to fame is dressing in anime costumes, then notability is a real issue. Denni☯ 20:57, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. - Etacar11 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not notable. --Leadingbrand 02:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters[edit]

  • Delete. Speedy Delete. Spurious RfC that was never properly certified Whig 07:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs two certifications. Both disputants certified it, therefore it was properly certified. jguk 07:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The certification required is not by "both disputants," but by (at least) two editors having a complaint about another editor that they tried to resolve and failed, and both must provide evidence of their efforts. Your RfC made much of the fact that Lulu was "new to WP" implying at the very least that you are not so new as to believe that this is valid procedure. Whig 08:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Not so much the certification point as just that it never had any meaningful RfC content to start with—no issue to resolve, just a bit of bellyaching over personal animosity. Or Merge with Hoax. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Seriously, can't the whole Lord of the Flies crowd find something better to do with themselves? In truth, Hedley is probably right on the administrative issue; but this whole "RfC" is to an actual WP:RfC roughly as Benny Hill is to Fellini. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
  • Keep Not because I agreed with jguk over the dispute, but because the only reason to delete an RFC is whether or not it was certified. Lulu certified it, whether seriously or in jest, and he must take the conswequences. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But you did endorse jguk's statement. This RfC has become a free-for-all and a parody on the whole system, at best. Whig 10:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that that was not the reason for my vote. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not believe VFD is the right appropriate place to debate whether or not an RFC should be deleted based on whether or not it was certified within the 48 hour time limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Zzyzx11. We should open an RFC on RFC procedure. I've attempted this in the past but it seems most people don't really care what happens to an uncertified RFC (and before I started cleanup duty there, they were kept for months). Speedy delete, imho, per RFC procedure. Radiant_* 09:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    The question is whether or not there was a certification. In addition, there is the matter of the current RfAr against jguk, in which this RfC could play a part. I think it would currently be irresponsible to delete it; I think it would only be recreated in the future. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    According to RfC procedure, an uncertified complaint is to be speedily deleted, but I'm sure the arbitrators can still view it if appropriate (although I am not an admin, the capability to undelete implies that the RfC must persist in some way). I don't think this complaint would serve to bolster jguk's case, but he could reference it (or Lulu could do so as well, given that he has apparently entered an appearance on the RfAr docket). Whig 12:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Whig - it was certified (by Lulu). His certification put off others from certifying it (leaving them to endorse it). It has now been certified by a third person. There is still a dispute, what is the problem with keeping it? jguk 12:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Any admin or arbcom can review a deleted page as needed. This RFC was obviously not certified by two different users within 48 hours (as RFC procedure indicates). One certification is by Lulu herself and is obviously a cheap joke, and Susvolans's certification is from a week later. Radiant_* 12:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Whether or not admins or arbcomm members can, it is important for the transparency of the arbitration process that such a page is not deleted. There Is No Cabal. If Lulu had not certified the RFC, others would have done, I have no doubt. I don't see Lulu's certification as being a "cheap joke", but rather agreeing with jguk's summary. If that was not the case, he should strike it out and another 48 hours should be allowed for certification. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is. Anyway - if lulu had not certified, others would have is speculative, and is contradicted by the fact that they haven't. It's common for more than two people to certify an RFC, after all. Radiant_* 14:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Incidentally, another user (Susvolans) has since certified the RfC, and I did check with another user that he would certify the RfC before I posted it - in the event, and no doubt because it was already certified (by Lulu), he chose to endorse the RfC rather than certify it. Kind regards, jguk 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. – ugen64 19:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Dan | Talk 19:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant use of speedy keep as it shouldn't be possible to VfD an RfC. Hedley 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only time an RfC should be deleted is if it was created in bad faith. --Carnildo 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carnildo, the exact policy on user disputes on RFC is the following: Two people must certify the dispute by documenting their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page within 48 hours after the RFC dispute was created. Otherwise, it is to be speedy deleted (unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained). The question here is whether Lulu counts as the second person to certify his own RFC. Clearly, Susvolans signed well after the two day deadline. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What may be considered a related issue is the fact that one cannot file Arbitration against oneself (both Snowspinner and Xiong have attempted such, and were rejected). Plausibly, then, one cannot endorse RFC against oneself. Radiant_* 07:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Arbitration is not RFC. Lulu certified that jguk's account was accurate. To me, this fulfills the criteria, perhaps not in the letter of the law, but certainly in its spirit (and let's face it, who could ever have dreamed up this situation?) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 08:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Strong, Keep This is not the place to discuss RfC's. The respective comment pages are the places. It is not possible to delete a valid RfC. Bratschetalk random 00:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Laughable that anyone would think that VfD was the place for this. James F. (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Again, attempts at gaming the system. Lulu treated the RfC as a joke by certifying it himself. Other editors decided "he's made his own bed, we'll let him lay in it" and, understandably, no one else tried to certify it since many already felt it had the required threshold. Once you've locked in an "invalid" certification, wait more than 48 hours and VfD it. Bam...no more RfC! --MikeJ9919 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Jackson McNeil[edit]

Update: This VfD subpage was created on May 15 but apparently not listed in the VfD log for May 15. I'm hereby relisting it on the current VfD log. --MarkSweep 07:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be either an elaborate hoax or vanity - a biography on an 18-year-old with no real achievements. Should be deleted. Harro5 00:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • This article should be deleted for the following reasons: 1) This entry seems to be written as an act of advertisement. In other words, if Jackson McNeil is a living being, this was written to bring "fame" to his name. 2) This entry has no relevance to history or encyclopedic matters, so I ask you this question, would this article be written in a Britanica Encyclopedia? The answer is no. Unfortunately, people take advantage of the privilage for anyone to make their own article. EinsteinMC2 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep. I am God's messenger and I created this article for the glory of God, and if God likes it, how can Wikipedia disobey him?'68.189.40.197 (talk · contribs)
    • Maybe we're all muslims here. Delete. Radiant_* 14:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I completely agree with the above. 68.189.48.55 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. Vanity. --MarkSweep 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, it sounds like a vanity entry. --Figs 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, and using sock puppets doesn't really help your case. Leithp 07:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 08:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Frjwoolley 20:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. And I've always wanted to be a heretic. --Carnildo 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adolescent vanity. - Etacar11 00:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Leanne 05:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. -- Scott eiπ 05:26, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ayatollah Sayid Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah[edit]

All information on this page was created by an anonymous user who didn't leave any sources. I have discovered that they copied the entire page from this site [[12]] and there is no way of determining copyright for the information. This is why I have suggested this article be deleted. MyNameIsNotBob 07:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyvio. Probably should have gone straight to copyvio, but its here now so let's deal with it through VfD. Harro5 09:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • It needs to be dealt with on WP:CP - I've listed it there and replaced the content with the copyvio notice. sjorford →•← 09:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established, copyvio. Megan1967 09:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. Leanne 06:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to vote to delete the copyvio - it will be deleted automatically now unless it can be proved that the copyright owner gives their permission. Any further votes here should be on the validity of the article in general. sjorford →•← 08:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like cola[edit]

I cannot find any references to this thing. A search for "Like cola" + "Made from the Cola Nut" (the supposed slogan) reveals one google hit, a mirror to Wikipedia. Unverifiable unsuccessful brand name. Probably not notable even if verified. Sjakkalle 08:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References have been found and it apparently wasn't a hoax anyway like I thought. Keep and expand then. Sjakkalle 06:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC) (I am not at all sure if this flop is notable enough, but I will prefer to err on the side of inclusionism...) Sjakkalle 08:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax. Harro5 10:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Short lived drink... there's the question of notability.Megan1967 10:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I managed to find a couple of references to it: [13] [14]. It appears to be a short-lived drink from the 7-up company. I don't know whether it would qualify as notable though. Leithp 15:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found another reference [15]. It refers to the drink being launched in 1982. There's a few other references out there but I don't have the patience to sift through them (terrible name for search engines). Still not enough for more than a sub-stub though.Leithp 20:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection we should probably keep this. Hopefully someone can find enough information to expand the article into something useful.Leithp 20:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable drink from notable source. Could be merged somewhere. Kappa 17:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Soda lasted for longer than the 1980s...I believe it originally started in the 1960s (Victoria Wyndham was a Like girl before she hit it big). Keep Mike H 19:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please but can this be expanded? Yuckfoo 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Have started some work on expanding it. Need more people to be involved though. Still a very short article. MyNameIsNotBob 08:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep If Wiki is the only place there's any information, that's all the more reason to keep the article.If we always delete the stuff that nobody can find information for, we're not being a good all-information source. User:tbsmith May 24, 2005
  • Keep and expand. This was a semi-notable product for a while in the 80s. Xcali 05:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Johnny's Sauce[edit]

Some restaurant's version of ketchup, supremely unnotable. (Bonus Simpsons quote: "We need some more special sauce. Put this mayonnaise in the sun.") sjorford →•← 09:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, saucecruft. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gotta love random junk. Harro5 10:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but "saucecruft"!!! I'm laughing out loud. Frjwoolley 20:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN that bad boy so it can give "heartburn, indigestion, and gastronomical pleasure" to Wikipedians for years to come. Yee-Hah! --Fazdeconta 13:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yew Nork[edit]

