Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 8 May 10 >

May 9[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. —Xezbeth 11:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Syfer Jaxis[edit]

Pure fanfiction with no basis in Star Wars mythology. Delete-worthy. - Jon Hart

  • Delete 0 Google hits, probably fanfic or RPG character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We do document fanfiction -- but only that which is actually read by other fans! ---Isaac R 03:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 Google hits for "syfer jaxis" Stancel 16:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-canonical, no verifiable significance. Per WP:FICT, WP carries material about fanfic only if it becomes so widely known as to meet encyclopedic standards of its own accord. Barno 18:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • d r3m0t talk 22:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable or notable. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 12 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. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Luis and Patty[edit]

no hits on Google for "Luis and Patty" + Shakespeare

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 11:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kim[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. Delete. —Markaci 2005-05-9 T 01:23 Z

delete!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Solomon W. Golomb[edit]

Totals:

Delete: <1> RickK
Keep  : <11> JarlaxleArtemis, Zzyzx11, Nunh-huh, Samaritan, Megan1967, Capitalistroadster, Klonimus, Kappa, Charles Matthews, JIP, Stancel
  • Delete; is this professor really important enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? → JarlaxleArtemis 01:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has written a number of academic books. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, "this professor" is really important enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Rather more important than that, in fact. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Okay. When I saw this article, the only contents it contained were "Currently Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Southern California". → JarlaxleArtemis 01:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • JarlaxleArtemis: Next time, you should look up Google et al. before you post articles on VFD. This mistake was the primary reason why my recent RFA ended with a 15/8/2 no consensus vote... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, nominators should check What links here - a well-meaning newcomers writes a very limited substub on legitimate redlinks, and if all we see is the weak substub and not the inbound links... (Strong keep, of course, not that it's any longer really in question...) Samaritan 03:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 05:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Notable engineering professor. Well done to the people who expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable professor. I'm starting to think that every tenured professor at four-year or graduate school is worthy of inclusion. I might add that he invented the Golomb ruler Klonimus 07:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the "average professor test" easily, and probably the new "tenure test". Kappa 09:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well known in recreational mathematics and a wanted page. Charles Matthews 09:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, very notable professor. — JIP | Talk 09:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, very notable professor. He helped inspire Tetris! And he received a medal and did many other things. Definitely deserves an article. Stancel 16:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable popularizer and investigator of polyominoes, Golomb rulers, and other areas of recreational mathematics. Gdr 20:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close VfD[edit]

  • I think we have a concensus for inclusion. Klonimus 09:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have closed this discussion given the overwhelming keep vote, and the immense improvement to the article--nixie 09:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but no. While I agree that the article should be kept, the suggested procedures for 'speedy keeping' have been shot down by consensus on grounds of them being too easily abusable. Please wait for five days before closing a VfD. Radiant_* 13:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's really daft--nixie 22:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. There should not be precedent for closing a VfD within nine hours of being created simply because there haven't been any delete votes so far. Similarly, I would strongly disagree to speedy a VfD after nine hours if it didn't get any keep votes. Five days isn't that long. Radiant_* 07:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • There have been cases where a plausible hoax would have been kept if the vote had been closed within a few hours of listing. --Carnildo 19:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I see it we have a unanamous decision to keep. No point in cluttering up VfD with articles about which a speedy decision for inclusion can be made. Klonimus 23:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Delete. There, that will keep it open for the appropriate length of time, as is decreed by consensus and protocol. WP:POINT (the last pointed at myself) RickK 23:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
            • RickK do you really need to stoop to this level of immaturity? We all know you are a deletionist, but this is rediculous. Klonimus 04:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No personal attacks, Klonimus. Also, a saying about a kettle comes to mind. Radiant_* 07:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
              • Don't try to ramrod violations of procedure and I wouldn't have to. RickK 05:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose closing discussion early. Keep the article, but wait the five days. MWOT. Andrewa 02:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should be kept as well, but process should be followed. Wait five days, the article is in no danger of being deleted. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 12 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. I will also speedy related articles that have the same content. —Xezbeth 08:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cliff Condak[edit]

you guessed it - "...is an illustrator." This is getting out of hand. 82 google hits. Grutness|hello? 01:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, very short article with no context. —Korath (Talk) 03:01, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, Korath is correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, micro stub. Megan1967 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not enough to even verify the existence of the articles subject. --Allen3 talk 17:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy — Sebastian (talk) 00:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • delete nn - but is someone going to nominate the dozens of other similar articles created by the same person??--Doc Glasgow 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclined to agree that this is a speedy delete, articles case #1. Maybe let this one go through VfD now it's this far, but the others could just disappear. Andrewa 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a speedy. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 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. —Xezbeth 18:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Abdul Hussain Abdul Reza[edit]

8 Google hits, all (or most) of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Hoax. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably not a hoax. He's probably only known among Kuwaitis, who speak and write Arabic. so I don't think that Google would have many English results with his name. If I knew how to transliterate his name into Arabic, maybe Google would have more hits. But I don't know Arabic. Stancel 16:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "probably" doesn't cut it. Unless you have evidence that he's notable, your vote is disruptive. RickK 23:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply How was my vote "disruptive"? Sheesh Stancel 01:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a good-faith vote to me. Kappa 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all a good-faith vote. Anything and everything could be "probably not a hoax". RickK 19:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • While I agree with that logic, I think that Stancel has a reasonable point in this case (an Arabic name) and is voting with his/her conscience. Kappa 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable unless proven otherwise by author or somebody else. --Lenev 00:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to verify the subject's existance. --Carnildo 20:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable. Quale 05:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 12 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. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Colton stombaugh[edit]

Delete. Vanity. -- Trivial 01:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. If you read carefully, it currently is really plausible-sounding nonsense -- a joke article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nonsense, and having "The man, the myth, the legend" in it should be a speedy criterion in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 05:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete joke juvenile vanity. -- Infrogmation 05:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's amusing vanity nonsense, but not remotely plausible-sounding: "No doctor was present, so he had to perform his own birth ... He was drafted number one in all major sports ... He is currently on the verge of finding a cure for cancer, AIDS, and death." Speedy delete.--Metropolitan90 06:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gasermatiladme[edit]

Not certain about suggesting deletion of this one, and hopefully someone will be able to fill in more details, but the three key words in this rarticle (Gasermatiladme, Seriladmen, and Nakabuderamis) each return zero hits on google other than in copies of this article. Neither are any of them listed in my ancient Encyclopaedia Britannica. But it doesn't really smell hoax to me. Anyone here know enough of the ancient history of (where? Central Asia?) to say for sure? Grutness|hello? 01:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From this point, I'm adding Shulaiapith V to this VfD. It's the only inbound to Gasermatiladme, and is itself an orphan. Like Gasermatiladme, only hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Samaritan 01:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as unverifiable unless referenced. Samaritan 01:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, couldn't find it in some academic sources either, almost certainly phoney. --Zero 12:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- bears no resemblance to history. Suspect seed for further spam/vandalism. --Simon Cursitor 13:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Certainly a hoax because any capital of a kingdom would definitely get alot of hits. And this "king" doesn't get any hits either except wiki mirrors.
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would certainly be one of the more odd hoaxes we've seen, however as it is completely unverifiable, nuke it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:41, 13 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. —Xezbeth 18:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rakovism[edit]

Delete as hoax: Rakovism and Nhils Dercher do not exist on Google, and Apollinaire was a poet and art critic, not a painter. Kelly Martin 02:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Speedy as hoax/deliberate misinformation. We have a Nhils Dercher article, also created by an anon today, though that one gives a different definition of Rakovism. My guess is that "Nhils Dercher" is some sort of anagram or letter-substitution code for something, probably the author's name, and that both articles are total hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete, certainly unverifiable, likely deliberate hoax. -- Infrogmation 05:22, 9 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. – Rich Farmbrough 12:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empiere of Moravia[edit]

Not notable. It looks like it has been deleted once before on 9 December 2004. The related page Self-proclaimed Emperors of Moravia and its "government" is also vfd Bollar 02:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete "...is a Micronation..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, micronation cruft. Megan1967 05:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Only google hit for "Empiere of Moravia" is deleteion note from last time. This is not the historic Empire of Moravia. -- Infrogmation 05:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard micronation vanity article. Average Earthman 07:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Great Moravia. Martg76 11:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What does one have to do with the other? RickK 23:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes it's a micronation, but that's not why I'm voting delete. Only notable micronations should get their own article, like for example Rose Island. Stancel 17:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 23:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. I am from Czech Republic and would hear about that. Pavel Vozenilek 11:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE-1th I couldn't create an own website yet.2.the newpapers around here are so greedy they want payment for such a publication,or they told me that either im a freak,cook,weirdo,pervert,madman,etc.etc.etc. or said they have no rome,time or will.Consider it this way:if you would bust your brains out to actually get so,ethink noted,for what you have only paper-evidence(inpenendance proclamations,calls to the people,etc...)and you dont have a skaner,you hope the people will belive you.And if they dont,you have full right to be angry.And if people dont trust one-another anymore,then i ges the worlds gome more to heck than i thought.The principe of a micronation is as far as i know CLAIM and PROCLAMATION.This page does not say(to the best of my knowledge) that in order to be listed here you need a WEBSITE.The first king of Redobda also didnt have a homepage,yet is still recognised.The island also doesnt have any newpaper as far as i know curently,so no newsaper IN REDONDA mentioned the CLAIM for redonda's THRONE.Another thing-why cant a person proclaim a micronation HERE and not be acused of VANDALISM?I could also complain how i used,under various other nicks,knock my Brains out to MODIFY this site nad what do i GET?The COLD SHOULDER,thats what.PEOPLE,have a heart.Besides i've got a internet newpaper (www.solokapr.cz)in witch,"under circumstances"(thats what one of its editors told me)"my case" could be presented.Wait a 2,2 weeks and see(its wery far into the centre of thet newspaper from my home and i need to get all materials together.

Your ever-so angry David.

Ps:If there wasnt i you STILL woildnt have the deposed monarchs lists from the 19th-before the 17th century.Think about what YOU write in articles and THEN re-consider your aproach on maters,such as Deletion,even though the said thing does not technicaly range beyond the limits of the describsion of a certain subject(i repete the generals for a MICRONATION:A PROCLAMATIOn and NO RECOGNITION.

PPS:To rick:the "nation" claims succession of the "Greta Morava" state.


PPPS:to Boller:Well,that was not my work,but i think it could have been one of my asociates,to witch i spoke on the Matter.

PPPPS:to all the others-you have no trust to anybody,if you cannot trust another persons sworn word.I SWEAR on MY LIFE that this is true.If this is igonred,then all MY TRUST for other peoples words seams not in fashion.

The above was written by 85.70.52.185 at 16:09 and 16:16, 12 May 2005. Contributions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 16:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strond Delete. Non-Notable, possible kook entry (see rant above). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable - a self-proclaimed nation that "DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ITS WEBPAGE?" :) Matt ෙ 14:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE-YOU WANTED RECOGNITION ILL GIVE YOU RECOGNITION on: http://www.kingnicholas.com/2005/05/international-diplomacy.html

the page of a micronation you RECOGNISED AS SUCH is the information on my

comunication with Nicholas I, of the Copeman Empiere and his "response",when

you click on it enholds:

"I certainly see no problem in recognising your empire's existence. "

How's them aples?

Your ever so PLEASED Tomislav I. or as some of my oponents here could write 85.70.52.185

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merged with Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Golbez 18:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hssp[edit]

Advert, and very little content, even if it were notable. Delete The JPS 03:02, 9 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. —Xezbeth 07:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ray's Pizza[edit]

Is there a purpose to this page? I could see so if they were all a part of one particular company as franchises, but as the article reads, it's just a coincidence. That's like trying to talk about Tommy's Burgers in LA, where there are tons of places there (including the regionally-famous company of that name). A cute piece of minutae isn't enough to earn this a wiki entry, IMHO. --Mitsukai 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it's interesting, though I wonder if it could be merged somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Wikipedia, I wrote the article. Not to be rude, but why did you call my article "nonsense" and "speedy" delete it earlier? I looked at the procedures for deleting and I don't think my article is "nonsense." Frankly, if you're going to insult articles people write and blank them out immediately, I think your attitude to contributors is awful. And if you don't live in New York--which you obviously don't--you don't have any right to decide whether an article about Ray's Pizza is nonsense. Oh well, off my soapbox for now... Thanks for reading.
  • By the way, did you mention Tommy's?
  • I'm assuming you deleted my Kennedy Fried Chicken contribution earlier, too? Please don't be a jerk.
    • The last three edits were by 66.65.88.245, whose contributions to Wikipedia have included, in total, the article being considered here, his comments to this vfd, and a minor vandalism of "hybrid". Cheers. -- BDAbramson thimk 04:06, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't touch your Kennedy Fried Chicken article. And insults aren't going to get anywhere. The point I am trying to make is that if you are talking about one particular chain of Ray's Pizza, that would be a case. But you're talking about several Ray's Pizza, not a particular chain. Yes, there's is Tommy's in LA, just as the article states. But being from LA myself, I know of at least fourteen other non-related burger joints in LA by the same name and have nothing to do with the Tommy's of that regard. Doing an article on one particular chain is fine, but what is the purpose of doing an article on a bunch of restaurants in the area whose only link is that they have the same name? It's not a single particular company you're talking about, it's a single coincidence. If there's a Ray's Pizza company that owns 17 restaurants in NYC, that's Wikiworthy, IMHO. But if there just happens to be seventeen unrelated Ray's Pizza places that just happen to have similar names, that's one for the phone books, not Wikipedia. --Mitsukai 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's notable is the confusion surrounding Ray's Pizzas and their relation to one another, which has bitten many a newcomer to the city. And the so-called justification "NONSENSE" for deleting my article is simply a lie, and insulting to boot. Just because you don't know what an article is referring to doesn't make it NONSENSE. Come on.

But hey, I suppose maybe you don't know what the word "nonsense" means.

