Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 20

April 20

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doug ramsberg

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This individual is not notable currently. Firebug 00:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculation. Gazpacho 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even when it happens, could presumably be merged with the spaceship article. Meelar (talk) 00:14, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Lack of notability. Delete. --Sn0wflake 01:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into article about the spaceship and redirect. Nothing here warrants a seperate article. Mgm|^(talk) 07:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vacuous. Charles Matthews 10:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Mcfly85 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Winning a spaceflight in a lotto drawing is an odd feat, but nothing encyclopedic until the winner takes the trip. -- 8^D ^gab 06:59, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Batmen

Another un-signed former band. Article only claims they recorded a single demo tape. Only one hit for "The Batmen" jewett. Niteowlneils 01:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep Seems to have a certain "Rock Family Trees" interest, though arguably mergable. Alai 04:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, doesnt meet wiki music guidelines. Megan1967 05:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If kept this should have a serious POV-ectomy. Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability established per WP:MUSIC. Radiant_* 09:14, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dan Jewett, perhaps (for the reason given by Alai)? Uppland 19:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 20:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greenzap

An ingeniously worded article about a service rival to Paypal which yields 5000 hits on Google. Adverstising. Delete.

• Delete. Pure advertising for something that is (as yet) not notable. -- Egil 03:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal ball rule, mainly. It's also an advertisement, but I think we need to cut people more slack on that. ---Isaac R 06:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it's up and running. Current entry is attempt to expand community. Mgm|^(talk) 07:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Club-house

This article was tagged for deletion by Bobblewik, who did not create a discussion page, add the discussion to the per-day VFD sub-page, or indicate any reason for nomination anywhere else. The nomination process was completed by SuperDude115 and SPUI.

• Keep. This concept is super-mainstream! --SuperDude 23:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What on earth are you on about, man? Are you just trying to spite the people that have warned you about your contributions now? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) Er, nevermind, the person who marked it didn't make a subpage. Silly me. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This topic is article-worthy. This article is not quite it. -- 8^D ^gab 02:55, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Comment. Ah! It seems to be copy-pasted from the external link in the article: [1]. It's a public domain publication, if I'm not mistaken. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) Whoops, it says that the publication is the source. Just ignore me tonight, PLEASE. >_< ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong condense, then merge with Clubhouse as obvious alternate spelling. Create disambig may be useful. Radiant_* 09:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge. Good Idea. -Casito⇝Talk 00:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Club-house seems to be an ID3 genre. --SPUI (talk) 01:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)--SPUI (talk) 01:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (and chuck Ms Lefebvre off a bridge, per Wiwaxia ;)) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jacqualynn Lefebvre

"Known to her friends as "Jack" or "Jackie," this aspiring American poet is in her senior year at Roseville High School". No google hits. Kappa 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Cute. Delete. --Sn0wflake 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm beginning to think we should make an article titled non-notable students, and redirect all of these to it. -- 8^D ^gab 02:53, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Delete. NN -- Egil 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "aspiring" poet and "hopes" to own bowling alley. Let's try again once she's published. Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another example of an "aspiring nobody" who "deserves to be thrown off a bridge". Wiwaxia 00:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to User:Gangleri/sandbox/Icelandic Sheepdog in national languages per user request. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Icelandic Sheepdog in national languages

A quite useless link list. Delete. --Sn0wflake 01:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a link farm. -- Egil 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a list of translations of the word "Icelandic Sheepdog". Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary or move to User:Gangleri/sandbox/Icelandic Sheepdog in national languages. Sorry about the title but I worked on other issues. Kind regards Gangleri | Th | T 08:29, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Is there any language where the translation of this phrase isn't a simple concatenation/agglutination of the individual translations for the words Icelandic and sheepdog? If not, it's probably not worth the effort of transwikification. As the 2004 comment in Talk:Icelandic Sheepdog in national languages says, this page largely duplicates the interwiki links (to other language Wikipedias) on Icelandic Sheepdog and seems largely pointless, its only purpose appearing to be to cross reference the interwiki links with the translations of a dog-breeding standard (which, of course, isn't necessarily an authority on the translations of the words Icelandic and sheepdog in any case) most of which are in an illegible undocumented proprietary file format moreover. Delete. Uncle G 12:07, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Delete The actual page Icelandic Sheepdog has links to wiki pages in other languages, but we really don't need this page.--Bwmodular 12:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Aristius Fuscus