We read that it's a meme, the name of New York City with the first letter of each word switched. (Wait, shouldn't that be "Coo, Nork Yitty!" or similar? Oh, never mind.) The origin's said to be obscure, but my friend Mr Google took me straight here. Now, if even Disney classes this Disneydatum as trivial, I think we can agree that it's trivial. Meanwhile, I submit that "meme" here is a fancy word for "neologism" or "term". Trivia, whimsy, neologism: take ya choice, but anyway delete. -- Hoary 09:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Spoonerism, maybe add a line to that article (or maybe not). Grutness...wha? 11:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For my part, I don't think this is a particularly famous or notable Spoonerism. After all, it's just a kid's game switch, and not a real Spoonerism at all (where the resulting pun is a joke or betrays secret feelings or information). Geogre 15:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not common as a misspelling, and besides, it's usually "New Nork". --Carnildo 21:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable spoonerism. Megan1967 05:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable spoonerism and unverifiable meme. --Angr/comhrá 05:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Eyolf Østrem[edit]

Personal vanity, seems to be solely associated with Bob Dylan fan sites by Google, and still <2000 hits, all languages. Kiand 09:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Google was setting the standards for which articles should stay and which should be deleted, wikipedia would be a very sad place. The article was started 1 hour ago and should be edited, not deleted. Pernille76

Pernille, I'm sorry, but your friend Eyolf (and I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you yourself aren't Eyolf making a vanity page) doesn't seem to be notable. Running a website = big deal; millions of people run websites. What makes this Bob Dylan-centric website different from all other Bob Dylan-centric websites, of which there are hundreds? What else has he done? It's true that Google isn't the be-all and end-all of notability - I put up a page for [[Bruno_Th%E9riault|my family's piano tuner]], because it turns out he did notable and significant things in his life. Deletion isn't automatic - you've got a few days to prove that Eyolf deserves an entry, but don't expect us to do it for you. Abstain, for now DS 18:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Test is just back. The article is vanity, and unencyclopaedic. Kiand 10:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, self promotion. Megan1967 10:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some dude. CV material. Geogre 17:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly add the Bob Dylan website to the External Links of the Bob Dylan article if it isn't already there. Xcali 05:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott eiπ 05:29, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Little green onions[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion. Definitely vanity and non notable restaurant, but doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Sjakkalle 10:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to scallion Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, per Starblind. -- BD2412 talk 12:07, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, but thanks to Starblind for a great vote. Frjwoolley 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Starblind. The Booker T and the MG's hit from the 60's probably warrants an article but that is Green Onions. Capitalistroadster 23:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable restaurant. Megan1967 05:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect because it makes me smile to think someone could put in something as random as "little green onions" and end up where they should. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silly page.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Goody-goody[edit]

Dicdef; has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Kelly Martin 12:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Snæbjörn[edit]

The article is trivially short and seems unexpandable. It contains only such trivia as "Snæbjörn is not a common name in Iceland.", a dicdef, and the amount of people bearing the name.

This was the subject of an earlier VfD which yielded no consensus since several people suggested transwiki or merge. The article has now been put in Wiktionary, and no suitable place exists to merge it to. I therefore think that deleting it is appropriate. Radiant_* 12:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Previous VfD votes: Delete (6): RickK, Zzyzzx11, Angr, Radiant, Texture; Transwiki (1): Carnildo; Merge (3): BD2412, Kappa, Bjorn; Keep (2): SchmuckyTheCat, Instantnood
  • Delete: Names are lexical. This isn't a common name. If anyone voting to transwiki is going to prevent the article from being acted upon at all, then something is desperately wrong with those cleaning out VfD. Geogre 17:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wether the name is common or not isn't so much an issue for me. The fact that there is just so little to say about this name is. I don't think there is any need for this entry. --Swift 18:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful as a disambig page or a redirect. --Carnildo 22:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I repeat my vote from the previous VFD. Wikipedia is not a names database. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete. --Angr/comhrá 05:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Janie Found[edit]

This article has no less than three tags (not counting the VfD tag I placed) asking to improve its quality. The contents, as of the time of writing, are hopelessly unencyclopedic. They don't even mention whether this is about real life or a fictional story. Delete unless the article can be expanded, at least to mention what the bloody blazes it's actually about. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a real book, I have added a line saying so to the article, so I'm voting keep at the moment. However, I don't know if Wikipedia:WikiProject Books or Novels have particular guidelines as to how notable a book needs to be. In any case, the article is seriously in need to a clean-up -- Lochaber 16:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If cleaned and clear and concise, keep. My suspicion is that it will be hard to rid the article of its pre-teen book report content. I hope I'm proven wrong, but send to cleanup with this VfD deliberation on the article's talk page. Geogre 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Geogre -- wants clarification & context, but clearly is an attempt to summarise a book that had an impact on the submitter --Simon Cursitor 19:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is getting ridiculous. Why do we even have cleanup tags, if VfD trolls are just going to ignore them? VfDs are for getting rid of articles that will never be encylopedic, not for punishing people who submit badly-written articles. ----Isaac R 21:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: VfD is not for getting rid of articles. VfD is for deliberating on whether an article has or has not violated the deletion policy. It is not an insult or punishment for an article to be listed here. Voters have to be trusted to decide on the right conclusion, and, if you do trust them, then stop, please, insulting people who list an article for VfD by calling them trolls. Geogre 03:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments, Geogre. Anyway, I think I have been too hasty in nominating this for VfD. I change my vote to Keep and clean-up. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Capitalistroadster 23:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three cleanup tags had only been there two minutes before JIP slapped a VfD on it. — P Ingerson (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the bookcruft, of course. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this needs cleanup not deletion. Megan1967 05:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, and stop attacking the motivations of VfD nominators. RickK 05:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Danny Keough[edit]

Former spouse of a notable person. No indication of individual notability. --Allen3 talk 13:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep - reasonably notable actor. (indb) Dunc|☺ 13:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I get for trusting the first hundred or so results from a Google search (lots of references to his former marriage and being a musician). His acting career justifies an article. Keep. --Allen3 talk 14:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have a reasonable career as an actor apart from being Elvis' son-in-law. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be expanded, but I think we can Keep this one. Xcali 05:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ugen64 19:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Fagg[edit]

Either a vanity or a hoax. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy, obvious nonsense Algebraist 16:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Kids, go play outside. Geogre 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy and quick, patent nonsense--Doc (t) 18:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chubby bunnies[edit]

It's non-notable vain nonsense. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not a notable campfire game. Geogre 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, perhaps move to chubby bunny. Oprah once spent half a show talking about how dangerous this game is. --InShaneee 18:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable campfire game, featured prominently on national TV. Kappa 20:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit if necessary. It's a concise accurate description of a well-known campfire game. -- Original Author
  • Keep: I've played it, albeit nowhere near an actual camp-fire :-) HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 12:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Expand it if necessary, especially if info about the Oprah thing could be added. tylerwillis
  • Keep. See edits. - DS1953 19:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ugen64 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Destroyers Of Old Maraqua[edit]

I think its more of a chat page than an encyclopedic article IncMan 14:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. We are even in the encyclopedia. Not for much longer. --Lejend 16:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoopsie! This is hijacking of our site for their chat. No-no. Geogre 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 19:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The history of stones circles in Ireland[edit]

Useless article, just scrapes past speedy, not encyclopedic, not worth a redirect. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 14:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be a speedy. Clearly patent nonsense. Hedley 15:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patent nonsense? Explain how this qualifies as nonsense? Revolución 16:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also needs a better name. Revolución 16:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved by the time vote closes (verifiable examples of stone circles being added, obviously, would be essential). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for nonsense seems fine to me. In Ireland many stone circles are? Huh? Their history is long and mystic? How is there sense in that? Stone circles meaning exactly what? Are these barrows? We already have articles on the red ochre graves, on the mound builders, etc. This is just nebulous stuff. No focus, no content. Geogre 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still don't see the refutation. Irish megaliths, stone circles (not "stones circles" per this article), but no "history" of them, and no "deep and mystic." No redirect, because there's no content here and no chance of a search by this name. No content. Geogre 20:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While (I hope) no one disputes the existence of stone cicles in Ireland, this article is not the one to describe them. Had this appeared with a speedy delete tag, I'd have obliged. Best delete and restart with a more appropriate title.Denni☯ 21:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as being content-free. --Carnildo 22:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if made into a real article by closing time, otherwise delete. RickK 22:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Delete as per RickK. — P Ingerson (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded and moved to Stone circles in Ireland. Megan1967 05:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have speedy deleted it as hopelessly confused nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have the arcticle about stone circles in Ireland but this is hardly promising beginning. Delete - Skysmith 08:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is such a waste of time - it should have been speedied - if someone wants to write a real article on the subject they could do that anytime later --Doc (t) 09:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even in a single line they managed spelling errors. "The history" would imply a great length, otherwise not encyclopaedic. Internodeuser 14:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Xcali 05:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sean ng[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial, or whatever this article wants it to be. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 14:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I do not find this person to be noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense--Doc (t) 17:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably vanity but at least, not encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a WTF category? Well, certainly non-notable. - Etacar11 00:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we speedy this one to get it gone? Donovan Ravenhull 11:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just editted back again. Putting a vandalism report on the offender. Donovan Ravenhull 13:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not verifiable, not coherent. WCFrancis 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incoherent and nonsensical. jni 15:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Michael Snow 05:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Takano, Yayori[edit]