  • Conditional keep, cleanup - if it can be verified that there are any truly notable "Ray's Pizza" locations (and given the description that there used to be one on every corner, at least some may have been)... I'd stretch so far as to say that with so many locations boasting the name, the earliest user may be inherently notable for having been the first "Ray's Pizza". -- BDAbramson thimk 04:10, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability. K1Bond007 04:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "there are dozens of establishments named Ray's Pizza". RickK 04:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? (Delete) this is just... it's like copyrighting "Joe's Diner". It's... it's so generic, it's boredom-inducing. I'll go back to Vfd'ing non-notable bands thank you very much. Master Thief Garrett 05:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, if there's something appropriate to merge it with. I agree with User:Starblind: it's interesting.--Plainsong 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Interesting" is not encyclopedic. RickK 06:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps not. But this article does have the potential to become encyclopedic, if it's not already. That's good enough for me.--Canoeguy81 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It describes a well-documented phenomenon. And it relates to trademark law -- which every Internet geek should be interested in. And it's interesting :-p ---Isaac R
  • Weak Keep - There's a known flap about the Ray's Pizza establishment in New York City. If anyone can find out what it's about and what the outcome was, it would make an interesting article. Trylobyte 06:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the unaffiliated Ray's Pizzas didn't claim superiority or originality over each other, they would arguably be nonnotable, but many of them do. This is an interesting controversy dating back years; Google Groups has references to the Ray's dispute dating back to 1989. --Metropolitan90 06:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User has 15 edits.
    • In support of my previous comment, I would like to point out that the ubiquity of Ray's Pizzas has been referenced on such shows as The Simpsons and Seinfeld: KRAMER (on telephone): I miss home, and I don't even know how to get there. JERRY: What's around you? KRAMER: I'm lookin' at Ray's Pizza. You know where that is? JERRY: Is it Famous Ray's? KRAMER: No. It's Original Ray's. JERRY: Famous Original Ray's? KRAMER: It's just Original, Jerry! If somebody adds a section about "Ray's Pizza in popular culture," will it have a chance?--Metropolitan90 15:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep!!! not to support the above tone of whoever wrote the article, but "Ray's Pizza", as a concept, is a VERY important NYC establishment that deserves to be here, regardless of who owns them and despite the controversy. they really really are on every block. On the Daily Show someone once told jon stewart that she lived "by the starbucks," and his instant response was "that's like saying you live by the Ray's!!" "Ray's" as a whole, not the first one, not the legal battle, not the one company that owns seventeen, but the concept, the Ray's on Every Corner. It's that sort of place, something that is inextricably linked with the very idea of pizza- and just as strongly, the city itself- for virtually anyone who lives in the city. It is absolutely notable, not in any way equivalent to some 15 year old kid's garage band or someone promoting his copyright on "Joe's Diner". The world is a big place, and to the millions living in New York, Ray's is very significant. Most people think of the Statue of Liberty or the empire state building when they think of New York; most people who live there think of Ray's. It is part of home. --Heah (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The IP who wrote this and who has been storming around screeching insults is one thing, but the article is absolutely a speedy candidate. There is no content. A statement of a negative is not a statement. Please, folks, vote on the article, and not the topic. So, given the long story on this subject on The Next Big Thing radio show (WNYC) in 2002, all we get from this person is "It's not one thing." Gosh. Then the Kennedy's Fried Chicken? Is there only one Kennedy's Fried Chicken in only one city, and are they all subsumed under the same negative? Is Ray's actually significant elsewhere? The story was presented on The Next Big Thing as a minor bit of humor. No content. It should be speedied again, and the yahoo who keeps recreating it is about to get blocked for his actions. Geogre 11:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (psssst... no threat-like posts...) but I agree about the (non)notability. Master Thief Garrett 11:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No threat. I meant that as a statement of future intent, not a "behave or else." Recreating deleted articles with personal attacks in the edit lines is noxious, vandalizing behavior. (This "IP" seems to know what the deletion logs say. Similarly, this "IP" is simply recreating deleted content rather than using VfU, which is process, while simultaneously pretending to be a newbie who is bitten.) At any rate, folks need to remember that they're being asked to consider the article, and not the topic. The reason is that we end up keeping utter junk that way, as everyone passes the buck onto that imagined future editor who might, someday, write the article that VfD voters imagine is lurking inside the lump of dross before them. If VfD voters want to write the imagined article, then that's fine, but "maybe I think there was a legal case about this once" won't do it, IMO, until that content is actually within the article. We don't need articles saying "The International Home of Pancakes is not IHOP" or "Hojos is not Howard Johnsons" or (and this happens) "X restaurant in Mumbai is a lot like other restaurants, but it's different." Geogre 11:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but your position of "vote on the article, and not the topic" is out of step with both policy and common voting procedure. Not-so-great articles on decent topics should be expanded, or sent to cleanup or attention, not deleted. Please see Deletion Policy for explanation, in particular the "Problems that don't require deletion" table. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is in contradiction with neither. Let's put it this way: let's say that our IP friend wrote an article that said "Ashlee Simpson is not Jessica Simpson. She's a skank!" Now, should that be kept? The fact that an article might be written does not mean that a particular article should be kept. In fact, one would wish to scratch the original and not preserve in its history the libel. The guidelines speak of "not so great" articles on good topics, not "weak, useless articles on topics that might, if handled by an expert, be worthwhile." Since deletion guidelines also call for the deletion of non-encyclopedic content and the speedy delete criteria advocate the deletion of articles without content, I'd say that the "send to clean up" option is not appropriate for feeble stubs. Were it to be so, then we would be leaving articles in that say "The apolo missions were really cool they went to the moon" and "Mars is a planet thats red." Finally, that advice is to those who are going to nominate an article for deletion. Once it's on VfD, consider the article, not the topic, unless you are going to rewrite. If you are going to rewrite, please inform the voters, so they can reconsider. Geogre 13:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Threat or not, complaints about the behavior of other users are out of place here.---Isaac R 17:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 15:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to apologize for losing my cool yesterday. I still don't think it's very nice to pretend you welcome contributions on the one hand, and then turn around and insult people and delete their additions for no good reason (yes, I read the "speedy" delete rules, and my articles don't qualify as "nonsense," thank you very much...) but, whatever--this is your site, treat people how you like. Delete both of 'em, I don't care anymore. Thanks for your help, Heah. 66.65.88.245 15:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but cleanup). I agree with Heah and others that the "Ray's Pizza" phenomenon is definitely notable among New Yorkers, ex-New Yorkers, and people who have been to New York (which covers a lot of us) ;-). RussBlau 22:12, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean Up. Referenced in a Seinfeld episode which indicates that it is significant. [1]Capitalistroadster 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally I prefer to eat at Joe's. Klonimus 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NYC notability, plus trademark law notability (I'm pretty sure there was litigation about the name). JamesMLane 02:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's almost like a painfully slow description of an inside joke, but this one belongs here if pop culture references are allowed anywhere. 11 million New Yorkers get it. Isn't that enough? --Unfocused 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many millions are there *outside* NY? I really don't know that in the worldview something in one city is that incredible. It's not pop culture, it's just one city. Now if it was known all across America, then yes. Master Thief Garrett 04:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if that should matter. pop culture references abound (three major tv shows listed here already); but despite that, if 11 million people get it, why shouldn't it be here? some language only spoken by 2,000 people deserves to be here, without it having any impact on the world at large, without it being known by more than two thousand people. In the world view, LOTs of things are important, in all different places, to all different people, and there is no reason that wikipedia can't reflect them all. --Heah (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And I'll tell you why. I'm a new comer to New York City, I've only been here about a year and a half and even I know that Ray's Pizza is part of New York culture. References are made to it on TV shows, in the Movies, on the radio and even in conversation. I even live across the street from "Famous Original Ray's Pizza Est. 1964" which I know with almost certainty that it is not the original Ray's Pizza, and I've only lived here a year and a half. I came to Wikipedia to see if I could figure out where and when the real original Ray's Pizza was established. This entry is needed so that a part of New York culture can be explained. It could use some more content and research about where and when the original was established as well as a better explanation of the phenomenon. But this one is a keeper. -- kuwan
  • Keep. Truly a New York icon. Rhobite 04:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep its well documented and in seinfeld too Yuckfoo 17:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE. '

You know what? Just go ahead and delete it. Delete the KFC article too. This whole thing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth (har har). Deride my articles as "nonsense" and "useless trivia", delete them without considering that maybe, just MAYBE, they refer to phenomena of which you PERSONALLY happen to be unaware, and then--in a final insult--imply that I'm a liar (Geogre's comments above) and threaten to ban me? I mean, what the FUCK?

I don't think you DESERVE this article, frankly. So those of you who were so insistent this article should be deleted because I have some kind of ulterior motives--congratulations, you've won. Get rid of these, please.

  • 66.65.88.245 04:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Pinhead", according to Geogre--thanks, buddy!)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up It's significant due to multiple notable pop culture references. Needs to be expanded, however, in order to make that significance more clear. If it was fleshed out with all the details that users have added in this vote page it would be a far more substantial article. The Bob Talbot 04:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable to NYCers, pizza lovers, and name/trademark legislation. Kappa 04:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the page in question, I'd like to have it deleted. I'd just rather not contribute to this site at this time. Thanks for respecting my wishes. 66.65.88.245 16:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is obvious evidence that overly aggressive VfD'ing articles is hostile to new users. --Unfocused 17:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • not only that, but this CLEARLY should never have been a speedy delete; if i were a newbie and found such an article had been deleted WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS i would not go through the VfU- i mean, it was never VOTED for deletion- i would have put it back up. This thread clearly demonstrates both an abuse of speedy delete as well as the negative consequences of overly agressive VfD'ing. I don't know what evidence we have that this ip is not a newbie or is a vandal. The page was deleted CONTRARY to deletion policy, and it seems it will be staying here after all. i don't know how one person (out of 8 billion) can claim to know on their own what qualifies as "nonsense" and what is actually an important meme; i don't know why this kid got attacked, a block threatened, when really, whoever listed it for speedy deletion should be reprimanded and we all should be much kinder and DISCUSS things. Its a big world out there. --Heah (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Shouldn't we're getting such valuable content from this user that I can see why you'd be afraid of biting him. Mean of me to suggest that his vandalism of user pages would lead to a block. Awful, really, to suggest that the non-stop personal attacks in edit summaries might lead to a block. While the pity party rages, ask yourselves what it is that the contributor gave us. Look through the diffs. See how a sentence is so valuable that any amount of whinging, screeching, and paranoia from the user is worth putting up with in order to have. Please. The number of policies violated by this kiddie wiki author is piling up, but none of them should lead to a block, right, so that we can continue to get statements of negatives from this insightful editor? I can only say that I'm relieved that most of the other admins do have standards. Perhaps our IP editor can be such a great guy as to actually get an account now so that we can have a specific identity to deal with, and not just a floating address. Geogre 23:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Heah, you really ought to look through the contributor's contributions. First thing was that I got given credit for speedy deletions of both of his creations, when I had deleted one. So, he called names. Then, however, he recreated instead of VfU. Then someone else did a proper VfD of a substub that stated a negative (so, gosh, it's now a conspiracy against Ray's Pizza and not just me). So, more personal insults. Deleting admin called a "douchebag," then "obviously never been to New York," etc. So, in the face of this childish taunting from the IP, you insist that the deletions were abuses? Those are very serious charges, and I hope that you will open an RfC on both (or perhaps three) of the admins who speedy deleted his articles, as well as the user who tagged his Kennedy's Fried Chicken for speedy deletion, as well, of course, as the person who made this nomination. Otherwise, do not make accusations of such a serious nature. If I am reacting strongly to your gestures, it is because you are attempting to make an amazingly feeble substub a cause for castigating the entire deletion process. I don't consider new IP's who do nothing but scream and insult to be valuable contributors, no. I do not consider single sentences to be articles. I do not consider the deletion of single sentence substubs to be "abuse" (!) as much as propriety. Hideous the way that you are making very, very serious charges in the name of virtuous protection of the poor little IP (who seems to know many profanities but no information). Geogre 03:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
first, if this conversation is continued, i'd lke to request that we continue it on user talk pages as it no longer has anything to do with whether or not this article will be deleted, but first i'm gonna post this. Second, I don't know what the heck you are talking about, geogre. I accused no one of deleting the page originally, as i had no idea who had done it. I already stated above that i thought the comments here from the ip were out of line. However, I have looked at the contributions from this ip and i'm not sure what your problem is. I haven't found the word "douchebag" used by him anywhere, although i very well may have missed it; I didn't see him call you any names on his post on your talk page, don't see a problem with his reasoning that if you were from new york you would know why ray's is notable, and think it is somewhat understandable for a newbie to get upset about things like this and react improperly, due both to their ignorance of how to go about things here and the hurt feelings that come with your first foray into something being quashed without discussion. His response was to ask us to please not be jerks, (without calling anyone a jerk), and recreating an article counter to general policy that was deleted with complete disregard for general policy, with edit sumaries along the lines of "i'm having trouble with the deletion process." You have a huge issue with him recreating the article without going through VfU, but i think its very important to note that the article was deleted without going through VfD and the ip was new here. I haven't searched through the history of your talk page, so i may have missed what you are calling his "vandalism". But he certainly wasn't insulting anyone before the article was deleted, and furthermore his vandalism has NOTHING to do with whether or not this article should be here, and whether or not it should have been VfD'ed according to policy. This is very important, so i'm going to say it again, in italics: the actions of this ip after the speedy delete have NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether or not the article should have been speedy deleted.
I am not attempting to "castigate the deletion process"; rather, i think it is important to use the deletion process. that's why it is here. I am not trying to "make accusations of a serious nature" and don't think an RfC is necessary at this point. I just think that the articles should not have been speedy deleted, whoever did it, and whatever their reasons were; the results of the VfDs, that the article be kept and that the Kennedy article be merged, obviously give my point some creedence. These shouldn't have been speedily deleted.
apologies for dragging this on on this page. --Heah (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, after various additions to the orignal stub. Interesting pop culture phenomenon. Uppland 17:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like notable. Grue 17:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, since someone's calling for my head, I should probably explain a few things. For one, prior to nominating for deletion, I did a websearch for relevance. I found none. Whether or not your milage on Google may vary is different. Secondly, the original article was written in such a way that I found it very nonsensical; it was a poor choice of wording and I should have said pointless or irrelevant. As I said above, as the article was originally written, it's like writing on "Tommy's Burgers" in LA if you're referring to every restaurant in the area with the name and not the specific company - it's pointless that way (see the "Joe's Diner" comment above). I did not know about it's pop culture importance (because I'm not a TV watcher) and aside from a layover in JFK, I've never been to NYC, so I wouldn't know about it being on every street, much less the legal issues surrounding it. Had the article been in any condition as it is now (or at least given the hint that it was anything beyond a bunch of restaurants that just happen to have the same name), I would have stubbed it, not VFD'd. As it is now, by all means I agree keep, but I made the call I did for the reasons I did. No apologies (except possibly to the original poster if he/she felt I was on some sort of personal vendetta, which was not the case), no regrets. --Mitsukai 20:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mitsukai, you shouldn't have to apologize. Folks coming in late and shedding crocodile tears for the innocence abused of someone who can only manage "Ray's Pizza is not Ray's Pizza" should not be in a position of calling for your head, either. The fact that later editors have made the article worthwhile is good, and they should each be applauded. However, the article as nominated was a speedy deletion candidate and was speedy deleted. I believe that all those folks who rescued this feeble effort should be rewarded, and they should be proud of their names in the edit history to the article. However, I don't see why the original submission needs to be honored in any way whatsoever. A phone book could have suggested the topic, as well as those pop culture shows, as well as the syndicated The Next Big Thing radio show (which contained more information in ten seconds than our contributor could muster). I hope we continue to get good treatments of pop topics, but those who believe that I'm threatening unreasonably or intimidating the trembling virgins need to wake up and re-read that original submission. The nomination was valid. The rescue was heroic. The original writing was anemic. Geogre 23:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to apologize for. I disagree with your VfD, but I don't think you were totally offbase in making it. We're only talking about you because many people don't know who to have a discussion without turning it into a personal attack. That is never appropriate. ---Isaac R 00:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what is stated above, the first two paragraphs of the article (as it now stands) are wholly of my authorship. Would it bother anyone if I just removed these two paragraphs? Maybe someone else can rewrite their content. Otherwise, just add them back. 66.65.88.245 20:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not trying to be an ass, but I put the content back. The article doesn't make sense without them there, and content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. I did note that a rewrite would be welcome in the edit summary; I'll go back and add that to the talk page. My own opinion is that the first two paragraphs that I restored are extremely well written, and they could be rephrased, but I think they'd be hard to beat for the way they fit into the article in its current form. Again, I'm sorry if I seem an ass, but this is the sort of thing that the GFDL was written for; to make sure that content submitted is always available freely. --Unfocused 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and notable. --Theo (Talk) 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable NYC culture. I didn't go back to look at the original article which was probably a lot weaker, but the current article is satisfactory. Quale 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, culturally encyclopedic. —RaD Man (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as re-written. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP! The phenomena that is the ubiquity of Rays Pizzas here in New York is certainly worthy of an article. The current one could certainly use a thorough cleanup and expansion, but the concept is most definitely notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:56, 13 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. —Xezbeth 18:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