Article is a single sentance mentioning that this person was a friend of Horace, and is mentioned in one of his Odes. Personally, that doesn't seem encyclopedic. -- Dcfleck 02:38, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Weak Keep & Expand. I'm inclined to think any person who we can put a name to after 2000 years is notable. Obviously not vanity! -- 8^D ^gab 02:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Keep per the "2000 year test" of non-vanity. Kappa 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone mentioned by Horace is notable. Klonimus 03:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. he shows up in a Ben Jonson play too. Kappa 03:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. A total of 191 Google hits in its English and Italian forms. Given that he's not exactly in the news lately, and was somewhat of an important social/literary figure in his day, this article merits inclusion.NatusRoma 04:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge unless expanded--is this all there is on the person? If we can't write more about him than one sentence, he deserves to be merged into the Horace article (or else an article on that Ode). Meelar (talk) 05:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pretty much, yes. He has a two-sentence entry in Lemprière's. (Note that this reference accidentally/erroneously conflates Aristius Fuscus and Aristippus, by the way.) I've supplied a reference to another source dealing with the relationship to Ben Jonson, which manages to get a paragraph out of it. Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and expand. As I understand, Fuscus was a friend who Horace hoped would save him from a bore. Fuscus thought it was a funny situation and didn't. I understand that the Jonson reference was based on that. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Meelar. Radiant_* 09:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --Carnildo 22:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. N-Man^talk 11:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Subjects can be both encyclopedic and short. Dsmdgold 10:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• merge would be ok too Yuckfoo 01:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; he had an entry in the 1870 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities [2], so why not here? David Sneek 16:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable notable historical figure. --Centauri 09:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Lectiodifficilior Mentioned more than once (see Smith 1867 above [3]) and the sort of person Roman poetry people know about as a matter of course. Wikipedia has pages on the most ephemeral things—third-tier 1970s video games!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere University

Non-notable webcomic; article is a barely literate promotional. Firebug 03:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN -- Egil 03:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Comic has only existed for a few months; does not meet any of the WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. — Gwalla | Talk 05:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I'd call it an advert, but there is no link. -Casito⇝Talk 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Master Thief Garrett 03:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Outer Heaven

Wholly non-notable article about a video game. Deletionist 03:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I suspect bad-faith nomination due to the nominator's user ID. Only two edits so far. Sock check? Firebug 03:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Update: It appears that the user has approximately 50 edits, not two.)

  You must not have looked at my contributions correctly. Please vote on the merits of this article, which is about some minor part of a fictional game which is clearly non-notable. Deletionist 03:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Personally I would like to know what Deletionist's main account actually is. Such user names smell faintly of WP:POINT. Radiant_* 09:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Additionally, note that Deletionist has just been blocked indefinitely. Radiant_* 11:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Cannot see that this warrants an article. -- Egil 03:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, too big to merge comfortably. It would be nice to be able to mark it as a sub-page, so random page users wouldn't be troubled by it. Kappa 03:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, too big, but only the 1st paragraph is even slightly encyclopedic IMO. Delete or Merge in that order. Marblespire 04:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa--disagree with Marblespire on this one. Meelar (talk) 05:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a Metal Gear article. Not really that notable to warrant a seperate article. Megan1967 05:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Megan. Radiant_* 09:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Megan, if you cut out the section about how its referenced in other metal gears and just merge it with metal gear this isn't really a difficult merge--nixie 14:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge, as per Megan --Carnildo 22:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, stands on its own, but it needs cleanup. Merge if you must. -Casito⇝Talk 00:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. While I can understand Deletionist's reasoning (although, I do suspect his motives too, considering his username) for wanting to delete the article, I think there's still potential for this article. Outer Heaven is an integral place in the Metal Gear games which is referred alot in the later games for it to be simply merged with the Metal Gear (video game) article. There's entries for less significant video game characters and keyterms, yet I don't see anybody deleting them.
• keep it please Yuckfoo 01:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep --EisenKnoechel 13:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Can't see why delete it. It's a good complement for the Metal Gear article, but I don't think it should be merged, as the majority of the other units referred on the article (Cobra Unit, Dead Cell, Foxhound, etc) have their own page.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:10, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Constructing school science lab equipment

This was previously nominated for deletion and the result was transwiki. It has since been transwikied, along with a bunch of science experiment how-tos (which it is only a list of links to) to Wikibooks. All of the others, like cell holder, bulb holder, etc. are already awaiting deletion. This should be deleted now, as the title would be a useless redirect anyway. --Dmcdevit 18:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just on the pagename alone. hydnjo talk 02:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Tokek 19:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Seselwa 18:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