Unverifiable. This page apparently was nominated for vfd back in February 2004 with no consensus; it has had an Accuracy Disputed notice on it since then, but has not been edited. A Google search (without quotation marks, given the inherent ambiguity caused by Japanese name-order being reversed in many Western sources) turns up many Wikipedia mirrors but nothing else to indicate that there is a "superstar" of this name. Russ Blau (talk) 15:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Obvious by the lack of stating what Yayori is notable for. Hedley 15:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No non-wiki google hits besides amateur track results. Angela's previous listing for deletion which edited out "She hates Kendall ALOT" and the fact that this is User:StupidFubi's only contributions make it almost certainly vanity and a hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Takano Yayoi (in kanji: 高野弥生). 40,000 hits for kanji (although I have no idea how many are for her). Site in German too. But I admit there's not much content to the article... Fg2 10:19, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Xcali 05:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Fg2, not a hoax. Kappa 19:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: 5-2 in favor of deleting, and it's not clear that the destination of the move has any connection to the person intended by the article. The person with a German/English site is not based in Japan and certainly not a superstar; nor are the Google hits all for her. After this review, I conclude those preferring deletion have the better case. --Michael Snow 05:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Michael Snow 05:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toyota Truck Service Data[edit]

The subject is not encyclopedic, and there are no similar articles for other vehicle manufacturers. Furthermore, this article has no actual content. Though a free source of service data is a noble cause, it's not something that belongs in WP. -- Cleduc 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not Wikipedia's job. Any responsible Toyota driver would consult the company website before Wikipedia: it is a redundant article. --Lejend 16:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe this sort of "planned" in-depth data is encyclopedic. It could make a good web site elsewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Placeholder at this point, not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and not a viable search term. Geogre 20:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

RAGH[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is it necessary to form articles for each incoherent guttural noise of emotional expression? --Lejend 16:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphan page. Not encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ejaculation. (Redirect to Minsc?) Geogre 20:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. --Michael Snow 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

37564[edit]

not notable substub.) Larus.r 15:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary --Larus.r 15:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless numerical coincidences don't belong in encyclopediae. --Lejend 16:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes as much sense as the Chevy Nova urban legend; namely, absolutely none. -- Grev -- Talk 16:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary. If someone sees a Japanese person typing that and want to know what they mean, it's wiktionary's job to tell them. Kappa 17:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic as written. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's extremely tenuous even in Japanese, you'd have to mix-and-match Chinese- and Japanese-derived number words and cut off the second syllables. I couldn't see anything meaningful without reading the definition even though I know the numbers. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's so tenuous, how did it get to be the name of a dvd? [17] Kappa 20:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the use of a number to substitute for a phrase has a parallel in the use of 73, and (amazingly) this probably is Wiktionary material if verified. I'm finding it difficult to turn up instances of this sequence of digits being used with this meaning, however, or attestations that this is indeed a usage of this sequence of digits, which will certainly be required at Wiktionary. (There's an awful lot of noise to filter out.) Uncle G 03:15, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • Try googling "みなごろし　37564" [18]. The first hit [19] is a horror mystery comic called "37564 academy" (37564(みなごろし)学園) . Also we find that 18782 can be pronounced "Iyana yatsu", meaning unpleasant guy, and 18782 + 18782 = 37564. Kappa 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable number. Klonimus 06:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers - add a reference in 10000 (number) which has a list of five-digit numbers. Radiant_* 07:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not clear that this is encyclopedic among users of English. Why in holy hell should English Wiktionary tell someone about a number (even one with a meaning associated) they saw a Japanese person type?? Also delete any subject of Kappa's gematria. Barno 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll let Uncle G explain what wiktionary is for LOL. Kappa 17:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All words in all languages". English Wiktionary should tell someone about any word that a Japanese person types. Uncle G 02:22, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Send to wiktionary or maybe even UrbanDictionary! Ashibaka (tock) 19:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just been transwikied --Dmcdevit 22:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already transwikid. Leanne 06:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code[edit]

Not encyclopedic in its current incarnation. I don't think transwiki is appropriate, or perhaps legal (my Singaporean law is a little iffy). Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well then, why don't you reword it to make it more 'encyclopaedic'. You're right in admitting that your 'Singaporean law is a little iffy'. You should not recommend articles for deletion when you know nothing about the subject. The quotes are taken directly from the Singapore Statutes online. There is nothing iffy about any of the information given. Kindly remove this article from consideration for deletion as soon as possible.165.21.154.8 16:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was less than clear with my wording. My concern with the legality was whether it is legal to quote such large sections, which arguably have Singaporean copyright. I believe in some countries that is the case. I was saying about the encyclopedicness – is that a word? – of the entry that it would be encyclopedic if it were included in an article such as Homosexuality in Singapore, but, on its own, it is not encyclopedic. BTW, I am not disputing the accuracy of the text. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The legal code of Singapore is under copyright? PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe in some cases that that may be so. Maybe I am misinformed. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't be the only country to copyright its laws. Several do. Canadian statutes are Crown Copyright, for example. Uncle G 03:20, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Copyright(c) 2001 Government of Singapore.
As a user of this website, you may only make copies incidental to your access of this website. You may also print out, and copy portions of the text in line with provisions of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63). You may not disseminate, incorporate in printed or electronic form, the contents of this website and its sample documents without the prior approval of the Government of Singapore.--Huaiwei 17:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting two sentences for the purpose of discussion is not the same as reprinting or mirroring the Penal Code. It is not only perfectly legal but also right to do so. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless Wiki is simply to become the world-wide edition of Halsbury's Statutes. A short summary sans quote and with conect would be more helpful. Also, the penal code probably is copyright, to prevent it being altered in citation--Simon Cursitor 19:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. It only quotes two sentences from the penal code and then describes the history and use of the law. That is legal to quote for discussion and criticism. It is linked from Politics of Singapore and Homosexuality in Singapore and could, in future, be linked to other articles about Sex crime, past and present. It should be wikified but I believe it is encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concurring with DoubleBlue. Frjwoolley 21:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and cleanup. Definite potential for an article here. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting explanation. May need to be moved or merged to a more transparent title. Quale 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and cleanup. --Spinboy 05:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Homosexuality in Singapore. --Angr/comhrá 05:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Homosexuality in Singapore. Internodeuser 13:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it needs a clean-up. I think the law and its development and use is worthy of an article in its own right (c.f. Section 28, anti-sodomy laws in the United States, Section 352 (?) of German law, etc., which are all, similarly, their own articles, from a brief look. James F. (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Germany would be §175, now abolished. AlexR
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ugen64 19:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evergreen International[edit]

This page seems to be a non-notable vanity page for a web site and is obviously an attempt at self-promotion --Axon 16:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, just advertising, speedied today already Algebraist 16:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, as above. See also PATH SSA by same anonymous editor --Axon 17:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 20:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hedgerow_removal[edit]

I don't think this is quite necessary as an article. --Lejend 16:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's not quite necessary as an article on its own, perhaps it could be merged with something suitable, such as hedgerow, without needing to bring it to Vfd. Or it could be kept and expanded, being a vitally important topic in soil conservation, biodiversity etc. Kappa 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up and expand. I believe an encyclopedic article is possible on this topic. This one is just poorly written. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Soil erosion, with a "See also" in Hedgerow. The topic here is enclosures, soil erosions, water run-off, etc., seems to me, and if there is a reference/link in Hedgerow, we can move this content to its natural home. Geogre 20:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think that Soil erosion would be a good redirect. The problem with the removal of hedgerows has more to do with loss of habitats for wildlife. It's a problem mainly in England if I remember right.Leithp 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leithp is right, it's a biodiversity issue in the UK. Maybe not up there with coral bleaching and the destruction of the Amazon, but still encyclopdeic. There are even grants now from the EU for not mowing so close to hedgerows so as to increase the space for fauna and flora. If not keep then merge with hedgerow. Sabine's Sunbird 01:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a merge with hedgerow would work for me, too. I just think the information is stranded at this location, and the discussion in it isn't really about hedgerow removal as much as land clearing. (In the US, the destruction of windbreaks is a big deal, as it destroys the soil and causes trees to topple as people cut hardwoods to put up pines and havestable trees.) Geogre 03:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to hedgerow. --Sn0wflake 13:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopaedic topic with a reasonable stub to get us started, which I'm willing to help expand. Joe D (t) 12:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: and I have indeed expanded it a little. Joe D (t) 12:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Michael Snow 05:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carolina Yurie da Silva[edit]

The subject is of no encyclopaedical importance, should be deleted ReallyNiceGuy 16:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably vanity. Why have it in two languages? 23skidoo 17:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, this person created pages for his/her two kids, it looks like (see next one). - Etacar11 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Michael Snow 05:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fernanda Youko da Silva[edit]

Congrats on the baby, but this is non-notable vanity Etacar11 17:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not an encyclopedia article. I'm sure the baby has a wonderful future ahead though. Kappa 17:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send a card of congratulations and userfy to User:Eraldo. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Eraldo already has a User page. We can't move it to his page, we would have to copy and paste, and that would lose the edit history and would be a violation of GFDL. Delete.
      • His user page is only a test boilerplate message but userfying is certainly not necessary, Delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Centraview[edit]