EPHRAIM AVNERY[edit]

0 Google Hits. Might be confused with Uri Avnery. Since there's really nothing to merge, this should probably be deleted. -- Grev -- Talk 03:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Life Expectancy Band[edit]

Either it's ironic band vanity, or it's an attack page. Either way, non-notable. Delete. -- BDAbramson thimk 03:59, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

In My View[edit]

Advertisement for "Self-contained accommodation located in Katoomba, The Blue Mountains Australia." —tregoweth 04:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's just advertising, and while I'm generally an inclusionist, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't the place to list every last thing on the face of the Earth. - Orborde 04:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even the author was willing to get rid of it once it was pointed out that Wikipedia is not for advertisements. --User:Jenmoa 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious advertising spam. -- Infrogmation 05:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all of the reasons listed above. --Theaterfreak64 06:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – Blatantly an advert.
  • Delete, and (sh|c)ould've been speedy-deleted. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 07:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- advertisements, and, as pointed out above, the author was willing to delete it once informed of Wikipedia policy. -Yipdw 07:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just speedy-deleted this. A little late, but my view is that advertising spam shouldn't remain up longer than it is first found, and that it was probably an error the page got listed on VfD rather than speedy. --Vamp:Willow 10:55, 9 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. But improvement is expected, and possibly a rename. Golbez 18:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Assumption by Russia of the Soviet Union's seat in the United Nations[edit]

POV rant. Created by Iasson, who has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. RickK 04:41, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no indication that this hyperlegalistic view is widespread. The article doesn't look like Iasson's work at all. Gazpacho 05:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although on presented evidence the view seems to be confined to someone called Yehuda Z. Blum, writing in 1992 and Mohamed Sid-Ahmed writing in 1999, the article is, or has potential to be, encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't sound like Iasson when read, but reading the contributions of the creator shows that you're correct. Might also be copied from somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC).
    • No, it is not copied from somewhere, although some parts are quoted or paraphrased. 205.217.105.2 13:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hereby refute allegations that this article was written by Iasson by stating that I am the same user as User:24.54.208.177, User:Rad Racer, User:SonicSynergy. As evidence, Iasson did not create featured articles, while I created three. However, because I try to resurrect his VFD voting system, I get falsely accused of being Iasson, and my articles put up for VFD for no reason. 205.217.105.2 13:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to try to game the VfD system like Iasson did, you're going to be treated like Iasson did, beginning with the deletion of your invalid VfD votes. RickK 66.60.159.190 16:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Confusing non-linked "RickK" just before IP sig has been struck thru immediately above by me; could mislead some, as it momentarily did me, that it was signed by RickK. If it was from you, Rick, please come back and fix while logged in. --Jerzy~t 17:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Restoring my signature yet again. Jerzy, STOP striking it out. RickK 22:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I offered possible evidence below an identity-related comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Protocol Amending the Agreements, which may be a good place to consolidate identity and sanctions debate until that subject moves to a non-VfD location. --Jerzy~t 17:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firebug 13:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and/or original research. Radiant_* 15:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Opposing viewpoints have been added to the article, to mitigate the POV problem. It should be NPOV now. Mullerson's views on legality, and Russia's views on the veto, have been added. 205.217.105.2 16:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, it's not lasson- wake up and stop being a moron for those of you who don't get it. [Unsigned IP contrib per history].
    To enhance my earlier unsigned documentation, above, i am adding that the IP was User:159.169.57.3. -- Jerzy~t 21:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading this article it's clear that this has a place here. It has interesting content and is well written with the info presented clearly. If nothing else, it serves as an example of how these types of issues should be layed out; format is key. [Unsigned IP contrib per history.]
    A probable sock removed the "IP" annotation above and replaced it with (quotes sic in his last version)
    'Tparker393 19:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)tparker393'[reply]
    (which does include an unforged sig, whatever his relationship to the text he claims may be). The IP that anon'ly created the entry was, like the preceding entry, User:159.169.57.3.
  • Keep, of course. Perfectly good subject. Everyking 16:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rephrase the POV parts. Otherwise fine topic. -Hmib 16:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del, Transwiki to W-source, anything but keep or merge. Law student trivia: technical examination of a moot issue w/ very little chance of precedential value. (IANALB i doubt there is any wide informed disagreement; i'm pretty sure it's just that nobody really cares if he's right.) --Jerzy~t 17:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • find a better title, or merge somewhere. the topic is fine. dab (ᛏ) 17:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite an interesting article. It could certainly need a new name, however. - SimonP 21:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though a seemingly obscure diplomatic issue, this topic is well-worth space in an encyclopedia. The article seems comprehensive and sourced. Rename it if anyone can think of a better name. -Willmcw 02:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First of all it's Iasson, and second of all the page smells copyvio'd. Not to mention I question its notability and accuracy as per all those above. Master Thief Garrett 02:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how about a move to Legal aspects of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which could grow?
  • Keep interesting, encyclopedic, referenced, looks NPOV. Grue 17:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue's reasons + an important topic which requires coverage. Kappa 21:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, if at all possible, Rename to something less unwieldy. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (MGarber50 forgot to sign off)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged somewhere and should certainly be renamed. - SimonP 20:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Protocol Amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925, and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936[edit]

Ridiculous title, it wouldn't even work when placed inside the vfd template, I had to fiddle with the title. Created by Iasson, who has been banned from editing. RickK 04:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Simple solution: Don't put it in the VFD template. Leave it alone, instead of trying to undo people's work. 205.217.105.2 13:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable title. Rename to Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs, 1946 Klonimus 07:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Mr. Munchausen: Being the Protocol Amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925, and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936.
  • Merge and redirect to Prohibition (drugs) —Wahoofive (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RickK, how could you overlook CSD §G5 about contributions made by a banned user after they were banned? Sjakkalle 07:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? (Delete) as per Sjakkalle. And not just *any* banned user, Iasson! We should have a whole clause just for him and JoeM... or move to BJAODN for the "longest page name ever" award. Master Thief Garrett 11:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny page name though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Official names of treaties are frequently lengthy. In this case, it is a rather descriptive name, noting the treaties that it is amending. In any case, the treaty was fairly important in the development of international drug law, since it laid the groundwork for the power structure of the UN drug control regime of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. It is referenced in that article, as a matter of fact. 205.217.105.2 12:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hereby refute allegations that this article was written by Iasson by stating that I am the same user as User:24.54.208.177, User:Rad Racer, User:SonicSynergy. As evidence, Iasson did not create featured articles, while I created three. However, I acknowledge my posts are similar to his, and will expound on the reasons. 205.217.105.2 13:03-16:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [Forgery Alert. I have corrected the false timestamp on the above contrib, which was altered repeatedly over a period of 3+ hours by its author without updating the timestamp. This was egregious for sowing confusion for about what they had read, from the first change until the point where it elicited an explicit response at 14:32. The succeeding changes over almost the next 2 hours were equivalent to forging a contrib by another user, bcz they changed the meaning of another user's contrib by falsifying the apparent context of the other user's contrib. I haven't time to add a subpage detailing the timing and content of these changes right now, but at least there's now a flag on the play thrown. --Jerzy~t 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    • I think it's ironic that the IP address you're using for your "I am not Iasson!" posts is the same one which posted some highly Iasson-esque vandalism to various user pages just a few days ago. Let's face facts: Iasson got a lengthly ban for his disruptive voting policies, and it's highly unlikely that anyone other than a sock would pick up where he left off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, but my posts do not fall under policy that banned users should be reverted, because while I have occasionally received temporary blocks, I have not been banned (unlike Iasson). Therefore, to delete my articles without regard to the usual deletion criteria would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, to borrow a phrase from Francis L. Young. I move that the "delete" votes that were based on the mistaken belief that I am Iasson be disregarded. 205.217.105.2 14:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, then perhaps you'd care to explain the following: If you're really not Iasson and don't want us to think you are Iasson, then why are you going so far out of your way to look and act like Iasson, right down to the disruptive voting and user-page vandalism? Until I hear an answer that makes sense, I'll remain unconvinced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • I refer you to my formal statement at WP:AN/I. Everyone who is asking about sockpuppets / Iasson, please see the "formal statement" which is posted on the admin noticeboard. Thank you. 24.54.208.177 09:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the hope that the information can help ID this vandal &/or speed the banning/blocking of that IP, i offer their invitation to me. (I have no memory of whatever made me look like a support to them, and don't have time to research it.) --Jerzy~t 18:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I'm a high-ranking officer in the deletionist army now? How flattering! Gazpacho 03:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, and I would be in favor of removing the redir if possible, as the title is ludicrous. Radiant_* 15:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are you all just a bunch of idiots? Listen now while you still may be unscathed and placid- the time of reckoning has come. Though dreary coughs have mucked up the improper claims, I offer this solitary punch, as shelled and vacant as it may be, with bitter regards to everyone. For within troubled times come troubled admonitions. This wretched tablet that stands before me is like a shattered clock that had once shown minutes on the wall. Now between your mindless clattering it's come to pass that incineration is the best means of reproof. It's all in the sauce, you sycophants- enjoy knowing how the wind shall carry your ashes to the farthest corners of the earth- and with that, los -
  • Keep. This article is a valuable contribution to the wikipedia collection. Long title, huh; since when do you people get uptight about that? Just look at some of the discussion pages- now that is ridiculous.
  • Delete. Gamaliel 16:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as legitimate article on significant international treaty, but Move to a more workable name, such as the one suggested by Zzyzx Gazpacho. Suggest admins research, and probably block, the 159.169.57.3 IP address as a ranting vandal, whether or not that's the same user as Iasson or allied contributor 205.217.105.2 . Suggest admins research above-cited contribution history and review whether Iasson's hard-ban is being violated. Barno 18:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, delete redir, & ban. --Jerzy~t 18:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, how do you like that Jerzy-t? [19:26, 9 May 2005 User:Tparker393, per history.]
  • NOTE WELL: All contributors on this page should be aware of the Forgeries on this page committed by User:205.217.105.2. A bit more information appears just after their "13:03" contrib "I hereby refute ...", above; watch this bullet point for more information.
--Jerzy~t 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. Whatever it was before, it isn't now. Now it's a perfectly good article with a perfectly awful title. --Unfocused 04:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the article - preferably under a name that won't stun an ox; delete every second letter in the title (it might contain a secret code, who knows?); and consign much of the above vfd debate to BJAODN. Grutness...wha? 14:50, 14 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. —Xezbeth 07:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Superior Person's Book of Words[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement for a book, no noteworthy information. delete. Ben talk contr 04:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and allow for an organic growth. I have just rewritten it into a book stub and added its ISBN number. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having an ISDN number doesn't make it noteworthy.--Dave63 10:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people have upgraded to DSL by now. Keep —RaD Man (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I could apply for an ISBN number for my backside if I wanted to... actually, that's not a bad idea... Master Thief Garrett 11:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable and widely-published book, part of a series, Amazon rank around 10K, not bad at all for a book that's been around for two decades. If this were a sci-fi or fantasy book, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. :0P Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - features regularly in The Times and seen around. r3m0t talk 22:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Well known book. Capitalistroadster 22:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real published book. Klonimus 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A published book and real also! How great. If the book is that well known, why don't you write something about it.
I wonder seriously whether wikipedia is a place for more or less arbitrarily reviews of books or restaurants or whatever. It's not a telephone directory or something. If you look at how the article was like when I put it here for vfD, you would laugh probably. Now, I wonder, how you want to extend the article: "It's a nice book with a lot of words"... I mean is there something beyond the fact that it exists, that it has an ISBN, and is real real? Ben talk contr 05:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Restaurants are much harder to verify, especially since they don't show up in libraries. They also change very frequently. Kappa 18:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and allow for organic growth it is a real book Yuckfoo 17:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very well-known book. I've owned a copy for nearly twenty years - except mine is called "The Superior Person's Little Book of Words". --Centauri 01:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again: That this book is real real real doesn't make it encyclopedic. This is not an argument.
The one argument here for "keep" has been importance, i.e. "well-known book", i.e. a good seller, and being mentioned in The Times. That may be and I didn't know of it. That indicates there could be something noteworthy about it beside that it is a book and it has a ISBN and many people bought it (which is not noteworthy by itself). If that's the case I withdraw my "delete". Ben talk contr 06:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real book. Would fit nicely in an "encyclopedia of vocabulary builders". Kappa 08:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite well-known (not that notability is a deletion criterion, but... ;-)). James F. (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's encyclopedic, it's worth having. Scott Gall 22:12, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
I hope you weren't meaning to include vandalism in your definition of "encyclopedic." Nazism isn't cool 22:16, 14 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. —Xezbeth 18:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Role play legends[edit]