• Delete. Non-notable think tank. Firebug 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I first thought to keep because it said it had entries in both Wikiquote and Wikisource, then I realised there were none. Plus, the name is misleading in itself, advancing "capitalism" doesn't mean advancing individual rights. -- Natalinasmpf 03:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Google returns >4,000 hits. Seems notable enough, and there's plenty in Wikipedia that is less notable. The name of the organization is real. --Durin 03:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable organization from the objectivist movement. ElBenevolente 04:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen them quoted as a source from time to time. Feco 05:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Established think tank. Nothing misleading in the name. jni 11:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Claim that ""capitalism" doesn't mean advancing individual rights" is without merit; Objectivist thought, which this group represents, explicitly recognizes the connection between the principle of individual rights and capitalism as a social system. See "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. Principals have appeared on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, NPR's Justice Talking, C-SPAN, represented Objectivist position on antitrust re: US v. Microsoft, opinion part of DOJ's "major comments" list (under former name of "Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism") 69.170.17.193 19:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Claim that ""capitalism" doesn't mean advancing individual rights" reflects non-NPOV. Claimant's webpage indicates claimant is a minor child. A1Capitalist 05:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ***User's first edit, inexplicably enough, since the article prospects for deletion are slim. El_C 03:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Quit age-baiting! I've been through it before and no one should have to experience it on Wikipedia. Judge by contributions and ideas, not by groups of 365 days. —Seselwa 22:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Proweb

Tagged with {{explain significance}} since February, it currently is self-promotion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Seems to be nothing more than spam. David Johnson [T|C] 21:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete BP added. -Casito⇝Talk 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Mirabello

Fails the "more notable than average college professor" test, seemingly. Much as I hate to do down a fellow "Glasgow man". Alai 04:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails the "average professor" test. --Carnildo 22:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps he is notable, but the author makes no mention of it. -Casito⇝Talk
• Do Not Delete. Its quite clear to anyone who has come into contact with this "man" that he is extraordinary.
  • (146.85.238.81) Its (sic) quite clear to anyone who has come into contact with VfD that anonymous votes are generally discounted.
• Delete per the above. Radiant_* 07:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. Its quite clear to anyone who has come into contact with this "man" that he is extraordinary. My user name is Stege but I'm new to this. Dr. Mirabello has written several challenging works and is writing another one at this moment on terrorism and crime. His background in studying abroad and knowledge of the occult are unmatched

• Delete. The sad thing is, a proper article might be written for this guy - he's had at least 2 books published, a 3rd on the way, and gets a reasonable number of Google hits. But, the article as written is more of a starry-eyed mash note - while the subject may (and that's by no means clearly demonstrated) be worth an article, this article is bad, and personally I'd rather see no article than a bad one. --Dcfleck 15:06, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the "average professor" test. Master Thief Garrett 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Merrick Boulevard

This page isn't notable enough. I don't believe it fits the speedy guidelines, so I'm putting it up for a vote. 郵便箱 04:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• weak Delete We really need a policy on streets. Maybe someone can fix this up so I can change my vote. Vegaswikian 04:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weakest keep; I agree with Vegaswikian that we need some sort of policy on these. Meelar (talk) 05:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep for reasons stated. However, a 100-mile-long boulevard gets my inner roadgeek drooling. Might do some cleanup on this one myself and alert SPUI while I'm at it. It's "kiddie-wiki" right now, but that's an easy fix. This might turn out to be a good object lesson for SamuraiClinton since he seems interested in "roadcruft." - Lucky 6.9 07:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable boulevard. Klonimus 08:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'll see if I can fix it up. Maybe I'll merge it with New York State Highway 27A. --SPUI (talk) 17:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done some fixing up. It could be merged with Montauk Highway (which it was once part of), though it might be long enough to keep alone. --SPUI (talk) 18:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think articles about roads and streets get deleted far to often and far too easily. -Casito⇝Talk
• Definitely keep. Main roads in major cities are always notable and should always be included. If necessary, disambiguate. The policy on streets should be that in a major metropolitan area, any arterial road, or (at least nationally) renowned collector or local road, would be notable. Major metropolitan area should be at least 1-2 million people, or a national capital, or a world-famous city.
• Keep. Notable road in NYC.Capitalistroadster 04:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Un-encyclopedicness not established. Keep. --Centauri 09:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely notable boulevard. Why on earth would you want to delete this? Does having this information in Wikipedia make the site somehow worse? I don't get it. Moncrief 22:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There seems to be a consensus that most transportation structures, even train and subway stations, are notable, even if there's nothing interesting to be said about them. That actually makes sense, because they serve as cross-references for geographic data. Hopefully somebody writing an article about something that happens to be near Merrick Boulevard will think stop and crosslink the two articles. That way the article will gradually accumulate cross references that will help people browse geographically-related entries. ¶ I do draw the line at minor streets though, and maybe we need some clear definition of "minor". But Merrick Boulevard clearly is a major artery. ---Isaac R 23:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor streets could redirect to the neighborhood or a page like Manhattan streets, 23-42. --SPUI (talk) 23:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be keep - maybe we should remove the VFD tag? After all this is an arterial road (although a minor arterial) in one of the most important cities in the world...