Advertisement, no notability established, relatively unwikified, etc. The usual. :-( Delete. S.K. 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs rewrite. --Sleepyhead81 12:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepand clean-up. I think it was written by a CentraView fan rather than being straight-out advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A clean might make it salvagable, but I'm not sure. The article seems to have c&p from the company's website, so it's fairly unimaginative puffery. I couldn't find evidence that the corporation is really that significant, but a neutral write up would help determine its worth. Geogre 20:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The leader in the hosted accounting software (ASP) arena is NetSuite. I have been researching others and could not find significant alternatives, until somebody mentioned to me Centraview, which states it is open source. Open source or not, I believe hosted accounting software systems are important and will become even more important with time, and I think Wikipedia users should know there is another alternative to NetSuite.--AAAAA 03:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to add that I view Wikipedia as a structured source of information. I would like to let other users search for ASP Accounting Systems and quickly see what are the alternatives. If you go to google and search for the same, you get a lot of useless links, mostly advertisements about stuff you don't need.--AAAAA 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, WP is not a directory of software, it is an encyclopedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how do you define "encyclopedia". Why this list should not be here and other lists should? Because you like so?--AAAAA 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like a press release, or something made out of bits and pieces of them ("fairly unimaginative puffery"). -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if you don't like how it is written, CHANGE IT, don't destroy.--AAAAA 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should I have to do the work you're not willing to do? Part of gardening is removing the weeds. So too with bad Wikipedia articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you put "words in my mouth"? When did I say (or write) that I was not "willing to do" the work necessary to clean the article up? Although sometimes I cannot work on something immediately, I usually do it with time.--AAAAA 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AAAAA's evidence of notability, and help him/her to clean it up. Kappa 19:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. And any help is welcome.--AAAAA 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Writer needs to attend to all points mentioned here. As stated above - part of gardening is pulling the weeds. This would seem to be competition for NetSuite, but in open source. Needs to be there but edited. Andrewspencer 07:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. And any help is welcome!--AAAAA 07:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article appears to be slapped together from the pages of centraview's own website. If it wasn't for the fact that some parts (very small parts I might add) of it have been changed this should have been nominated as a copyvio and deleted. This is plain advertising. JamesBurns 08:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Duncharris (as user test presumably). Thue | talk 21:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jakesville[edit]

There is as far as I know no such place in Sweden. --Fred-Chess 13:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The text is stolen from Östhammar. I actually think this can be speedy deleted as nonsense. Uppland 18:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (already deleted when I closed it). --Michael Snow 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop Drinking Soda[edit]

Third anti-caffeine, anti-soft drink rant up here recently. Original research, not encyclopeadic, neologism. delete Kiand 18:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean Up I think it needs be put in a way that doesn't advertise it, it's ok just edit it a little bit. [--User:64.12.117.12 ]
    • Anonymous users (and sock-puppet registered user accounts) can't vote. Kiand 19:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Anybody can vote -- look it up. There's an understanding that anonymous votes have less weight. And of course you can't use a sockpuppet to vote twice. That's it. In any case, you should trust the admins to interpret the rules, especially when the outcome of the vote is a foregone conclusion. ----Isaac R 21:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rant. --W(t) 19:25, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of original research health advice articles (note: I do agree with advice to stop drinking soda). Thue | talk 19:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advocacy is out of place here. Geogre 20:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and drink more beer) --Doc (t) 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article that was created as part of a goofy addiction/food related campaign by an anonymous user (aka Andrew Lin) using several IPs. - Jersyko 22:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as a recreation of previously-deleted nonsense. One has to wonder why User:128.2.247.45 created the article then immediately turned around and slapped a VfD header on it. RickK 22:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concept2[edit]

Self-promotion / Advertising. Very little encyclopedic content. P0per 18:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep notable company who make ergometers (aka rowing machines). Let's not row over the hill on this one (a common mistake -- move the hands away over the knees before you start to come up the slide), seems fine to me. Dunc|☺ 19:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely well-known in rowing circles, corporation of national significance. Decent article as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't read as advertising to me. If you don't like it, clean it up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this should not be ereased Yuckfoo 20:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, feel this is a notable company (they have equipment in practially every gym and very well known in rowing circles) and deserves a page on wikipedia. If there are problems with the article (NPOV or advertising) I think this should be discussed on the talk page and the content changed accordingly. (NB - I originally wrote the article.) Johnteslade 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have used their rowing machines a lot, of course they should have an article. NSR 21:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is in good shape. Well done Johnteslade. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Macbethketball[edit]

Not notable, even if everyone at Spotswood High thought it was funny

  • Delete, not notable enough. Thue | talk 19:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good idea but until it gets a release date beyond the school, delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Local matter (sublocal, really), joke. Geogre 20:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local notability only. Megan1967 05:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 01:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of dorama[edit]

Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable 198.93.113.49 18:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, certainly seems encyclopedic to me. Might be hard to maintain due to lack of English-language information but that doesn't disqualify it IMO, that applies to lots of articles. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 19:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; Fairly well defined list of encylopedic objects, and therefore itself encyclopedic. I don't see why it should be unmaintainable, although it probably helps to be able to read Japanese, which I am sure many wikipedians here do. Thue | talk 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we have lists of movies and list of television shows, so I don't see how this is any different. Fadeblue 19:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well a list of DVD was recently deleted I believe, but now that I look around you're right about there being a lot of list. I had not seen this page Wikipedia:List of lists. Frankly, their are thousands of these that have no business being here IMO, but I'm just one loan voice.--198.93.113.49 13:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, excellent, encyclopedic list. Kappa 20:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good list. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and remove the short list on the Dorama page. Foolip 10:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, these dramas should be moved to their own pages and grouped together using a category. I agree that this is unmaintainable. Danbeck 04:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thue | talk 20:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect[edit]

Newly created, but not a serious attempt at an article. Ec5618 18:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Witch of Igoe Road[edit]

Um, towns may be notable, schools may be notable, even Pokemon may be notable, but this alledgedly haunted road in New Jersey ain't. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without verification or sources, it is nearly POV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nuns at 3:00 PM? Aiiiiiigh! (Article is a statement of a negative, of local interest only, relies upon a slang/local designation.) Geogre 20:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Hey Trophy[edit]

Non-notable, band vanity. Impressing how a 1 year old band can "return to their roots". Unless it is a band composed of plants (hahaha... uhmmm... Sorry) Sarg 18:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thue | talk 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bensko's 7-page Signature[edit]

Nonsense vanity page related to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chris bensko. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took the liberty of speedying this one for obvious reasons. Thue | talk 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tim bits day[edit]

Unverifiable (no google hits for "Tim bits day" at all). Possible hoax. Canadians are welcome to disprove these suspicions. Sarg 19:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly not a widely recognized event. Doubtful this is worthy of an article. Delete. P0per 19:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm half-Canadian and this sounds like a joke to me (Timbits are commonly the subject of such). Doesn't even link to Timbits. Delete DopefishJustin (・∀・) 19:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and send petition to government to have statutory holiday. I am Canadian and have not been invited to such a day, despite my fondness for Timmy's. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummmm, delicous timbits.... Delete Fawcett5 21:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Former Tim Hortons employee here...a definite hoax. - Cafemusique 23:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a hoax, or at least utterly insignificant. There's no such organized national holiday, although I can sort of see "Timbits day" maybe existing as a once-a-month "treats to encourage office morale" day at this user's employer. But even if that's true, it wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia, so delete. Bearcat 02:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax, unreferenced. Internodeuser 13:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not-notable, possible hoax. I am Canadian, and can verify that Timbits are a real thing. However, there is no national Timbits day. I can't speak for the several counties, towns, cities, regions, and whatnot that are free to pass their own "Whatever" days, but any such local events are not notable. --Deathphoenix 18:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GrantNeufeld 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Diablo III[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarg 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all articles about vapourware games. — JIP | Talk 19:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the basis for the claim "Work for this game has already started"? If the claim is verifyable via a respectable source then keep the article in some form, if not then the article is pure speculation and should be deleted. Thue | talk 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are just rumours, which started because GameSpy has a page (currently a blank page with no info) reserved for the game. I haven't been able to find any verifiable info from a reliable source. Sarg 20:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unreleased product, so anything is speculation. Even if work has started, that doesn't mean that a piece of software is going to appear, much less that anything can be said about it. I'm still waiting for Planescape: Torment 2, after all. Geogre 21:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the delete were it not for the fact that, in April, a Prague musician reported that he and his orchestra had been recording the background music for D3. It would therefore appear that the 'crystal ball' in this case may be a just-open window. --Simon Cursitor 10:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a game in development, and will be much-anticipated, and will definitely come. Can be expanded out a lot though. Consider renaming to Diablo III plans. Internodeuser 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good grief. The article is pointless and uninteresting speculation that could easily be in the Diablo II article if it were worthwhile, which is doubtful. It has not been officially confirmed that Blizzard Entertainment is working on Diablo 3. No article until there's something encyclopedic to report. Quale 21:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. carmeld1 03:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is pure speculation at this point and is misleading. Consider change to "Diablo III Rumours" or like if we must have something.kirk2 06:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

JBMod[edit]

Do articles about mini-mods need to be here? I don't think so. Sarg 19:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thue | talk 20:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McClain Siruta[edit]

Odd. I could have sworn I've seen this before. "McClain Siruta is a person with much power. He is a master of Halo and a god of war. He knows of certain things no other individual knows. He will not divulge them due to their highly secret nature." Etc. etc. Vanity, NN. Rl 19:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Martg76 20:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have seen this before then it could be because it is the sixth time it has been deleted... Thue | talk 20:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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; article moved to Esmoriz FC. sjorford →•← 14:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esmoriz fc[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 19:44, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Keep. They play in one of the three regional leagues on the third level, ie. one of the top 100 teams. No reason not to keep it, other countries have articles on clubs on this level, but it should be rewritten. Eixo 20:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Expand and Clean-up. Professional soccer team. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are? Well that changes matters, I was under the impression it was an amateur youth club. In that case, rename it to something properly capitalised and keep. --W(t) 00:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sreekanth Pagadala[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 19:47, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Roach[edit]