Fanfic roleplaying nonsense. Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Interpellation[edit]

Um, what? RickK 05:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - RickK seems to be taking a lot of abuse for this VfD. Please note that this was how the article appeared before being nominated for VfD, and it could easily be taken for gibberish. A Man In Black 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts exactly. Speedy delete as patent nonsense. A Man In Black 06:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a term coined by Louis Althusser. I have rewritten it into a substub to allow organic growth. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important comment: This is at least the third time today that a user has nominated an article here on VFD before looking it up on Google or checking "What links here". The load on VFD is already high. If this continues, I am going to make it a personal crusade to constantly nag people here that this mistake was the primary reason why my recent RFA ended with a no consensus vote... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to be an Admin, you need to forgo the personal vendettas. ---Isaac R 06:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isaac R, I'd rather help reform behavior on VFD and stop this rampant deletionism. If I have to sacrifice a chance at being an admin, then so be it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm glad I didn't vote for you. Your nasty attitude and attempts at CREATING factionalism disqualify you from adminship. And it's not the nominator's requirement to have to do research to figure something out. I still think the stub is non-keepable and should be transwikied to Wiktionary. But the original article, which I listed, was incomprehensible and eminently delatable. RickK 06:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
            • RickK, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Quite a number of people have become anti-deletionists because of folks like you, who seem intent on purging wikipedia of everything that doesn't seem notable to themselves. Klonimus 07:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If a potential nominator doesn't have time to research the topic, there are alternatives like {{cleanup-context}} and {{cleanup-importance}}. Kappa 08:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • EVERYBODY Enough with the finger pointing and personality bashing. We all do stupid things. The only useful response to other people's mistakes is to correct them in a friendly manner. Let's talk about the articles, not the people who write them. ---Isaac R 20:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never heard this term either -- but it gets half a million hits on Google. ---Isaac R 06:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 524,000 google hits must be notable. RickK, you wouldn't create so much resentment if you would do some background checks before you nominated stuff to VfD. If it's a substub, put a cleanup or expand tag on it. Klonimus 07:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wouldn't create so much resentment if you weren't such a troll. RickK 23:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA and no I am not a troll. I do appreacite the work you do bringing stuff to VfD. It's a very important and thankless task. Klonimus 06:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of good reasons already stated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Interpellation" also has a different meaning, namely the right of parliament to question the government — that's also the meaning I was familiar with. See e.g. the page in the German Wikipedia (de:Interpellation). Also, the link from Croatian Parliament uses this meaning of the word. Martg76 13:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a useful bit of information. It sounds like a made-up word (which is probably why it got VfDed), but obviously isn't. ---Isaac R 20:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this rather hasty nomination. I'm going back there now to remove the speedy delete tag. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand explaining meanings in political science and philosophy. In defence of RickK, most notable subjects that are put forward for VfD are nominated because the article is in very poor state and doesn't explain its significance. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then RickK should flag the article with cleanup or expand. VfD is not emergency cleanup.Klonimus 00:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a fascinating subject that takes some careful reading to understand the social and philisophical relationships implied. I'm not comfortable explaining it yet, but I plan to keep checking to see how this one develops. I'm putting a link to a University of Queensland Australia article on my user:talk page if anyone else is interested.--Unfocused 03:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and if possible research before deleting Yuckfoo 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bite me. RickK 19:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it makes sense. James F. (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally it was garbage, but now it is a Keeper. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 12 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. —Xezbeth 18:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wookiee[edit]

Fancruft. Now that the Star Wars Wiki is up and running, articles like this don't belong in the real-life encyclopedia. Delete.--67.123.232.156 05:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Clearly, this is not something that Wikipedia people are going to go for. I still don't agree that this article belongs here, though. This is a fictional species. It doesn't exist in real life.--67.123.232.156 18:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known species from Star Wars. Just because there is now a Star Wars wiki doesn't mean that important subjects shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FYI: Nominator had also been trying to unilaterally amend Template:Swwiki to read, "This article should be considered as a candidate to be copied to the Star Wars Wiki and then deleted." [3]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are lots of other wikis, and no reason that Wikipedia can't have overlapping content when the content fits Wikipedia's notability criteria. A Man In Black 06:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stop vfding every Star Wars article on Wikipedia. RickK 06:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a popular subject and looks like a good article. Vashti 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well-known. Anon appears to be on a crusade. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL @ nominating Wookie Kappa 07:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Star Wars race. Not fancruft whatsoever. Sjakkalle 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 07:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Curps 08:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the numerous pieces of Star Wars lore known even to non-fans. Even those who have never seen any of the movies generally tend to recognise Chewbacca the wookiee. Also, it's well-known that the wookiee race is greatly expanded in the upcoming Sith movie: we get to meet other wookiees, see their homeworld, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad faith nomination. Firebug 13:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep!!!!! Are you insane?! Stancel 17:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Just fictionstuff, but one of the most notable alien races in one of the most notable (not equal to "one of the best") SF bodies of work. Per WP:FICT, this is enough to merit a breakout article where sufficient material exists. But some fans need to be reminded that it's not encyclopedic for WP to have 200 articles like List of unnamed storm troopers who get blasted in Episode IV in duplication of the Star Wars Wiki. Most should be merged into a few pages with wikilinks to swwiki. Barno 18:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega-super keep, -sigh- K1Bond007 22:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I see no reason whatsoever to delete this. (assuming that this is the correct spelling. Not being a Star Wars geek in the least, I was totally unaware that "Wookiee" had 2 E's. Based on the number of votes thusfar that don't mention spelling, I must assume this is correct. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Furthermore, the fact that I have never watched a Star Wars movie in its entirety, yet I am well aware of what a wookie(e) is, is a testament to the notability of the topic. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious notablity - Keep. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many fictional characters & races listed in Wikipedia, should we delete them all?
  • Merge with 'List of Star Wars races' or keep

Lord Patrick 04:16, 14 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. —Xezbeth 18:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wicket W. Warrick[edit]

Fancruft. Now that there's a Star Wars Wiki, pages like this don't belong on a real life encyclopedia. Delete.--67.123.232.156 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, well written article, there are tons of these, let's not go on a witchhunt. RickK 05:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lots of other wikis, and no reason that Wikipedia can't have overlapping content when the content fits Wikipedia's notability criteria. A Man In Black 06:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FYI: Nominator had also been trying to unilaterally amend Template:Swwiki to read, "This article should be considered as a candidate to be copied to the Star Wars Wiki and then deleted." [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not so good as the wookie article, but still no reason I can see that Wikipedia shouldn't include articles on popular culture. Vashti 06:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mass-nominating on VfD is probably not a good idea. Also, it seems irrelevant whether the article exists at the SWW. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand. Well written article. Megan1967 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant character. Gazpacho 07:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main ewok, both in Return of the Jedi and the later Ewoks TV series, comics, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep This user should be banned completely. He put Wookiee on Vfd. Just because there's some "star wars wiki" doesn't mean all star wars articles should be deleted, you crazy idiot! What's next, Princess Leia? Darth Vader? are those "fancruft" too? Stancel 17:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good luck trying to remove all the fictional subjects from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 19:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was ready to vote "merge" until I RTFA'ed and learned that this was the most significant Ewok in the series. Some editors, especially Stancel, need a reminder to maintain courtesy and assume good faith, rather than screaming ban threats and insults. Especially over something that doesn't even exist in anything but commercial fiction and related marketing tie-ins. Presence of an article on Star Wars Wiki need not determine WP's handling, but it's reasonable to assume that minor plot elements, minor characters, etc. are more acceptable to merge (per WP:FICT) or delete from WP (if trivial) when sw-wiki already include them. Fans are incorrect to assume WP needs megabytes of trivial detail just because the milieu is high-selling and widely-known. Wikipedia is not Lucasfilm celluloid nor other toilet paper. But this character isn't trivial, once the name is associated with the character. 205.247.102.130 19:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this; delete the [self-censored] nominator. —Seselwa 00:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't understand why there are so many attacking me, the contributor, rather than my contribution. I made these THREE nominations in earnest, because I sincerly believe the articles do not belong here. Attack that, not my motives. Okay? I would delete your comment (as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks), but as I am the victim in this case I don't think it's appropriate.--67.123.232.156 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 20:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Headhailing[edit]

this sounds like a neologism. Google search not only brought up no hits, but thought it to be a misspelling and offered to search a different word instead. Delete. --Mitsukai 05:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obviously somebody's private word. But don't pay any attention to the Google "misspelling" -- it does that even with words it knows. ---Isaac R 06:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete words made up while high. A Man In Black 06:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Quale 05:40, 12 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. —Xezbeth 18:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pagan Standard Time[edit]

In-joke, not notable, not wiktionariable. Delete. -Sean Curtin 06:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wiktionary. Lots of in-jokes are notable, provided the in-crowd that uses them is big enough. And there are plenty of Pagans. ---Isaac R 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete, because other voters have convinced me that this is a common joke in many groups. By the same token, it should not be merged into another article. ---Isaac R 17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look like the sort of thing Wiktionary takes. --Carnildo 07:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard this 'joke' used by plenty of other groups - presbyterian/baptist standard time etc - (an article for all?? - I don't think so) --Doc Glasgow 08:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • change to abstain - 'pagan st' seems to googles more than any other 'st' - nearest I could get was 'gay standard time' on 140 - anyone beat that? (this has to be the saddest piece of research I've ever done)--Doc Glasgow 18:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The same kind of 'joke' exists in other communities/fandoms. Could this be generalised, in which case, keep; otherwise merge into a paganity article --Simon Cursitor 13:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above. Delete if it can't be merged into another article. --Mitsukai 15:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or put in Wiktionary A google search for "pagan standard time" *with quotations* returns 793 hits Stancel 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though it has a medium google hit rate (some 800), I don't consider it worthy of the Wikipedia (we can't put the entire internet in Wikipedia!). --Marianocecowski 08:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Radiant_* 07:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Huntley[edit]

An unpleasant person who made the news for one day. ---Isaac R 06:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, an unsavoury episode in the media but he isnt inherently notable. Megan1967 07:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable criminal. Wikipedia is not The Tonight Show.
  • Delete lots of people are tried for rape every year, the fact that he used a condom is an odd bit of trivia but doesn't need an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stancel 18:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial --Doc Glasgow 22:37, 9 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 - kept, no consensus - SimonP 20:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Endorian Holocaust[edit]