  • Delete, non-notable. Revolución 19:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable judging by the number of google hits (444). Let her get some peace. Thue | talk 20:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cowell calls every third act 'the worst ever' so that's no distinction. --Doc (t) 20:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bad precedent if we have articles for people who don't get past the darn admission round, for crying out loud. -Joshuapaquin 04:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if William Hung has an article, why can't she? Most notable bad act of Season 4. 24.226.10.99 02:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hung has been given advertising gigs, live performances, recording contracts, and a movie role for god's sake. Roach has been given nothing. Postdlf 05:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scholarship search[edit]

Not encyclopædic. Perhaps it could be transwikid somewhere, but I don't know where. --W(t) 20:28, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Useful information ... perhaps merged into scholarships page or keep it as stand alone. 69.112.0.6 20:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Mark 16:34, 2005 May 23 (EST)[reply]

(above comment is by the author of the page who has been adding links to his scholarship search engine to lots of pages --W(t) 20:36, 2005 May 23 (UTC))
  • Delete; wikipedia is not a howto. Thue | talk 20:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't have put it better --Doc (t) 20:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to list it on the same grounds myself, but got distracted by other concerns. It also smells spammish. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put in to a web page to help people. Not encyclopaedic, and not international. Internodeuser 13:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Noisy | Talk 16:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Autorune[edit]

This is a hack for the MMORPG RuneScape. I'm not sure, but I don't think this is suitable to be here. Soon we will be having a hundred "crack your Windows XP!!!!11ONE" articles Sarg 20:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. --W(t) 20:46, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, a mention at the RuneScape page (as already exists) seems like an appropriate level of coverage. Thue | talk 20:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The author did in fact add a link to this article at RuneScape, along with what seems like vanity. If this is deleted, I think we should rewrite the "Cheating" part of the RuneScape article. Sarg 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and innacurate - autorune has not worked for some time since jagex encrypted the comms protocol. However there are many people claiming to have a 'fixed' version in an attempt to harvest player accounts/money. So very doubtful about the safety of linking to such. Runefire 21:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, Very Accurate guys, I am currently using the AutoRune bot to level up and currently am 92 80 99, there has been an update to mudclient 201 and it works, learn the news before saying anything.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

N3k0de[edit]

vanity, non-notable, advertising InShaneee 20:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. --W(t) 20:48, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete - if every self-professed group of coders out to change the world actually had a hundredth of the impact they said they would, we'd have sentient computers by now. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maureen mccorry[edit]

Being a high-school teacher doesn't get someone into the encyclopedia. Probably written by a current or former student. Meelar (talk) 20:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I'd call it vanity but the person who wrote this doesn't seem to like her much. Non-notable. - Etacar11 00:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Innnnnnteresting. This is actually an NPOV article. Now I've seen everything. Still, the teacher is not encyclopedic, and the article seems to serve to refer us to a ratemyteachers page. Not our bag, not our service, not appropriate for us. Geogre 03:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impertinent and it does not benefit the needs of the Wikipedia Community. The author of this entry voices sincere apologies to the editors. Davidovic 05:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Virtual device[edit]

"Virtual device" is not a term I've ever seen outside Wikipedia. Windows does have something called a "virtual device driver" (which is probably worth an article) but it's a completely different concept.

The files described in the article actually do exist, but they're called "special files" on Unix, and "device files" on DOS and Windows. Special/device files are actually a bigger topic, because they can represent both real and imaginary devices. But OS designers have never seen the need for a separate name for imaginary devices files. And even if they did, they wouldn't use the word "virtual" -- /dev/null isn't a virtualization of a real device, it's a pure software concept.

This article is now redundant with Device file and needs to go away. It should not become a redirect -- that would perpetuate a creative usage that only exists in the mind of the author. ----Isaac R 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is no neologism, but a term with a very, very long pedigree in UNIX and UNIX-like systems (just like it says in the article). Actually it probably even predates widespread use of UNIX. Here is an example of a RFC document produced by what was to become IETF, RFC 740, dated 1977, that uses the term in a commonplace manner, assuming that the reader understands what it means (and yes, we do). The relationship between virtual devices and special files is that virtual devices (like real devices) are implemented in UNIX using the special file mechanism. The article is wrong but the concept does exist and is distinct from special files. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I was wrong to claim that the term was never used before. But "virtual device" doesn't mean the same thing in that RFC that it does in the article. In the RFC, they're talking about a "virtual terminal", which is a software emulation (a virtualizaton) of a real-world device. In virtual device, "virtual" is used much more loosely, because none of the devices discussed exist outside of software -- you can't go to the computer store and buy a data sink! In other words, "virtual" is just a synonym for "pseudo". I challenge you to find another document where "virtual device" is used to mean "pseudodevice". ----Isaac R 01:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- virtual devices are well known and have a long and painful history. Remember VxDs? Arrgh. -- Cleduc 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isaac obviously does, given that he mentioned "virtual device driver" in his second sentence. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Virtual device is a computing term in operating systems with a long history in Unix and Windows and possibly earlier. Try googling define:Virtual device. Quale 03:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fifth result in that search is this Wikipedia article, which is somewhat self-referential. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
      • And what are the other 4 results? You're talking to the wrong guy about this, since I started using Unix in 1981. Quale 19:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking to the guy who indirectly pointed to this article itself as a reference for demonstrating that the term exists. When you started using Unix is irrelevant. Uncle G 01:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
          • Well, it does make him an authority of sorts on Unix terminology. Then again, I started working with Unix even earlier than that -- and I simply never heard the term "virtual device" used. The man pages refer to things like /dev/null as "special files". ----Isaac R 03:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, I'm impressed. I know a few people who started with Unix in the mid-1970s, but not many. Also, I apologize to Uncle G for my peevishness. Sorry. 165.189.91.148 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Oops, not logged in. Quale 19:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The things actually described in this article are not virtual devices. Linux calls them (character devices with major number 1) "memory devices", for example. The NUL device is not a "virtual device" on MS-DOS, OS/2, and Windows. (It's most often known simply as "the NUL device", given that it is singled out for special treatment.) There are things known as virtual devices, and indeed they are (most commonly) the things provided by virtual device drivers. (It's a shame that Wikipedia conflates virtual device driver with VxD, because that's wrong. Not all VxDs are virtual device drivers, and not all virtual device drivers are VxDs. On OS/2 and Windows NT, for example, virtual device drivers are VDDs.) The serial device seen by DOS softwares running in a Virtual DOS machine is a virtual device, for example. This article is completely wrong, but it isn't lacking for a subject to discuss. Keep and send to Attention. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • OK, I agree. The article does have a real topic -- it just isn't what the author thought it was! ----Isaac R 05:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand. Long history in computing. Megan1967 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pseudo devices. Klonimus 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if there's a virtual device driver, then there is a virtual device. Quite a commonly used computing term. Internodeuser 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. Many virtual device drivers just add features to the Windows kernel, much like Linux kernel modules. Officially, they're not even called Virtual Device Drivers, but rather Virtual Extension Driver -- hence VxD. Etymology does not always follow a logical path. ----Isaac R 00:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please ignorance is no excuse for deletion Yuckfoo 17:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is it an excuse for being rude. ----Yuckfoo2 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 20:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ross Flitney[edit]

I would like to use this article as an example of a type of article which should be deleted. Ross Flitney was formerly a youth goalkeeper at Fulham F.C., he was released on May 23 after making no appearances for the club. Being a reserve player, let alone an ex-reserve player, for a premier league side should not make a person encyclopedic by any stretch of the imagination. Just from the era of the Premier League there could be literally 1000s of virtual sub-stubs like this. At this time of the season dozens of players will be released by Premiership clubs who clearly will not play at that level at any point in the immediate future. I am essentially requesting permission to delete all articles relating to footballers who are released by Premier League sides who have no Premier League experience, although I do not see why these players have articles in the first place.

Rje 20:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, recruitment by a premier league team is an adequate bar. 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Not because he was with a Premier League team, but because he appeared for Brighton on loan [20]. A senior appearance is a good enough criteria for inclusion in my opinion.Leithp 21:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have concerns over Rje's request for carte blanche to delete released premiership players. Are we talking about youth players who have never played, or are we talking about players who have played for other clubs prior to joining a premiership team and have made appearances outside of the top division? Also, I may be misunderstanding the situation, but surely none of these people would meet the criteria for speedy deletion in any case? Shouldn't these all be brought through vfd? I'd appreciate it if you could clarify what the intention is here. Leithp 10:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I understand it, he never appeared in a game as a professional player, correct? If so, then delete. However, my grasp of the structure here could well be incorrect. Meelar (talk) 23:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • According to Leithp he played for Brighton. Kappa 03:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This bloke has played three games before being unemployed. My benchmark for professional soccer players at least 50 games, selection for an international team, or appearance in notable game such as FA Cup or European Cup final. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Capitalistroadster. Megan1967 06:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember his name from playing Football Manager, but he really looks not-notable. On the other hand we have an article about almost every player who was in MLS team squad, and the English Championship where Ross Flitney played with Brighton is a much more competitive league. Abstain for now. Grue 11:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ugen64 20:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Garcilaso De La Vega[edit]

OK, this one is mildly complicated... Three articles exist currently:

1) El Inca Garcilaso de la Vega 2) Garcilaso de la Vega 3) Garcilaso De La Vega - which I put up for deletion, or merging, or redirecting.

The content of #3 refers to #1. However, the name of #3 refers to #2.

I propose redirecting #3 to #2.

Thus my vote is:

I am redirecting this page to Garcilaso de la Vega Hiberniantears 17:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antiquark[edit]

One-sentence "article" on uninteresting sciencecruft. Merge with quark and bah-leet. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A common term in Particle physics. Details indeed should be in Quark. This should be a brief article about a term or (at least) a redirect. May even be found in science sections of major papers. Recently used in Science Section of the New York Times. Quote: "... a reduced amount of charmonium -- a particle that consists of a charm quark paired with an anticharm antiquark -- would be emitted in the presence of a quark-gluon plasma.". (See full text of "At One Trillion Degrees, Even Gold Turns Into the Sloshiest Liquid, The New York Times, April 19, 2005 Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section F; Column 1; Science Desk; Pg. 3, 803 words, By KENNETH CHANG")
  • Keep. Not interesting to you or me but verifiable. It badly needs expansion but not by me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, plenty of other articles are nominated for deletion with the reason that they aren't "interesting", and plenty of people agree... Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 22:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of people are not interested in, say, History of Fiji (no offence, just an example). Doesn't mean it is a VfD candidate for obvious reasons. The fact that most people have a better clue about what's important or not in humanities than in science doesn't make science subjects less encyclopedic. Of course there may be crackpot articles that claim to be about science that are perfect for VfD. So would be articles about really narrow scientific topics. Antiquark is not one of them. Irpen
  • Expand. If that is not possible, then redirect to quark. Eric119 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to quark. There is probably no reason for it to exist a separate article outside the quark article. Nominator's comments display a profound ignorance of particle physics. -- Decumanus 00:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • Who cares if I don't know anything about particle physics? I don't think this article is interesting, which means it should be deleted, just like all the school and Pokemon and "fancruft" articles should be deleted because their nominators think THEY aren't interesting. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I suspected, you nominated this because you have a chip on your shoulder about Pokemon articles being called "fancruft." Trying to make a point with a physics related article is a pretty ridiculous move on your part, and displays an amazing lack of maturity (reflected in your vainglorious user signature as well). -- Decumanus 00:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how it's ridiculous. I think an article is useless, someone else thinks another article is useless, what's the difference? Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Fail" is good word for your behavior. -- Decumanus 00:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
            • OH WOW YOU ARE SO IMPRESSIVE I BOW TO YOUR MIGHTY PENIS. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Careful now. I'd hate to see you get so profane. Personally, I don't mind your barbs, but there are others who prefer a modicum of civility in these discussions. -- Decumanus 00:59, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Expand or redirect to quark. - Etacar11 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I have added a sentence about what happens when a quark and antiquark meet but I'm sure we have some people from a scientific background who can add more than that. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That happens for all antimatter. It's hardly specific to quarks and antiquarks. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. The debate rages on! 01:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The statement added to the article has somewhat of an ambiguous meaning in the context of quarks because they don't "meet" in the sense implied. Free quarks are not observed to exist in nature, but are theorized to be bound in combinations within hadrons. The phenomenon of of creation/annihilation of free quark pairs would, at this time, be extremely speculative. It has validity within the context of QCD scattering theory, but it needs to be put into better context. -- Decumanus 01:24, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Redirect to quark --mav 02:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:POINT. (And no, I don't care if WP:POINT is policy, semi-policy, or ultra-policy.) Ketsuban, if Poké-cruft is your concern, you'd be better off contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Poképrosal rather than disrupting VfD. AиDя01DTALK 03:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not just "Pokecruft", it's also "schoolcruft" and all the other 'cruft that people feel is deleteable just because you can put the suffix "cruft" on it. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 03:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you'd rather be disruptive than contribute constructively to policy discussions? (There's one for the school issue, too.) AиDя01DTALK 04:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirect or separate, I don't know. But keep. DJ Clayworth 04:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to quark, for now. (The article has very little content.) If in the future the antiquark section of quark grows to be unmanageable then split it back out. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three Quarks for Muster Mark. Klonimus 06:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This term is common enough in popular science and physics. Megan1967 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until such time as quark becomes over-fat, at which time split off again. --Simon Cursitor 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with quark. The two concepts are intimately related. Radiant_* 07:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if a one-line article got this much debate, then it must be worth keeping. Add stub tag. Internodeuser 13:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence is misleading, and there's far more content about anti-quarks already in quark, where lots of accompanying context is keeping it warm. Redirect to quark. Uncle G 14:26, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now. Bambaiah 06:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect for now, though re-splitting and expansion will probably be necessary at some point. James F. (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect (with quark). --Macrakis 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only: in my opnion, this is not so much an attempt to be disruptive as it is an attempt to argue a point. (There are many ways to debate. Some people find certain ones more effective.) Given that there appears to be no current general discussion about how to deal with cruft in the context of VFD, I suggest that we start one. - 刘 (劉) 振霖 15:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you are missing the point. Fair enough, she is getting worked up over the cruft. I think that cruft is a stupid reason to delete an article. But just look at this article: It is one sentence! How can that be considered an interesting article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or something like that. Since no one has expanded it, Delete! Sonic Mew 19:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If there is a sensible, non-confusing redirect possible, that's usually a better solution because it tends to limit the recreation of pointless substubs. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Quark, create redirect to Quark BlankVerse ∅ 13:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with and/or Redirect to Quark, there just doesn't seem to be much that is encyclopedic to say about antiquarks as of 2005, I'm sure that may change one day – quite possibly to "Antiquarks were a quaint artifact of the Standard Model". — pcrtalk 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. – ugen64 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link of Hyrule[edit]

Vanity Denni☯ 21:31, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And don't even think of redirecting this to any Zelda-related articles. Nestea 23:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total delete and redirect to Legend of Zelda or something. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, link vanity. Megan1967 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the highly notable fictional character Link (Legend of Zelda) who someone might search for by searching for "Link of Hyrule". Sjakkalle 06:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else would they search for? "Link of Kokiri Forest"? "Link of The Legend of Zelda"? Nestea 21:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't even give his last name! Redirect to Legend of Zelda for the world-famous fictional character who is more notable than this real person will ever be! Wiwaxia 12:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Andre (talk) 00:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. A redirect is unneccessary, as very few people would search for "Link of Hyrule." Sholtar 05:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Sutter[edit]

Notability. Two hits in Google (inbluding Russian Google) about this "Swedish member of Russian NBP party".

"Thomas Sutter is a leading member of the National Bolshevik Party. Sutter is one of the foremost writers associated with the party and is amongst its chief ideologues."

May be a hoax. Irpen 21:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fancruft Judvrd 11:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He exists and has written for various National Bolshevik websites. Agree he is less notable than I thought when I started the article so Delete if desired. Keresaspa
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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? – ugen64 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Jordan[edit]

  • Keep --Lol. Actually most of it is true spankthecrumpet 01:10, 22 May (UTC)
  • Delete vandal vanity. NSR 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a sock-puppet, I am a maize-based snack. 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't there a libel clause for speedy deletion? Delete anyway. DJ Clayworth 04:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a sweet way, of keeping those vandals at bay. dmj27 1131, 24 May (UTC)
  • A definite Keep. A truly fantastic article, enlightening those who read it. sockpuppetcity 15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Personal attack. Quale 19:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy if indeed this is grounds for such) delete --EvilZak 00:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This lad is a disaster, and this article should run to be set as an example to the rest of us, that smoking weed get's us nowhere. random_porter 14:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fantastic read. Had me in stitches
  • Keep. Tu pene es tan pequeño que si te follaras a un ratón, no lo notaría.--Gentleman 13:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How do you know my penis is that small? --Simon_Maynard 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep oooo paaahh, oooo paaahh --Darth_Vader 15:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote is actually by User:131.111.8.101 who voted as spankthecrumpet in another VFD. Please check the history carefully when closing this VFD. Mgm|(talk) 14:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seasarmon[edit]

  • Delete Not notable. Revolución 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see "notability" as a criterion for deletion in the VfD guidelines. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 23:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Game card. Merge details with whatever game deck this comes from. We don't break out every single baseball card in history, with trading values and stats, and we shouldn't be doing it with other card games. Geogre 03:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge somewhere if we don't want to break it out. Kappa 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable - minor game card, cruft. Megan1967 06:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 07:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almafeta 19:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 20:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dorak[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 20:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spurjj[edit]

Non notable. No albums, and even according to what was written in the page they've only played private gigs. On their website it looks like they're playing a birthday party this week. The forums on their website have all of 22 members. CryptoDerk 22:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that the Spurjj entry should stay. The band has potential. After being in contact with a member I've found that there is an Album/EP in the pipeline. Watch this space. User:Aliasnogli 20:21, June 1, 2005
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No allmusic.com entry. No albums. Gamaliel 19:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belthazor[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. – ugen64 20:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bacara[edit]

  • Delete fancruft. Revolución 23:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a "notable commanders" section on Clone troopers. Suggest doing the same with the other "notable" commanders pages, if they are not too bloated. — RJH 17:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RJH, or keep since there's no real need to merge. Kappa 19:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. – ugen64 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Anderson (hellsing)[edit]

  • Delete fancruft. Revolución 23:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand up to standard of other entries on major Hellsing characters: ie, picture, bio, info about Manga and Anime versions, weapons, trivia etc. Also, I think this probably needs copyediting --KharBevNor 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per KhabBevnor. Kappa 05:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, fan cruft. Megan1967 06:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (WP:FICT) Radiant_* 07:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hellsing Article was far too long and unwieldy with main character info included. When I have time I'll retrieve the info on Anderson from one of the older versions of Hellsing and then beef it up a bit. --KharBevNor 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There was nothing too much on Alexander Anderson or Enrico Maxwell. Move it back to Hellsing page. George Leung
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. – ugen64 20:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enrico Maxwell[edit]

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

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

Hellenic Genocide[edit]

note that similarly-titled Hellenic Holocaust redirects to Greco-Turkish relations

Why is this article still here? There are 16 legitimate registered votes for delete against 5 legitimate registered keeps. --E.A 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • That's because there wasn't an full article or someone deleted it. Now there is so the redirect now goes to Hellenic Genocide which is specific to the topic while Greco-Turkish relations is a general heading. There is no mention of the Pogroms in Istanbul/Constantinople or the ethnic cleansing of the islands of Imbros or Tenedos nor the massacres of the Ottomans, nor are there detialed facts and figures or dates which are on the Hellenic Genocide page. --Argyrosargyrou 13:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the previous info about copyvio has been removed b/c the copyvio has been resolved Feco 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Delete[edit]

{sign your vote with ~~~~}

  • Delete Greeks still do not understand that it was a WAR, and this is what happens in a war: people die. An equal amount of Turks were massacered by Greeks. They have to get over it, Venizelos did! Why disrespect your own rulers, just to hurt Turk's prestige in world?
  • DeletePOV rant by a Greek nationalist who is currently under a 24 hour block for his 3RR on Cyprus dispute.