Fancruft. It's not well-written, either. Much more appropriate at Star Wars Wiki, where Star Wars fans can write to their hearts' content about stuff like this. As it is, I don't see how debates about which canon supports this theory or whether George Lucas would agree with the theory belong on such a venerable encyclopedia as this one. Delete this article, and write a better one one the Star Wars wiki.--67.123.232.156 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reminding people that redirect and merge are both counted as keep votes. it's all to easy to forget that. Islamic fascism has just survived a VfD for exactly that reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - barely. I'd agree it is not well written, however I've heard very interesting, detailed, and scientific debates on this which made it into a fascinating thought experiment. What is here is not very good, but I say give it time to see if someone comes along and makes it right. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mass-nominating on VfD is probably not a good idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is borderline encyclopedic, but with some reservations. The Sci-Fi genre is not really committed to realism, and Endor is still standing at the end of the Return of the Jedi. Sjakkalle 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on its own merits. All the movie's heroes were on the moon and it's absurd to think that Lucas meant for them all to die. This is glorified fan fiction. Gazpacho 07:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of whether this event "actually happened" in the context of the fictional universe, whether Lucas intended for it to happen, etc. is addressed within the article itself. VfD isn't the right forum to be debating that sort of thing in. Bryan 15:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Borderline notability. Megan1967 09:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan speculation. A couple of lines in the Endor article can deal with this subject, but this whole article is just overwritten fanwanking. Gamaliel 09:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Gamaliel. Wikipedia explicitly excludes speculation, the propounding of theought experiments, etc. — that's original research (though that term really flatters this article). That the nominator has nominated less obvious articles, or is mass-nominating, is irrelevant to the vote on this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Endor. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest severely condensing (no more than a few sentences) and merging into Endor. Pretty obvious that the holocaust theory wasn't the intent of Lucas (in fact the article even states that several canonical sources have debunked it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe add a paragraph in Endor. I've read this theory in a handful of other webpages [5] but it is still fan speculation, and not particularly notable. Firebug 13:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. A small amount of this article could rewritten for one of the other starwars articles if it's not already covered well enough.
  • Keep. By the way, when I do VfD closes I always count redirects/merges distinct from keeps and deletes. It seems fairer to me that way. I get a lot of "no consensus" results, but I think that's okay because it reflects the diversity of opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The nominator has been mass-nominating Star Wars articles on Vfd. Apparently on some kind of crazy anti-star wars crusade. Stancel 18:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean that the nature of the article is irrelevant; you'll vote to keep for extraneous reasons, ignoring the arguments given for deleting? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or Stancel may simply be saying their vote is for keeping it. Also, The nominator has been mass-nominating Star Wars articles on Vfd. Which is info I'm glad to know, so I can consider and vote on some of those others--John Kenneth Fisher 18:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC).
        • Then, as this isn't a mere voting process, but reasons matter, there are at least two, possibly three votes without reasons (or with reasons irrelevant to this article) which need to be supplemented. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mass-nominating? I nominated three articles on Vfd. Hardly a mass-nomination. Next time you libel me, at least try to make it sound plausible.--67.123.232.156 19:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though the attempt to add "..and then deleted" to the Star Wars Wiki template tag would arguably count as an attempt to delete EVERY Star Wars article using it, a whole lot more than three. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's true that I did change the template to that. But in that case I was only following the recommendations of the Star Wars Wiki itself (see [6]). Also, when I did that, I did not nominate the articles, I merely took an action that might eventually lead to the articles' deletion. You cannot say that I mass nominated those articles for deletion, since nominating consists of placing vfd tags and such, as I did with these three (carefully selected) articles.--67.123.232.156 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Dumb VfD drama about a dumb D-canon SW fandom debate. Delete this and all other fandom debates with little basis in canon. A Man In Black 20:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons cited by Mel and Andrew. Fancruft surrounding fiction, not verified, apparently contradicted by available facts, no potential to become encyclopedic. It's clear that some editors are voting based on whether they like the topic, and are not differentiating among these three nominations by the criteria at WP:FICT, where a major character or a major race are treated differently than fan-generated, non-canonical speculation about a side issue. 205.247.102.130 20:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mel is right. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "theorized" - speculation. RickK 23:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could do with being cleaned-up, but it's still a valid encyclopaedic entry. --Sanguinus 09:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly fancruft. — Davenbelle 12:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 20:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- mildly interesting, but non-notable in the grand scheme of Star Wars mythology. Fancruft at best, and irrelevant to canon to boot. Might eventually turn out to be interesting if it was an accepted part of Star Wars fanon, but I'm not even aware of it being that. Haikupoet 04:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not canon. Everyone lived happily ever after, that's why they all were dancing (badly) at the end of the film. It wasn't in those awful books set after the films either. Delete, lest be we swamped with articles like Theoretical genetic mutations that would have arisen if Leia had married Luke or The sex lives of Ewoks Sabine's Sunbird 05:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VfD crusade or otherwise, this is still non-canonical and, while scientifically accurate, is also irrelevant, as Endor stopped being important to Star Wars basically the instant RotJ ended. Marblespire 07:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-canonical. Radiant_* 07:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The debate is large enough to be notable and as clearly mentioned in the article there are references in expanded universe canon, both for and against. I completely fail to see how including this damages Wikipedia's "venerability" - especially since our excessive width of knowledge is one of the biggest advantages! Star Wars Wiki is not a sister project of Wikipedia, what on Earth does it have to do with anything? --Kizor 09:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This debate has come up reasonably often in Star Wars fandom, the "canonicity" of it isn't relevant to its notability (and issues of canonicity are discussed within the article itself, in any event). Bryan 15:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe that some fans talking about an event that may or may not have happened in a series of fictional movies is an encyclopedia subject. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Come on people, there's a reason why this stuff is called science-fiction! Instead of the directing all this energy into increasing the profitability of a major media franchise, why don't you put your considerable efforts into something meaningful? It's what Chewbacca would have wanted anyway-LOL! --Jleon 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...fancruft. --MikeJ9919 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-canonical fanwanking of the worst kind. Original research, not encyclopedic. Quale 05:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Wikipedia is not the place for fan fiction. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The observations that underlie this article warrants a small mention in the article on the forest moon of Endor, but the rest of the article is non-cannonical fancruft, and possibly even original research --Bletch 00:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how anyone could reasonably make that statement. The article is written using the movies and at least three other articles as sources. SWTC, the The Truth about the "Endor Holocaust", and Pablo Hidalgo's statements in SW:Insider, and as far as we know, this article has not be contributed to by any of those authors. I think you're just yelling "fire" to get people to flee.--Eion 19:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mention in the ITW-OT book makes this of valid notoriety. An article in need of clean up and revision is not a reason to delete. There's a reason this is called science-fiction, not fictional-science. The information contained here is worthy of its own article, and logical conjecture is not fan-fiction.--Eion 19:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the article needs to be edited to bring more emphasis to these sources, then that is understandable, but certainly not cause for deletion.--Eion 07:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I have vague recollections of seeing the Insider lying on my bro's bedside table (he is an immense star wars fan), the other two sources you cite look like nothing more than essays published online on fan sites. Are they considered canon? Are they even notable? Is every piece of fan speculation on anything that exists notable? This isn't about being pro or anti star wars (I love Star Wars), or even about how much genuine Star Wars information deserves to be on Wikipedia, this is about non-notable non-canon unverifiable speculation about something that didn't happen in a film. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Wars Technical Commentaries have had their own Wikipedia article since Mar 2004, so they are certainly notable. SW:Insider is a magazine with wide circulation, so it is notable, and the last is a rebuttal to Curis Saxton's (of the SWTC) arguments, and is not that widely known, which is why I said only 2 of the 3 I would consider notable. This is a theory argued about inside the SW:Community, including among magazine editors and physicists. If you go to a convention, you are bound to find either view represented. This is not a test of notability, merely a demonstration of the relativity of notability. Walk into the physics department of a university and everyone knows that a quark is an elemental and indivisible subatomic particle; walk into a Star Trek convention, and Quark is a lovable Ferengi bartender.--Eion 13:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One could also look in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: The Original Trilogy for a reference to the Endorian Holocaust, which is a book published by DK, and a part of the Star Wars canon.--Eion 13:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question I lack a bookstore where I live. And a library of back issues of insider. Do either of these two that you cite say anything more than "The Endor Holocaust never happened"? Do they cite canon explanations of why Endor was not trashed? If they did, then these should go on the endor article, but still don't make for an article of its own. Sabine's Sunbird 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Idle Comment. I'm often perplexed by the argument that certain things should be constrained to one article. I mean, it's going to take up approximately the same space in two articles, and its not like Wikipedia is ever going to run out of space, ever.--Eion 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The term "cruft" is seriously offensive and irritating. And no, I'm not a Star Wars fan. Ketsy 00:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree, cruft is becoming wikipedia's furry.--Eion 13:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still fondly remember a VfD many months ago for some fairly obscure technical topic that was labelled "sciencecruft" by a delete-voter. :) Bryan 16:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been tempted to do that to various historical articles. After all, history bores me; it's not interesting to me, therefore it shouldn't be here! But then I remembered WP:POINT. Ketsy 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. It's a good article that shouldn't be compromised JUST becuase Wookieepedia has it. And besides anonymous IP addresses can't put articles up for Vfd. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 both. – ABCD 14:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steaming potatoes and Boiling potatoes[edit]

How-to —Wahoofive (talk) 06:37, 9 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. Golbez 18:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation of quan[edit]

I don't think this can be salvaged. It reads like a college liberal arts paper and contains almost nothing relevant to Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Delete. Gazpacho 06:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is already an article Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which this article doesn't contribute anything to. Delete.--Fermion 06:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Duplicate of existing material with original "research" or speculation added. jni 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ramblings. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 9 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. Golbez 18:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tdexp[edit]

"Audio compression and reproduction method" that doesn't even exist yet (if it ever will) and gets 0 Google hits and the article itself has zero details. --Redit 07:29, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:56, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mother-in-law joke[edit]

Salvaged from the Speedy deletion page. User:Sn0wflake attached a {{delete}}-tag on this article but I disagree. I am putting this up on the VfD page instead for discussion. Sjakkalle 07:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously. As far I'm concerned, if you remove a speedy delete tag from an article, there's no obligation to add it to VFD. sjorford →•← 08:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought it was common procedure. Sjakkalle 08:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend bringing things here from WP:CSD if you think there's a reasonable chance of deletion, but I wouldn't bother for things like fancruft that could be merged anyway. Kappa 08:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable type of joke. Kappa 08:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable type of joke that translates across many cultures.--AYArktos 09:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's sociological work on this subject that I could get round to incorporating. The JPS 09:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this were a list of mother-in-law jokes, its encyclopedic value would be in question. But it's a perfectly decent treatment of a notable topic. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 10:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mother-in-law jokes are quite common, and if expanded this could become a pretty interesting article.Columbia 10:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- crucial (if politically incorrect) aspect of Northern English humo(u)r --Simon Cursitor 14:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Seems to me mother-in-law jokes remain ubiquitous in American situation comedy as well. If they're thought "politically incorrect," that hasn't penetrated here, and I frankly have a hard time imagining the grounds. Then again, I don't watch much network TV either. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Well known form of humor. Capitalistroadster 22:36, 9 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. Golbez 18:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vagina Dentata Organ[edit]

NN Band, 824 Google hits. Klonimus 07:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, borderline notable, no Allmusic.com entry. Megan1967 11:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the recordings' releases can be confirmed on Google, even if folks who would (voluntarily) listen to 'em are few. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 2,620 google hits seems reasonable for a project of this kind. Kappa 04:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, exists, high hits. I guess a horrible name ain't a crime! (yet). --Marianocecowski 12:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep since it is verifiable and borderline notable Yuckfoo 17:49, 10 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. Relevant content already exists in West Edmonton Mall. Golbez 18:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

West edmonton mall-heritage fair report[edit]

west edmonton mall has over 800 stores.Gary hanson is the manager of west edmonton mall right now.on july 11,there was a huge storm with hail and rain.it damaged parts of west edmonton mall. said stores in most of the building were going to open the next day,but the water park opened later on in the day,and the damaged area would remain closed.gary hanson said it would take millions of dollars to repair and clean up the damaged area. Klonimus 07:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to West Edmonton Mall, replace any broken glass, and buy the article's creator a book about capital letters. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to West Edmonton Mall. Have Gary Hanson send Klonimus a font with all uppercase letters, and an editing guide. Or was that a quote from the article's text, rather than a reason for nomination for deletion? In this light, I laugh at find ironic his past votes where he calls a VfD nomination improper for not following process. 205.247.102.130 20:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic. RickK 23:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:45, 12 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. Nomination and one delete, one keep, is not a consensus to delete. Golbez 18:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Zeborg[edit]

Zeborg, Inc was formed in 2000 by management consulting partners from Mitchell Madison Group. It combined management consulting with latest software, focused on strategic sourcing services. In 2004 it shut down. Majority of the company was sold to Emptoris. A small portion was sold to Xerox. Klonimus 07:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if there is that much verifiable information on the company. I added a couple of external links. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Company seems to have existed for all of five years, and no evidence that it was notable at any time. Quale 05:47, 12 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. Dbiv 22:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia June Walker[edit]

possible vanity page. Ptomng

  • Delete vanity - also gives someone's personal details (speedy??)--Doc Glasgow 08:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • """Speedy"""--Dave63 10:15, 9 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. Golbez 18:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

CreateWindow and CreateWindowEx[edit]

Wikipedia is not a programming manual. Detailed technical details of the Windows API, such as detailed discussions of individual functions, do not belong, unless what the function does is particularly fascinating. (Drawing a window on the screen is not particularly fascinating nowadays.)

  • Nomination by 137.111.13.34
  • Concur, Delete. Radiant_* 13:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move if possible. Isn't there a Wikibook on the Windows API that these could be transferred to (I didn't find one), or should someone start one? (I'm not familiar enough with Wikibooks yet to know I wouldn't be duplicating an existing manual.) --Unfocused 03:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's called MSDN.com :) Radiant_* 08:28, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • MSDN is far too convoluted. Besides, it's not a wiki. We should have somewhere to put this stuff. But we can't have all of the Win32 API functions on the primary Wikipedia - there are hundreds of them. Firebug 19:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, MSDN is non-free. Further, I wouldn't trust Microsoft to ever fully disclose their API in public, so I thought a Wiki would be a pretty appropriate place to find such a reference. --Unfocused 20:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, sorry, that remark wasn't entirely serious. We could plausibly have a Microsoft wikibook, I just hope their lawyers'd stay away. Radiant_* 07:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • As long as the info wasn't directly copied from MSDN (which I think this may have been) then I don't see what grounds for complaint MS could have. Firebug 14:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a programming manual, and I suspect that it's a copyvio from MSDN. --Carnildo 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a manual.
  • Delete. Quale 05:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shanes 05:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Copyvio: text is identical to MSDN. (Otherwise I'd say move to Wikibooks.) Krubo 12:57, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Anubis The Band[edit]

Non-notable band, 5 google hits for Anubis "Trip the Light Fantastic", some of which probably aren't related (my first nomination here btw) --the wub (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't the Anubis on allmusic.com, and the site has no record of an album with that title by a band named Anubis. Gamaliel 10:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 11:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no signs of compliance with Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable three-piece band which is now doing "reunion" projects even though almost no one (outside their likely dozens of fans) had ever heard, or cared, that they had broken up; seemingly almost unknown except perhaps within their Staten Island neighbourhood. Rlquall 04:11, 13 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.