Delete this mess. Why nobody talks about the Turkish casualties. Turks were in the majority in most of the cities which are now in Greece. Where did they go? Did they vanish suddenly! No, the evil Greeks killed them and now playin the victim. RickK 23:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV rant. Revolución 23:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:RickK. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insulting, vulgar and a blatant attempt to politicise Wikipedia --E.A 16:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV rant. carmeld1 23:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After the Greeks were defeated, Venizelos and Ataturk made an agreement to exchange the populations. Around a million Greek left Anatolia while around 400.000 Turks left Greece. That is what happened to missing Greek population. Greeks were defeated in the war and Lausanne Treaty is the end. What is Hellenic Genocide??? Hypocricy! Unbelievably insulting and subjective...POV rant -Cansın 3.20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV rant. feyz 4:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too POV to be salvaged. Xcali 05:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sholtar 14:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nothing more than an anti-Turkish rant - there was an article once about the Asia Minor catastrophe... ? - Snchduer 21:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a huge anti-Turkish campaign going on in this encyclopedia with loads of sockpuppets.Yuber(talk) 02:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm changing my vote from keep to delete. I would've liked to see the article kept and improved upon (per my original keep vote below), but the course of debate in the entire Greek/Turkey/Cyprus family of articles indicates that the 'owners' of the articles are not receptive to anyone else's contribution. Delete the mess and start again. Feco 14:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Discussions on Wikipedia are supposed to be debates where views can be aired, not where name-calling and deleting are the rule. When people even criticize for taking the edge off posts in order to comply with wikipedia's rules, then you know that their motives are against the spirit and the rule of this online encyclopedia. Expatkiwi(talk) 19:18, 29 May 2005
  • Delete due to 'authors' probably slanderous attacks on other Wikipedians, over-POV'ness, probably copyvio, possibly voting sockpuppetry, and duplication.--Kiand 20:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a possible article here, but it's not this one, and it's not clear that it could be written (or, rather, that it would stay in an acceptable form) at the moment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. -- ChrisO 07:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote to Keep:[edit]

  • keep-My family lost many members, the Turkish Regular army stubbed and burned pregnant woman and kids, my Grandmother survived with couple knife wounds played dead jumped through a window and headed to the mountains and stayed there 'till the exchange of population.

My Grandfathers side had the same fate.

Were Greeks prosecuted because religion and race? Absolutely, Elias Konstantin

The Resolutions speak for themselves. Keep the page.

  • Keep - Most interesting article with true facts that seem to "hurt" some Turkish people. It is about time for the Turkish authorities to accept the ATTROCITIES which they have carried out during the last century against the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds!


  • Keep Count my vote to keep this page. The Greek Genocide committed by the Turks has been officially recognized by Greece and the States of New York, New Jersey, South California and Georgia. The historical facts proving the Genocide are testified by the books of two US diplomats, Ambassador Morgentau and Consul Horton.
Argyrosargyrou 22:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC) - Deleted personal attack. RickK 22:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should be kept. (Revision as of 14:18, 26 May 2005 134.58.253.113)
  • Keep Excellent and accurate work! Well done! I vote to keep this page (Revision as of 10:38, 26 May 2005 212.205.252.139 )
  • Keep I also vote to keep this page. (Revision as of 10:53, 26 May 2005 24.61.109.180)
  • Keep. There is substantial evidence that the genocides commited by the Turks in the years between 1908 and 1923 (Armenian, Hellenic, Assyrian and others) are a fact, involving the extermination and deportation of millions. The fact that after decades of a fruitless denial, Turkey still cannot come to grips with these facts, does not make it reasonable not to present them or consider them disputable. A genocide does not have to be recognised by its perpetrators to actually be a genocide.--Spryom 12:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's second edit to Wikipedia. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your entry is inaccurate, but above all irrelevant. It could have been my 1st or 1.000.000th edit, the argument remains that the page describes facts and should be kept.--Spryom 15:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--. History of genocide must not be suppressed to serve political expediency. Argyrosargyrou 12:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argyrosargyrou, rallying all of your friends/sock puppets to vote keep won't do a bit of good if they don't have established Wikipedia accounts. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Karol 13:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain your vote. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The articles of US and British newspapers of that period confirm the genocide that took place in Minor Asia and resulted to the extermination of all non christians. Please keep this page. Mark Tomson. USA
  • Keep This is an excellent factual contribution providing information on a Gewnocide that has been hidden for too long because it is denied by the perpetrators, the Turks, who now are trying to remove it. It is a fact that probably a minimum of 1 million Greeks were murdered in a systematic act of genocide, and that fact should never be forgotten. In order to check facts, one only has to check census figures collected by the Ottoma\n Empire for minirities. Only the heads of households were counted. Where are those hundreds of thousands of heads of households now? Where are their families? Denying the facts of genocide permits genocide to be committed. This Genocide is a fact, as was the Genocide of the Armenians, now recognised by more countries each year, in spite of the insistance by Turkey that it never happened. To not have this article would be to politicise Wikipedia. For an introduction to this subject read a book written by a contemporary witness, US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, read 'The Blight of Asia', available to read online and in bookstores.
  • Keep The turks are responsible for the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Genocide and the EU is starting to press forward with this issue.. it seems that turkish propaganda is playing a detremental role. Until this very day churches are confiscated. By deleting this article, means that were are giving in to barbarism and lies. Hopefully this is not what wikipedia is about.
  • Keep I think this is a well written article. The Turks should come to terms with their own history and stop being stubborn about it. Germany is a great example of a country that has repented for their sins. The European Union are pressing Turkey for this issue and also to have relations with Armenia. What are Turks afraid of anyway, true free ethnic equality?
  • Weak Keep The topic is noteworthy in spite of the obvious problems with the current content. Whether the article content is accurate or POV should not drive the deletion decision. Those can be fixed via editing and fact checking. The debate surrounding the historical facts is relevant and there is content available to fix this article's content. Having an article about this topic is appropriate. My only reservations are about the chances of this article successfully reaching NPOV status. Due to the controversial nature of the subject matter I expect that will be a challenge. Tobycat 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Note that I am not a sockpuppet). I posted a blurb to the article's talk page before it was VfD'ed, but I'll post again here. The article as it stands now is a POV rant with major factual inaccuracies/distortions. I had suggested renaming to a less-inflammatory title or merging with other articles, but facts that I can find are scattered through several other Greek/Greece/Turkey/Turkish articles. It is a historical fact that Greek people were forcibly removed from Turkey, just like Turks were forcibly removed from Greece, Armenians from Turkey, etc. Pretty much every ethinc/national group in that region has been on the top and the bottom of the hierarchy at one time or another. All of these events are pretty important, if little-known, historical facts (read anything about the region by Robert D. Kaplan for some great predictions). They helped lead to WWI and WWII... may lead to WWIII. The entire family of articles about Balkan history needs a ton of work, but I don't know nearly enough to do anything. Sadly, most of the people who do know enough seem to be from the region, so they bring a strong POV to editing. Feco 22:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (changed my vote to delete) Feco 14:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but preferably merge parts. For example, the section on Cyprus should be merged with Turkish Cypriot Genocide and moved to some neutral article title discussing allegations of both sides. --Delirium 00:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article should be keeped: it presents some kind of actual historic information which does not exist in other places of Wikipedia. Behaviour of both sides involved into the discussion should not be treated as reason to delete information, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion. I think the article simply needs to be cleared up and extended with references to information sources. --Gvorl 13:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The truth must be told! Read "the Blight of Asia" by George Horton, why would he lie?

Additional Comments:[edit]

Could do with expanding, to cover Crusader genocide, British Imperialist genocide, Christian genocide (of all faiths other than their own, and all pagans), and probably the genocide committed by polar bears on seals. Entire Wiki on its own, here. --Simon Cursitor 07:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Learn a little bit about Turkey and Turks...Most of the people living in Turkey who identify themselves as Turk are not ethnically Turkish. How anybody claim that Turks in Turkey are ethnically Turk? We are so mixed up. Armenian/Greek/Kurd/Arab/Turk/Caucasian...etc.They mixed up for centuries...The states in Anatolia during the 13th and 14th century were Byzantinum, basically Christian, then most of them converted to Islam due to the political and business reasons...Don't you see: We are same except religion...I travelled extensively in Greece, I love Greece and Greek people..I never had any bad experience in Greece, and when I shut my ears, everybody look like the people you can run accross anywhere in Turkey. Leave this hatred propaganda...We fought because of religion difference, the war ended 90 years ago, and Greek army was defeated. Leave it behind...Come and see Turkey, have Turkish friends...enjoy peace! -Cansın 19.08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Dear Cansin, there is no hatred propaganda. Greece and Turkey will be neighbouring forever. It would be a major step towards peace though, to help Turkey stop the denial approach of history and recognise the genocides. History always speaks about the past. Leaving it behind is forgetting history, which is not the right choice. In what concerns your references to Byzantium and Anatolia, well, this is your personal pov and I do not agree. The Ottomans were quite tolerant with other religions and ethnic tribes. The Young Turks however, were not tolerant. 20th century, that's when Anatolia stopped being a "mixed up" (multiethnic I would describe it) area.--Spryom 07:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed double vote by: 24.61.109.180

I find it suspicious that only 3 out of the 9 Keeps are registered users, and that the anonymous contributors have only ever voted on this article and done nothing else.

Argyrosargyrou using multiple IP's is vandalism. --E.A 14:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using multiple IP's --Argyrosargyrou 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC) -- deleted personal attack RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is manipulating the vote page an offense in wikipedia (please, Agryro, explain your edits here) - Agryro's edits? If sb does not have an account on wikipedia, will their vote be counted? Will it be counted if they sign with their IP only? - Snchduer 13:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • People with accounts forgot to sign it as well and it was not me that started editing this page and listing peoples votes under headings, it was E.A who also removed peoples comments which he did not agree with, which I restored. Someone needs to rewrite the script for vote pages so it automatically includes username of IP address and does not allow multiple voting or comments to be deleted. People who are not members are equally entitled to vote since they are the ones searching for information and as shown above they want this information to stay. --Argyrosargyrou 13:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make us look for what you allege, provide diffs! Also, it would be nice to put on the top of every vote page a hint on how to sign your vote, and when votes will not be considered. - Snchduer 13:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided the information and then Feco went an removed it. Here it is agian complet with IP addresses and user names of the people who forgot to sign. --Argyrosargyrou 10:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • removed what?!?! What exactly did I remove? Are you referring to when I changed my vote from keep to delete? I notice my old keep vote somehow made it onto your list below... I marked it with a strike to indicate that I no longer vote keep. Feco 17:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count my vote to keep this page. The Greek Genocide committed by the Turks has been officially recognized by Greece and the States of New York, New Jersey, South California and Georgia. The historical facts proving the Genocide are testified by the books of two US diplomats, Ambassador Morgentau and Consul Horton. (Revision as of 11:18, 27 May 2005 81.240.248.162)

Keep This page should be kept. (Revision as of 21:27, 27 May 2005 Dionis) Keep This page should be kept. (Revision as of 14:18, 26 May 2005 134.58.253.113) Keep Excellent and accurate work! Well done! I vote to keep this page (Revision as of 10:38, 26 May 2005 212.205.252.139 ) Keep I also vote to keep this page. (Revision as of 10:53, 26 May 2005 24.61.109.180) Count my vote to keep this page. The area where Turkey is now was full of Greeks. Now there are just a handful. The number of those that made it out of that area is only a fraction to the number that were once in that area. What happened to the missing? (Revision as of 13:14, 26 May 2005 24.61.109.180) Keep. There is substantial evidence that the genocides commited by the Turks in the years between 1908 and 1923 (Armenian, Hellenic, Assyrian and others) are a fact, involving the extermination and deportation of millions. The fact that after decades of a fruitless denial, Turkey still cannot come to grips with these facts, does not make it reasonable not to present them or consider them disputable. A genocide does not have to be recognised by its perpetrators to actually be a genocide.--Spryom 12:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC) User's second edit to Wikipedia. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Keep--. History of genocide must not be suppressed to serve political expediency. Argyrosargyrou 12:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Argyrosargyrou, rallying all of your friends/sock puppets to vote keep won't do a bit of good if they don't have established Wikipedia accounts. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Keep Karol 13:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC) Please explain your vote. RickK 20:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Keep The articles of US and British newspapers of that period confirm the genocide that took place in Minor Asia and resulted to the extermination of all non christians. Please keep this page. Mark Tomson. USA (Revision as of 21:19, 26 May 2005 212.70.194.23) Keep This is an excellent factual contribution providing information on a Gewnocide that has been hidden for too long because it is denied by the perpetrators, the Turks, who now are trying to remove it. It is a fact that probably a minimum of 1 million Greeks were murdered in a systematic act of genocide, and that fact should never be forgotten. In order to check facts, one only has to check census figures collected by the Ottoma\n Empire for minirities. Only the heads of households were counted. Where are those hundreds of thousands of heads of households now? Where are their families? Denying the facts of genocide permits genocide to be committed. This Genocide is a fact, as was the Genocide of the Armenians, now recognised by more countries each year, in spite of the insistance by Turkey that it never happened. To not have this article would be to politicise Wikipedia. For an introduction to this subject read a book written by a contemporary witness, US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, read 'The Blight of Asia', available to read online and in bookstores. (Revision as of 22:09, 26 May 2005 AnnaL) Keep The turks are responsible for the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Genocide and the EU is starting to press forward with this issue.. it seems that turkish propaganda is playing a detremental role. Until this very day churches are confiscated. By deleting this article, means that were are giving in to barbarism and lies. Hopefully this is not what wikipedia is about. (Revision as of 10:41, 27 May 2005 62.252.32.14) Keep I think this is a well written article. The Turks should come to terms with their own history and stop being stubborn about it. Germany is a great example of a country that has repented for their sins. The European Union are pressing Turkey for this issue and also to have relations with Armenia. What are Turks afraid of anyway, true free ethnic equality? (Revision as of 20:09, 27 May 2005 138.5.97.153) Weak Keep The topic is noteworthy in spite of the obvious problems with the current content. Whether the article content is accurate or POV should not drive the deletion decision. Those can be fixed via editing and fact checking. The debate surrounding the historical facts is relevant and there is content available to fix this article's content. Having an article about this topic is appropriate. My only reservations are about the chances of this article successfully reaching NPOV status. Due to the controversial nature of the subject matter I expect that will be a challenge. Tobycat 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Keep. (Note that I am not a sockpuppet). I posted a blurb to the article's talk page before it was VfD'ed, but I'll post again here. The article as it stands now is a POV rant with major factual inaccuracies/distortions. I had suggested renaming to a less-inflammatory title or merging with other articles, but facts that I can find are scattered through several other Greek/Greece/Turkey/Turkish articles. It is a historical fact that Greek people were forcibly removed from Turkey, just like Turks were forcibly removed from Greece, Armenians from Turkey, etc. Pretty much every ethinc/national group in that region has been on the top and the bottom of the hierarchy at one time or another. All of these events are pretty important, if little-known, historical facts (read anything about the region by Robert D. Kaplan for some great predictions). They helped lead to WWI and WWII... may lead to WWIII. The entire family of articles about Balkan history needs a ton of work, but I don't know nearly enough to do anything. Sadly, most of the people who do know enough seem to be from the region, so they bring a strong POV to editing. Feco 22:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (changed my vote to delete) Feco 17:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The anonymous votes were removed becaused they removed the 'deletes':

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FHellenic_Genocide&diff=14258981&oldid=14258649

And Argyrosargyrou made no attempt to reinsate the deletes, but instead contributed to the vandalised version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FHellenic_Genocide&diff=14262531&oldid=14258649

Which is why i removed all the anonymous one time contributors, and left only registered Wikipedia votes, which even now account for no more than 4 Keeps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FHellenic_Genocide&diff=14269403&oldid=14268391 --E.A 14:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are the one that Vandalised this page not me. See, you have already admitted to it.--Argyrosargyrou 14:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time: provide proof! Checking the changes E.A made, I do not find anything wrong. If you do, please provide the proof, instead of posting unbased allegations. - Snchduer 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Las Caboscas[edit]

Probable vanity article. A "great example of mid 90's rock" that doesn't Google and "was rarely heard". Delete, unless there is some evidence that they meet any of the Wikipedia music guidelines. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it does not appear to meet music notability. This should have received a music-importance tag and not a VfD. Vegaswikian 04:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet wikipedia music notability, band vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Walter Machemehl[edit]

Non-notable. Denni☯ 23:47, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • Delete only 18 Google hits. Revolución 23:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bits of the article seem to be a copyvio from [22] — P Ingerson (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some copyvio from the linked article, which is an obit, so this is also a memorial. Quale 03:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a page created by a relative or friend. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site or family web page. -Husnock 05:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: copyvio, memorial, neither of which belongs here.--Mitsukai 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geriatocracy[edit]

59 google hits, likely neologism. Many google hits are to Wikimedia sites and Wikipedia mirrors. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merd[edit]

A programming language being developed by an independent programmer. Its Sourceforge site indicates that "nothing is really usable yet" and that the project has been on hold since late 2003. Delete until this language is at least in beta and in use by someone. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has not reached beta stage, thus not noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Merde, if such an article exists, or indicate the misspelling of the French scatalogical term. Geogre 03:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfinished, non-notable project. Quale 03:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Wow, it would really go over big in France. -- Cleduc 03:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why would anyone write a vanity page about their project they gave up on two years ago? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet; lacks final "e". Oh, and not notabl. Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball Xcali 05:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_23&oldid=1081092866"