Please amend the boilerplate to provide a link to the content of the deleted article, or the "relevant live article" for this purpose, if this exists. If not, do not state that further comments can be made to the article's talk page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Maybe try again later, but it's hardly even a dab page. Golbez 18:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Conventional[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary Kurt Weber 16:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree. (I did the subst:vfd2 stuff for Weber's improperly done entry) -- SGBailey 09:46, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • RETAIN — At worst the article functions as a useful disambiguation page. Beyond this, the article can usefully expand upon various inter-related concepts which in turn may not be appropriate for a dictionary entry. By way of a relative comparison of utility, the Wiktionary entry for conventional is currently no better than a thesaurus. To the extent that the article can plainly be developed beyond a mere dictionary-type entry, it would not be reasonable to delete — 9 May 2005.
Vote unsigned by 203.198.237.30 who has quite a lot of contributions Kappa 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the vote attributed to 203.198.237.30 is apparently of less value than a vote attributed to a registered user, according to the views recently conveyed to that user by Kappa, and may presumably be given less weight, or disregarded altogether.
...I strongly advise getting a user name if you want your votes to be fully counted. Ideally everything would be decided on the strengths of the arguments, but it doesn't work that way.
  • Well yes, that is common knowledge around here, see the top of WP:VFD. In your case your vote probably will be counted because your contributions are verifiable. Kappa 09:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Vfd decision making paradigm becomes a sham if votes are primarily assessed by reference to logged in status rather than the merits of the substantive reasons given in support of votes.
  • keep as this is more interesting than a mere dicdef. Compare classical. Brighterorange 13:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per RETAIN above. Kappa 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and merge into the Wiktionary entry). Doesn't seem expandable. Usage notes, however interesting, are probably better suited for Wiktionary. ESkog 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment that the article "doesn't seem expandable", by way of comparative illustration, let's take the article on the Allen Fieldhouse (an article in relation to which Eskog claims major contributions). This article was in the form of an unchanged minor stub for almost 12 months, between inception in June 2004 and early May 2005. Not being an aficionado of historical American college basketball venues in Kansas, I too may have considered that this rather conventional article did not "seem expandable", given that it concerned some obscure sporting venue in the US Midwest, which no one had seen fit to edit for many months. However, it would not have made the article appropriate for VFd, for all the fundamental reasons Wikipedia exists in the first place.
On the other hand, it now appears that Vfds can be assigned a relative weight according to at least 2 variables, namely (a) whether a user is signed in (see above), and (b) whether a user considers that the relevant article "seems expandable" — 10 May 2005.
  • In my view, the difference between Allen Fieldhouse and Conventional is pretty clear. AFH does not belong in a dictionary any more than Conventional belongs in an encyclopedia. I am assuming you are the author, and if this is the case, your contribution isn't in vain just because a consensus arises to delete your page from here. It would seem that everything you have added to this page would be a marvelous contribution for Wiktionary. ESkog 22:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Eskog, Delete. Radiant_* 08:51, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef plus brief usage notes is still dicdef. Quale 05:49, 12 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. —Xezbeth 18:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Robby Garner[edit]

This was listed for speedy, it doesn't meet any of the criteria, no vote--nixie 09:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Appears to be a notable programmer. Sjakkalle 11:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Twice won the Loebner Prize, one of the most notable challenges related to programming; it's basically the Turing Test. Barno 20:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable programmer. Capitalistroadster 22:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In light of what has been presented here- I listed it for speedy deletion because I didn't think it was notable at the time and it was barely an article, and just seemed like some guy writing an article about himself, although I still think it to be probable that he wrote the article about himself... not that it's really relevant. Definitely must be expanded though. M412k 01:44, 10 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. Golbez 20:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Masheads[edit]

Non-notable gaming site; just 416 Google hits and no Alexa ranking. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 10:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete pretty much content-free, just an extlink to a nonnotable site. CDC (talk) 02:13, 10 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. Golbez 18:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The New Naptilians[edit]

This is a comic book written in his spare time by a schoolboy; it has no encyclopædic content. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 9 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. —Xezbeth 18:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Collett[edit]

Some Nazi scumbag of the British National Party, chairman of their youth division, star of BBC and Channel 4 documentaries, but otherwise unnotable. Dunc|☺ 11:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain for now Keep A test of NPOV here. If this were a VFD for deletion from the planet Earth, then I'd vote delete no problem, but notability just might scrape it for him. The JPS 11:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable scumbag. --Zero 12:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very newsworthy scumbag. Bailed at Leeds magistrate's court last month. The face of British fascism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant keep the youth chairman of a party that managed to get nearly 200,000 idiots in the UK to vote for it last week is, unfortunately, notable --Doc Glasgow 12:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree with his opinions, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an article. He is a notable person and may become more so. The current BNP article is extremely long anyway, otherwise we might merge. Article needs work though. akaDruid 13:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently notable; notable context. Does this deserve making into a ###fascism entry ? --Simon Cursitor 14:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately notable. It might merit light expansion about the circumstances of his departure after the Channel 4 documentary. Samaritan 15:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. In this case, we have an offence to humanity who has made the news a few times, and is likely to plague this poor benighted planet for some time to come. Wikipedia is an appropriate place to include information on him. Ground Zero 15:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep national political figure. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a notable scumbag. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, chairman of youth division of a party that nearly 200,000 morons people voted for in the last election. Merely stating the facts in a NPOV manner is sufficient to give a true reflection of this individuals unsavoury nature. Average Earthman 19:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to you striking out the word "morons" above. There is no reason to strike it out. Ground Zero 19:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object your objection. I don't agree with the views of this party, but calling the people who voted them morons is inflammatory and isn't solving anything. Mgm|(talk) 21:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately, this man is notable as the British National Party increased its vote in the UK receiving more votes than the Greens. Capitalistroadster 22:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately this is not quite true, the BNP coming third of the minor parties after UKIP and the Greens. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even though he is utterly odious. Qwghlm 23:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep by golly he is notable.
  • keep not sure insults are necessary here Yuckfoo 17:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for the moment and as valid as any other entries regarding fascist - NPOV applies even to entries on fascism! Rogertudor 23:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surprises me that so many people have so much trouble admitting that horrible, nasty people should have encyclopedia articles too. Surely we should pay especial attention to scumbags like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:57, 14 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. Golbez 18:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist Mysticsim[edit]

"Comparative of Mystical Experience Between: The Realization of Dharma in Buddhism And the Union with God in Christianity. By Thich Tam Thien (Khai Thien)." Delete as original research. --Henrygb 16:31, 9 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 and cleanup or merge. The next step I leave to you. Golbez 18:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Emil Christensen[edit]

Page of Counter-Strike player. HeatoN was identical before becoming a redirect. Delete as vanity. --Henrygb 16:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand I added a few things and cleaned it up gramatically. I'm hoping to start a bunch of pages on famous Counter-Strike clans and expand Wikipedia's sections on professional gaming. Thanks.
  • Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - A quick google suggest that this would appear to be one of the team members of the CounterStrike champions at the 2003 World Cyber Games [7], so actually is a notable games player. Not that the article bothered to state this of course. The claim that he's the best in the world is not verifiable, and the picture is far, far too large. I'd suggest success at the WCG would be a requirement for an article on a games player. Average Earthman 19:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, nn. RickK 23:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above CDC (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CleanUp & expand --Simon Cursitor 07:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the World Cyber Games is an international tournament, the 2003 version attracted over 500 gamers from over 50 countries and had $350,000 prize money at stake. This is not a trivial thing, and winning it, as Mr Christensen has done as part of a five man team, is not trivial. If we listed all the winners from 2003, that would be 11 articles. If not kept, could we at least consider merging into an article on the 11 winners that year? Average Earthman 08:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Average Earthman's research. Kappa 18:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Average Earthman's research. Radiant_* 07:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fix Someone fix my article then. I don't know how to shrink the picture of Christensen, and i get it in the middle of the screen. Also as most of you think my information is wrong, i can tell you that i only translated the Swedish article about him to English. His team mates (Clan members) claims that he is the worlds top player, and that is what i think is that the person who wrote it first had in mind. Cheers people! eLiToX
  • Fix I did a few changes to the article, and i hope it is better now :). Cheers people! eLiToX
  • NN - Delete --24.34.45.235 04:00, 13 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. Golbez 20:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Empty Pepsi Can[edit]

The article's content does not seem to be verifiable. There are a few different entertainers using the name K&H, but none appear to be associated with a work entitled Empty Pepsi Can, and Empty Pepsi Can itself does not seem to exist under any other performer. I would ask that this entry be deleted, unless I have completely messed up and there is evidence that it really does exist. --Eponymous Coward 16:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable, probably not notable enough even if true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with redirect to Pepsi. Radiant_* 08:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Chart sales doubled when a K&H hater made the "K&H: Empty Blood Bucket" hoax in 2004." Delete this gibbersih. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:03, 13 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. Golbez 20:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Traxadas Heroes[edit]

Apparent vanity article about a gaming clan/forum. CDC (talk) 14:25, 9 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. Golbez 20:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Xfs clan[edit]

A non-notable videogamer group CDC (talk) 14:23, 9 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. Golbez 20:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

funda[edit]

This is a dictionary article about the word "funda" (which Wiktionary has had since 2004) not an encyclopaedia article about a person/concept/place/thing. It's a slang word, so a redirect to fundamental doesn't seem appropriate. Yes, as Wiktionary tells us, there is a thing called a funda. But that's the Latin name, the article title that would be used in Vicipaedia. Here, in the English Wikipedia, it's under its English name of sling. Uncle G 17:14, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

  • Replace with a {{wi}} tag, failing that delete. Kappa 22:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ESkog 22:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, foreign slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, But if Wikipedia is not a dictionary, why does it have such an elaborate article on "fuck". After all, that is just another word. -- 152.78.254.131
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Playing in the Rain[edit]

As with Empty Pepsi Can above, this album's existence appears to be unverifiable, perhaps a hoax. Again, please delete unless it is in fact verifiably real. --Eponymous Coward 17:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dne.--Prem 03:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, option to merge - SimonP 21:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek[edit]

DELETE: While a good effort at making an inteesting article, two thirds of this article violates the concept of No original research. With the exception of the Starfleet ranks, and a very small portion of the Bajorian insignia, the rest of the info in the article is based on conjectural information which has only been published on unoffical fan sites. The Cardassian, Romulan, and Gorn insignia are therefore pure theory not supported by any references to the actual producers of the Star Trek series. It would be possible to do a total revamp of the article, but I feel it would be easier to simply delete the existing one and start over. -Husnock 17:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I know the TV show doesn't get too much into insignias and such, but are you sure that most of this is speculative? It seems to me that at least one of the many, many, many official and semi-official Trek books out there would cover it. I mean, there are official books covering everything from how to wish your grandma "Happy Birthday" in Klingon ("Quchjaj qoSlIj") to how many moons orbit the sixth planet of the Delta Triciatu system (four). So it seems hard to believe no official source ever laid out what the ranks and insignia are... surely the show's writers at least have style guides to cover such things for the purpose of continuity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment After submitting the above, I had yet another thought: there have been plenty of licensed Star Trek paper RPG materials as well as numerous video games, some of which allow the player to play as various non-Federation races. Surely these materials must cover the ranks and insignia. I am now 98% certain that the article could be preserved with official information if someone looks hard enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. WikiProject:Star Trek set up the rule of thumb on this which is canon should take precedence, with fanon and conjecture and non-canon being mentioned as trivia. And the official party line from Paramount is that canon is only material seen on screen in a live-action production. So unless a comparative chart of ranks was visible in an episode or movie, or there was considerable on-screen evidence of ranking (i.e. Starfleet), it's very difficult to put together a chart like this that remains within canon. Even official books like the Encyclopedia aren't considered full canon unless a writer makes use of the information therein. 23skidoo 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insignias are the frend of the Dalek and must not be desroed, inacuracies should be fixed, no disagreements here. I have no direct access to such official sources, veify my data I am cool with that. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furter comment: I think we should use games such as Starfleet Command 3 as primary source. That has Romulan, Klingon, Federation, and even Borg ranks. I am not sure which ranks if any appeared at the armadas. Ill look into this right now. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really dislike the fan-made up stuff being here, and would much prefer the article be completely redone to stick with KNOWN information, not made-up info cause someone enjoys photoshop. That said, i'm voting the topic, not the article, and it should absolutely be rewritten, not destroyed. --John Kenneth Fisher 18:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite from scratch to remove non-canon material and fanon, which pretty much means all the Gorn info, to begin with. This chart also looks very familiar ... sure it's not a copyvio of the Star Trek Encyclopedia? 23skidoo 19:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks assuming this isn't fanon or copyvio (pretty sure about the former, not sure about the latter). A Man In Black 20:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject to verification, I vote delete as non-notable trivia, tangentially related to a major fictional body of work, and apparently a mix of non-canon fanfic and possibly some copyvio. I believe we should let the WikiProject:Star Trek editors maintain notable material where it belongs and remove unencyclopedic cruft from WP's article namespace. Per WP:FICT, this topic doesn't appear to be major or significant, so even if it were verifiable to be canon, it wouldn't merit an article. Barno 20:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, while I don't exactly question the notability of the information, I do question whether it deserves its own article. Frankly an article with just a table of the ranks doesn't do anything for me and I don't really see how any expansion will fix this. Personally I think the information should be split to the articles about whatever Race/Organization. Meaning the information about ranks for Klingons should probably be at Klingon. The information on StarFleet is duplicated anyway at Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet, which is a much more comprehensive article. Theres no need for an article to make comparisons between races etc. K1Bond007 21:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with documenting fan speculation about ranks. Although it may upset trek purists, any rank that has been reasonably widely discussed is encyclopedic enough for us if properly documented. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand, concur with Starblind. Megan1967 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I have mentioned on the article's talk page, some of the ranks have been mentioned or can be referenced from canon sources like The Klingon Dictionary. I don't think the article should be deleted, as it does serve a purpose, but I definitely agree that it should be cleaned up and more references should be provided. Ben Babcock 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet. — Davenbelle 12:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove original research. According to the standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, non-canonical material is considered original research and should be removed. If there's not enough left afterwards for the article, delete. --Carnildo 21:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Davenbelle. Radiant_* 07:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet unless Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet becomes too long. Keep otherwise. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with K1Bond007, we should strive for more articles like Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet. This actual comparative table should maybe remain with links to the respective fleets and a basic overview. and we also need to make references to real sources, as Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet does and remove original research -- Rmrfstar 14:10, 15 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. Golbez 18:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reitze Jonkman[edit]

Non-notable; Google only pulls up a name dump and a few non-English educational-institute sites. Linuxbeak 20:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Google search of 326 hits; however, fame and importance are not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Jimbo Wales - see Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No. Rather the test for inclusion is whether it is valid material for an encyclopedia; that is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. The information in this article is verifiable and is presented neutrally. The field of study is legitimate and academic - at least as valid an entry as a biography of a soap opera star. Stub template - appropriately categorised - should be added.--AYArktos 01:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established (WP:VAIN, WP:BIO). Radiant_* 07:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:05, 13 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. Golbez 20:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Songfellows[edit]

It doesn't really take all that much to meet my standards for notability as a musical group, and it seems there is a group with that name that would indeed pass, but this one is not it. Rl 20:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - barbershop quartet with no indication that it meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to meet Wikimusic guidelines. Megan1967 02:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an accurate account of an established, licensed and recognized barbershop quartet.BradGrabill
Vote by Bradgrabill, whose only other contribution so far has been to write the article in question. FWIW, he's apparently the lead singer of this group. Rl 07:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence of them being established and recognized? Kappa 04:43, 10 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. – Rich Farmbrough 12:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-proclaimed Emperors of Moravia and its "government"[edit]

  • I suggest this article be deleted. Its very title is POV. → JarlaxleArtemis 22:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I say no,because such a micronation does exist,yet we(because
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense, vanity, intended as joke, created by vandal. Pavel Vozenilek 11:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im the said "Tomislav I.",proclaimed by 

my family without my anticipation) have not managed

to create a website and

no news paper took us seriosly enough to write about us,and the television ignored as as a

result that a Czech person proclaime d a micronation to escape taxation.

All the other pages have ignored us as well.Please be reasonable.

A website takes some time to build,so until then,could you just trust what i am saying?I have already expanded(although under other nick names) the Wikipedia,so i have no need for lying.P-L-E-A-S-E have a heart.How else can we proclaim a micronations existence? And wikipedia is also a good port where a lot of

people would recognise our claim.P-L-E-A-A-A-S-E-.

Yours sincerily Tomislav I.(David for friends)

Again, the above was by 85.70.52.185 at 22:42, 8 May 2005. For his other rather colorful entries and complete disregard of wikipedia rules and ettiquette, note his user contributions here as well as his votes (above) on his Moravia article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete If no newspaper would cover your made-up "nation", what on earth made you think that an encyclopedia would? Geez, get your own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Martg76 20:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable at this time. ESkog 22:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All the other pages have ignored us as well'. Even more reason to delete. Delete all micronationscruft. RickK 23:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone else ignores them as they are not in any way the slightest bit significant or influential. Wikipedia is not here to fix that. Average Earthman 08:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant even as a micronation, possible pro-pretender connection - Skysmith 09:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE-1th I couldn't create an own website yet.2.the newpapers around here are so greedy they want payment for such a publication,or they told me that either im a freak,cook,weirdo,pervert,madman,etc.etc.etc. or said they have no rome,time or will.Consider it this way:if you would bust your brains out to actually get so,ethink noted,for what you have only paper-evidence(inpenendance proclamations,calls to the people,etc...)and you dont have a skaner,you hope the people will belive you.And if they dont,you have full right to be angry.And if people dont trust one-another anymore,then i ges the worlds gome more to heck than i thought.The principe of a micronation is as far as i know CLAIM and PROCLAMATION.This page does not say(to the best of my knowledge) that in order to be listed here you need a WEBSITE.The first king of Redobda also didnt have a homepage,yet is still recognised.The island also doesnt have any newpaper as far as i know curently,so no newsaper IN REDONDA mentioned the CLAIM for redonda's THRONE.Another thing-why cant a person proclaim a micronation HERE and not be acused of VANDALISM?I could also complain how i used,under various other nicks,knock my Brains out to MODIFY this site nad what do i GET?The COLD SHOULDER,thats what.PEOPLE,have a heart.Besides i've got a internet newpaper (www.solokapr.cz)in witch,"under circumstances"(thats what one of its editors told me)"my case" could be presented.Wait a 2,2 weeks and see(its wery far into the centre of thet newspaper from my home and i need to get all materials together. Your ever-so angry David. Ps:If there wasnt i you STILL woildnt have the deposed monarchs lists from the 19th-before the 17th century.Think about what YOU write in articles and THEN re-consider your aproach on maters,such as Deletion,even though the said thing does not technicaly range beyond the limits of the describsion of a certain subject(i repete the generals for a MICRONATION:A PROCLAMATIOn and NO RECOGNITION.

Yet again, 85.70.52.185 at 16:05, 12 May 2005. Are the admins watching this guy? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. As non-notable as my own fictional kingdom Imaginativa, which doesn't have any article in Wikipedia as far as I know (If there was any article, I would vote for deleting it). --Neigel von Teighen 16:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fictional nation entry from the person who runs said fictional country. Possible kook entry. Non notable, vanity, and a troubling lack of adherence to rules and procedures. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE-YOU WANTED RECOGNITION ILL GIVE YOU RECOGNITION on: http://www.kingnicholas.com/2005/05/international-diplomacy.html

the page of a micronation you RECOGNISED AS SUCH is the information on my

comunication with Nicholas I, of the Copeman Empiere and his "response",when

you click on it enholds:

"I certainly see no problem in recognising your empire's existence. "

How's them aples?

Your ever so PLEASED Tomislav I. or as some of my oponents here could write 85.70.52.185

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 18:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thou Art God[edit]

Dictionary definition MessedRocker 20:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Stranger in a Strange Land —Wahoofive (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • abstain on deletion - oppose the re-direct. The statement appears five times in the Bible -so to redirect (as opposed to link) to another book, whose use of it is probably derivative, hardly seems appropriate. --Doc Glasgow 22:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Easily expandable to a more substantial article. It deals with the religious and philosophical nature of the self and of God; it ties in with Christian and neo-pagan beliefs; it was popularised in a seminal novel. all these three factors can be woven togeter into an article that is substantially more than any dicdef could ever be. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that those phrases are used with totally different meanings in those different contexts. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neo-pagan usage deserves an article. Kappa 04:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proof of widespread usage is provided. What the heck is a neo-pagan? Any any article that mentions usage in Heinlein before usage in the Bible sets off my warning bells. Gamaliel 04:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Neopagan. Gets 27 kilogoogles, so keep. Existing page already qualifies as a disambig between Heinlein and the Bible. Radiant_* 08:31, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' because of kilogoogles Yuckfoo 17:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, notable, good start at a page. Nickptar 22:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's a good start and the fact that it mentions Heinlein before the Bible seems reasonable to me since my first upon discovering the page existed was the Heinlein story. Discussion of how it relates to pantheism would also be appropriate. --Christi 22:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Wow! I didn't see the potential for an article! I thought it was unexpandable. MessedRocker 23:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, worth an article.--Prem 03:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 18:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"[edit]

Unencyclopedic, POV fork. LevelCheck is also trying to create an islamofascism-stub template. RickK 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. LevelCheck is behaving disruptively again. I'd urge all subesequent people not to vote on this article and simply let it be deleted--it was created in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) 21:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Super Extreme Keep Facts are NPOV regardless of if you disgree with them or they make your uncomfortable. This list contains verifiable information. It is encyclopedic Klonimus 00:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody is clearly trying to create articles in order to make their point. Not the way to go about discussing things in Wikipedia. Delete, and tell the person not to do it again. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything in the article has sources listed. What exactly do you object to? LevelCheck 21:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete with extreme prejudice, maybe even a speedy. WP:POINT. --Idont Havaname 22:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's existence violates NPOV. ESkog 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? It's verifiable and doesn't promote a POV. Klonimus 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISLAMOFASCISM. Why aren't I on the list? Delete. Nestea 22:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fascismcruft. This fight over this particularly lame neologism is getting ridiculous. A Man In Black 23:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 00:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 02:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete for disruption I see no reason this information can't be in Islamofascism. Gazpacho 03:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Becuase that article is protected due to constant Islamist edit wars. The pre-vandalism Islamofascism article was getting rather long 40+Kb, so it makes sense to split this list out.Klonimus 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless trivia. Or else create List of people who have used the word "the" and [[List of people who have used the word "[insert offensive epithet here]"]] for everything on List of political epithets—and List of ethnic slurs too, while we're at it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain -- if notability is a valid criterion for inclusion, then this debate seems to indicate to me that Islamofacism is fast becoming a notable phenomenon within Wiki, whatever its position in the wider world.--Simon Cursitor 08:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would make it a neologism, so delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_* 08:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this is clearly a way to get around the other articlesYuber(talk) 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no ifsandsorbuts. — RJH 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if only because of possible extensions- list of people who have used the word "homosexuality"? Sensation002 23:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I want to write List of people who have used the word spork. CDC (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm changing it to Merge into Islamofascism when that article is unlocked. And to to respond to the neologism objections: it's been around for at least four years now, has entered the lexcion of significant thinkers and writers and should be regarded as tending toward permanent. Homophobia is a pretty new term as well, and not everyone accepts it. Are we going to delete it as well? Of course not! It's an important term about an important topic employed by numerous people, even if you don't agree with their stance/terminology.
I just added another author I know to have employed the term in print (Victor Davis Hanson). The only thing I would do is possibly Move it to "Authors...etc." because most of these people are print or electronic writers not TV-talking heads. I would also Deleted the ridiculous crossed swords and date-palm logo and the "Islamofascism" category. Oh, and I also realize that this guy has been going around starting these cats & such to offend people - and I voted to delete one of them - but the decision to delete should be based on the encyclopedic merits of the article, not the perceived intentions of its creator. --Jpbrenna 23:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
updated --Jpbrenna 01:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Do you have a citation for Victor Davis Hanson? I love VDH. Perhaps you could be WP:BOLD, and add it to the Islamofascism talk page, and/or User:Klonimus/Islamofascism where I am maintaining a mirror of the Islamofascism article from before it was vandalised. Klonimus 05:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I concur with the Merge vote above. --Kenyon 06:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic.--Prem 03:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Carnildo 06:34, 14 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 Weak keep. If it can't be improved, it may be worthy of vfd at a later time. Also try merging. Golbez 18:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act[edit]

Not notable; article describes a bill that was introduced in Congress but not adopted and is no longer a live proposal. RussBlau 22:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete failed legislation proposals —Wahoofive (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete billcruft. Gazpacho 10:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with something appropriate. Simply because a bill failed does not make it non-notable or non-encyclopedic, and it can be of historic value (especially if it's part of an ongoing effort to pass legislation that accomplishes a specific goal). If this is contraindicated by Wikipedia conventions, consider it weak. KickAir8P~ 06:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, personally I do think bills of law are particularly encyclopedic (unless controversial etc). Radiant_* 07:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per KickAir8P, seems encyclopedic and part of human knowledge. Kappa 16:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1.Notable 35.000 Unique Google hits. 2. Laws are important for the society and therefore notable in an encyclopedia. 3. This bill is/was controversial as ylu can see in the Register article. If it wasn't controversial, it would have passed. --Leopard 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic.--Prem 03:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 20:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Upper Mississippi Baseball League (2007)[edit]

Speculation; only 9 Google hits, and given the nature of independent baseball leagues, this league might fold before it even plays any games anyway. Also worth mentioning is that the official website of the league is hosted by Tripod. Delete. --Idont Havaname 22:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete given all the above info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already has an external link.--Prem 03:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 18:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dragon sail[edit]

Looks like original research to me. "During 1991 we decided to prove our thesis and at the same time we reinvented the dragon sail and how the Vikings might have sailed." --Jll 22:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment could a good cleanup and some context fix this article? Vegaswikian 06:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as finding out which website it was ripped from? I suspect copyvio. Average Earthman 09:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did do some Google searches with a few phrases but did not get any hits. That does not mean it is not a copyvio. We should also note that Dragon Sail does not show up anywhere else in WP. My bottom line at this point is, if nothing is done to fix the article then it should be deleted. Vegaswikian 18:37, 10 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. —Xezbeth 19:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Herminone cat creature[edit]

Nominated as a speedy for vanity but it is not a speedy candidate nor vanity. Refers to an incident in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets but suffers from horrible mis-spellings; no useful information. I vote delete. Dbiv 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless harrypottercruft. Nestea 22:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could never be expanded into anything remotely useful. Can't have encyclopedia entries on every single plot point in every single film. ESkog 22:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no useful additional information in the article --AYArktos 23:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelled wrong, too. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it was created by Krum. (Delete.) Marblespire 07:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the above reasons. We already have Hermione Granger which is both detailed and correctly spelled. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{delete}}. Joe D (t) 03:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor Harry Potter event, nonnotable. тəzєті 22:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hogwart-hogwash. Not only spelt incorrectly, but this creature isn't called "Hermione cat creature" anyway. Even if it was, it's an appalling example of Pottercruft. Merge anything saveable, then delete. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Not even an actual being in the Harry Potter realm. It is just Hermione. Hoekenheef 01:46, 14 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. Golbez 18:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of International Baccalaureate graduates[edit]

Useless list. Could grow forever. Never complete. r3m0t talk 22:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed. The only encyclopedic individuals are not encyclopedic for finishing the IB curriculum; thousands do so every year. Seems to be asking for individual vanity. ESkog 22:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable unencyclopaedic list. Megan1967 02:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as long as it includes only "notable" articled individuals there should be no problem. Kappa 03:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Managable list as long as it only lists notable alumni, per Kappa. User:Sjakkalle will never make the list however... pity. Sjakkalle 07:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable. All notable alumni are already in other more specific lists; we also don't have a List of people because that's similarly too broad. Radiant_* 08:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean we don't have List of people? It looks like a pretty large article even... Sjakkalle 06:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa, I am surprised. We do have a list of people. I didn't know Wikipedia had an index other than Special:Allpages. Nevertheless I still fail to see the point of the list of graduates. Radiant_* 07:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notable is POV. RickK 20:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: very well put. Kappa 16:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that the wording has been changed to "famous", is it still POV? PeregrineAY 09:06, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
        • The only good guide to "famous" we have is "does the person have a Wikipedia article?". In that case, the list duplicates something that could better be managed as a category. --Carnildo 17:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost as broad as List of college graduates. --Carnildo 21:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even my flatmate would make the list. Trying to limit it to "notable" alumni is asking for POV trouble. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article was based on List of Harvard University graduates, until that got changed into a even broader topic, List of Harvard University people As creator of the list, I would like to see it kept because IB graduates deserve recognition. Perhaps someone could go change notable to famous, like it says in List of Harvard University people. PeregrineAY 06:48, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this sort of thing is desirable, make it a category and use it on bio articles of the appropriate notables. Quale 06:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the certificate that you get at the end of highschool is really of very little interest to anybody--nixie 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a list of notable alumni, and the context implies it without a change to the title: we have plenty of alumni lists on their own or within institutional articles we manage to take care of. Samaritan 06:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see why this should be deleted - it's a list of notable alumni just like any other one, with the exception that a lot more people will be interested in it than in a similar list for one single school only. There's a lot of people around who are proud of their IB background (yours truly included) and will be interested in finding out about famous people who have gone through the same programme. ulayiti 07:55, 16 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. Golbez 20:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge avatar[edit]

Not notable. Vanity (mainly by User:Emilianodelau, who founded [Knowledge Environments], who invented this pointless trademarked term and waffled on in a 60k PDF. r3m0t talk 22:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. According to policy "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject." The article does not refer to any company or individual. It is written in the neutral with the express interest of being informative. The concept Knowledge Avatar has been used in other contexts such as the Columbia University seminar on Innovations in Education. E. C. De Laurentiis 00:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether it's WP:VAIN or not may be up to discussion, but nevertheless this is a neologism. With about 450 googles, so it isn't anywhere near established. Delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_* 08:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, neologism. RickK 21:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, neologism, original research. --Carnildo 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Carnildo said. Quale 06:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism.--Prem 03:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 18:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made[edit]

cf.Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_7 Category:The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made category deletion

A 2004 DVD documentary on which 50 movies the creators deem to be the worst ever. No particular word on why this particular DVD from last year is a significant opinion piece. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bit of cleanup needed, but a harmless addition to the 'worst movies' corpus of articles. Quoting a DVD is an objective way of presenting a subjective list. The JPS 23:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. Real movie: NYTimes review —Wahoofive (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pedro Sanchez 00:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Real DVD but no information on how these films were nominated. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hoekenheef 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article, maybe some cleanup. Howabout1 02:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, New York Times coverage proves people might be interested. Kappa 04:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. Radiant_* 08:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it POV? Kappa 18:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless done by something objective like 'gross ticket sales compensated for nation of origin and inflation', selecting 50 movies to qualify as the 'worst ever' is a POV process. Granted, it's the POV of the people who published the DVD, but it's still POV. Radiant_* 07:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a real documentary Yuckfoo 17:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, impossible to make NPOV. Dozens of lists like this are published (in verifiable media) each year. None adds verifiable factual knowledge to the universe; I don't see that an article about one (which is not an authoritative list from some source more noteworthy than the other dozens) adds usable information to the Wikipedia. At best, this should be merged to an overview of such lists. I don't think even that could be made encyclopedic, since the topic is subjective "worst" rather than "most objectionable on a specific point that could be discussed as a sociological issue." Barno 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an interesting one. Best/Worst movie lists are ultimately subjective. But, they are a phenomenon which obviously exists (otherwise there wouldn’t be DVDs about them). This article is NPOV. Quoting a list from a DVD is a very good NPOV of presenting this POV phenomenon, in the same way that wikipedia can present a NPOV article on the POV ideologies of, for example, the British Conservative Party (etc.). We are presenting subjectivity in an objective way. The article is not subjectively suggesting a list of the worst movies ever made, it is objectively reporting the opinions of a professionally distributed DVD.
      This usefully supplements List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever because of its NPOV. The JPS 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conversely, I'm not a big fan of the tone of The Fifty Worst Films of All Time at the moment. The JPS 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that that's not answering Barno's question, though. Yes, we are objectively reporting someone's subjective opinion. However, what is it about these someones that makes their subjective opinions worth reporting? Roger Ebert, the first author to win a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, wrote a book about movies he loathed, but we haven't covered that. The Golden Turkey Awards, written by Harry and Michael Medved, is sometimes credited with bringing Plan 9 From Outer Space from forgotten to cult status and yet there's no coverage of that. Let's be honest: are books/DVDs about "Here's the movies we think suck!" really that rare that one deserves coverage just because it's there? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do have Golden Turkey Awards, we also have Golden Raspberry Awards, and there's no reason we shouldn't cover the other topics you mention. Kappa 23:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, we have The Golden Turkey Awards, and now it's under the actual title. When it's a redlink from the name of its author one can be excused for thinking we don't have it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a professionally produced and distributed DVD. If you think that Ebert's rhetoric is worth an article, then go ahead and write it: I wouldn't oppose.The JPS 00:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and interesting --Leopard 16:39, 11 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. Golbez 18:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Geppers Creepers[edit]

Vanity. Unnotable forum run by kids on a specific course at a specific school. See The New Naptilians/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The New Naptilians Delete The JPS 23:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nice kids, I'm sure, but wikipedia isn't the place for this. Meelar (talk) 23:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:21, 10 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. Golbez 20:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Spellex[edit]

Insignificant elementary-school reference book. Only 56 Google hits, including WP mirrors and for-sale sites. Amazon sales rank 1,134,672. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book guide, so this does not appear to be sufficiently influential or significant to warrant an article. Average Earthman 09:08, 10 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 - deleted - SimonP 21:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Evaluation operator[edit]

This is Original Research by User:Dirnstorfer alias User:Dadim alias User:212.144.150.241 (and more IP edits). See the website http://www.dadim.de which is the only place in the wild where to find this "Evaluation operator". The articles Theta calculus and Multiscale calculus have to be checked, too. --Pjacobi 23:35, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

  • Rewrite it so it describes the far more common bar notation. Dysprosia 00:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evalution operator exists but has a far broader scope than the article suggests. It's used to construct the Gromov-Witten invariants, for one thing. Rewrite Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 10:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.dadim.de/doc/pi/ suggests that the theory has been published in 2004 conference proceedings. However, it seems that the author is the only one using the notation. However much I'd like to use Chinese characters in maths, I have to say it is nonnotable (at least at present), so all text in the article except for the two lines in the section "Alternative notation" (describing the bar notation mentioned by Dysprosia) should be deleted. Unless somebody actually rewrites the article, I vote delete. Jitse Niesen 11:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. An attempt to establish a private notation for a rather trivial and well-known mathematical object. @Sympleko: you are talking about something different. in the contruction of Gromov-Witten invariants, the map sending a stable map (as an element of the moduli space) to its value at one of the markings is called evaluation map, not evaluation operator (and anyway it is not what the author had in mind). Theta calculus and Multiscale calculus very much look like original research / neologisms, too. regards, High on a tree 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-write. Evaluation operator deserves an article; the original notation give here probably does not. Michael Hardy 02:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Curious: Is re-write a valid vote in VfD? Of course some can be rewrite an article to save it from VfD, but ordering others to do so? Also, the article can be re-written after deletion, so re-write votes shouldn count against deletion. --Pjacobi 15:24, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Delete Sholtar 05:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete evaluation operator should be a redirect to lambda calculus or to eval. And, by standard math usage, what this person is describing in this page is not the evaluation operator, but the binding operator lambda. So besides using non-standard notation, its also misnamed. I don't know how to rescue this page w/o a total re-write. linas 15:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also multiscale calculus should be VfD'ed. The operators he describes there are known to me as deRham operators (totally unrelated to de Rham's mainstream work on coholomology), they generate some very interesting fractals, they generate a sub- semigroup of the modular group; they generate stuff on the boundary between what's differentiable and what's not. So the suggestion to use them for calculus is ... entertaining. FWIW, they *are* multiscale, (they're fractal) which is why this person finds them handy for financial analysis. On the other hand, the smell of money is infamous for attracting kook math to the financial markets. linas 16:04, 14 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. (If you want to merge, that's fine, but the point is the article lived) --Golbez 20:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mozart's name[edit]

Mozart's name is a short article on just the history of Mozart's variable name, barely notable in itself, names were far more flexible back then. Should be merged with Mozart article. Rmrfstar 23:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Keep as a separate article. The reason we do this, and continue to do it, is to spin off excessive detail from the articles on major composers where it is off-putting to a reader to be immediately bogged down in a morass of detail on the composer's name, the controversy over his birthdate, the controversy over his nationality, and other minor issues which detract from the flow of the main biographical article. There is a respectable precedent established on other composer articles for this practice (see for example the satellite articles around Beethoven). Antandrus 23:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pretty minor topic, but agree with Antandrus that it would clutter up Mozart article. I see you've removed the info from Mozart again. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good article. Nobody who doesn't want to read it is forced to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate, so people who aren't very interested can avoid it. Kappa 03:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: As the nominator points out, and as I pointed out on the takpage months ago, the article shows several clear anachronistic misconceptions about names in the 18th century, such as the idea that a certain (Latin) form of a name in a baptismal record would be "decisive for its purpose", i.e. determine the exact form of a person's name for life, or that composers were exceptional in changing the form or spelling of their name according to language and other circumstances. Take out these unsupported assumptions, and whatever is left fits into the biographical article and really does not warrant an article of its own. Uppland 06:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good idea to have remove some rather dull info from main article, which will probably grow and grow. Gillian Tipson 06:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Mozart family or Mozart genealogy or something. "Mozart's name" is simply "Wolfgang". Radiant_* 08:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect back into the Mozart article. It's not bogging down the reader if it's in a separate section. Let's not start a genealogy page on him, his relatives are nn. RickK 21:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep Very good device to organize the quite long Mozart page terse and succinct.
  • Merge, this is all about Mozart.--Prem 03:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Mozart article in its current state is hardly unweildy and the addition of a section devoted to Mozart's name would not significantly detract from it's readability. If the Mozart's name article held a large amount of information, or showed potential to have, it would be a different story. This, however, is not the case. Uppland is correct in that the information is not worthy of it's own article and needs to be shortened dramatically even if not merged. As RickK pointed out, a small section on Mozart's name inside the main Mozart article would not bog down anyone looking for other information. No one is forced to read anything on any article, (except maybe the first sentence), especially if the information were put in it's own section. If properly integrated, the information on the name of Mozart would not "detract from the flow" of the main article. In it's current form, the information is not easy to find, even if you're looking specifically for it. Rmrfstar 16:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid cluttering up Mozart as stated above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm responsible for the existence of this article, though not most of its content. It put it as a separate article because people kept putting little anecdotes about Mozart's name right at the top of the Mozart article, where it seriously disrupted the expository flow and sounded amateurish. Rmrfstar, who wants simply to have a short discussion in the main article, is not taking into account a widespread phenomenon in the Wikipedia composer bios: people are always putting in little anecdotes without regard to whether their contribution is disrupting the organization of the article. Satellite articles provide a way of accommodating these little anecdotes without making the main article incoherent. If we actually delete information, as Rmrfstar is proposing, it will all come back sooner or later, re-disrupting the main article. Opus33 16:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should in any way delete valid information just for the sake of merging the two articles. Rather I think we should simply address the issues brought up by Uppland concerning the article's misrepresentations of the importance of some name changes. I do, though, believe that some information may be added concerning Mozart's chosen name Amadeus, and the multiple interpretations of it's meaning, (especially relating to his competition with Salieri). Such information could be, I think, incorporated into the main article very well. Rmrfstar 16:22, 15 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 - kept, but should be merged into other pages - SimonP 21:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism[edit]

Merge into Arabs and anti-Semitism or Islam and anti-Semitism. My complaints with this article are not the info contained in it, but the fact that there are already two other anti-Semitism articles that this could be merged into. Perhaps in the Arabs and anti-Semitism article a section for each country can be created if there is enough info.Yuber(talk) 23:41, 9 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 a historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 19:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

John Gabriel's Nth root algorithm[edit]

This is Newton's method applied to the equation , as explained in more detail on N-th root algorithm. Nevertheless, a certain John Gabriel claims the algorithm as his (see the talk page). However, he is unable or unwilling to provide a reference. -- Jitse Niesen 00:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After you delete this entry, go ahead and delete the "Diminishing Angle Paradox" - it was conveyed to Jason Wells by me. Jason added it to Wiki. I do not want it to appear on a trashy site like this where a few prima donnas who know nothing, decide what it's value is worth. John Gabriel
    • Sorry if this seems harsh, but it is nothing personal. If you believe the article is important, please explain it to us. Radiant_* 07:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, as requested, Diminishing angle is going to bite the dust. Eric119 02:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. John Gabriel has some interesting ideas, but none of his stuff that I've seen yet is encyclopedic, including this. I think I should also warn that, from experience, his email correspondence style can be rather aggressive. Andrewa 02:34, 12 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_9&oldid=1081092995"