• We have to wait five days, which is coming up really soon. --SPUI (talk) 04:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, already transwikied. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Hopmark

First sentence reads, "Hopmark is a norwegian surname." Wikipedia is not genealogy. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete was cleanup-importance for 5 days with no cleanup. Vegaswikian 04:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Transwiki to Wiktionary, as with other names. --Angr/_comhrá 06:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)Delete this now that it's been transwikied. --Angr/_comhrá 11:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I just transwikied it... --Dmcdevit 00:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Pun'd

A non-notable neologism. Delete. — JIP | Talk 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The author of the article removed the VfD notice. User:Feco has marked it for speedy deletion, but the author removed that notice too. User:JeremyA has restord it. If the article is speedy deleted, this VfD becomes invalid. — JIP | Talk 04:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... yeah, anon IP keeps clearing vfd and speedy tags... I figure a VfD vote will draw enough attention to make sure it gets deleted. The article says Pun'd is a neologism created in Feb 2005 by some guy.... methinks non-encyclopedic vanity. Feco 05:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it --nixie 05:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 05:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. If it's better sourced, the author can try contributing it to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Charles Matthews 10:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. jni 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You just been delet'd! Neologism, no reason to transwiki. Author was trying to refer to a segue but wound up riding a Segway. Barno 20:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Dcfleck 15:12, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Middle ages, warriors

Patchy grab-bag of an article, no clearly defined focus or scope. Have a sneaky suspicion this is really an article about "Middle ages warriors as in some unspecified video-game" Alai 04:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect Alai is right, compare to the Medieval warfare article to see how it should be done. Badly titled, anyway. Average Earthman 10:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If it is not a copyvio, maybe some of the (admittedly rather superficial) historical information could be merged into medieval warfare. Martg76 11:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect a copyvio from the manual of Age of Empires 2. --Carnildo 22:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kick its ass. Too many punks think that historical RTS games actually reflect history. This article is probably an example of such a misconception. Back in highschool, kids in my history classes actually cited the AOE manual as a source in papers. Really quite sad. -Casito⇝Talk
• Delete. I can identify the game since I own it, THIS IS A COPYVIO from the Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings manual. There are some typos etc. but it's largely word-for-word. Master Thief Garrett 03:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Color in Light

Messy and badly written about something that is better covered in Light, Color and other articles. The main goal of the author seems to be to find somewhere to put in links to his own websites, and this article is one of those places. Merge at best, but I can't really find anything worth merging. Delete. Shanes 04:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, better covered in other places, looks like too much hard work to merge anything. Kappa 05:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered elsewhere. Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I re-formatted it to reduce the headache it caused but now it simply comes across as cobblers. --Phil | Talk 12:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasons as above -Casito⇝Talk 23:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to an article where this is covered at. --SuperDude 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this IP (222.126.67.204) and a number of other IPs from infocom.ph have been vandalizing many color and light related pages, adding the advertising links. --Chinasaur 14:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as related to deleted Republic_Of_Henderson_Island

Army and navy

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Republic_Of_Henderson_Island, this is the same deal. Solver 17:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This nomination was improperly placed. I'm just finishing the process. No vote at this time. —Markaci 2005-04-20 T 05:02 Z
• Delete, fictional micronation forces, cruft. Megan1967 07:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. nonverifiable. Mikkalai 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unable to verify, bad title. jni 11:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete micronationcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete micronationhoax. Sjakkalle 07:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wireless power player

It's barely a stub, it's unencyclopedic ("way different"), and it's hardly notable. If any of the information deserves to be kept, it should be folded into the Power Player Super Joy III article. – Seancdaug 05:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge stick a reference to the wpp in power player super joy iii. DDerby 02:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The i like rice show

• A radio show on a student radion station, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 05:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• oh come on i've seen more non-encyclopedic stuff on here (comment left by User:205.238.205.200.)
  • Well then name it and we'll see if that gets deleted too. This just seems too ephemeral. Delete. Meelar (talk) 05:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well that depends on what you consider encyclopedic. Honestly a lot of stuff on Wikipedia isn't really encyclopedic in the true sense of the word, i'm not quite sure how to define it but half of the stuff on here you woulud never see on Encyclopedia Brittanica or what have you. It says don't do things in vane or for commerical promotion, so shouldn't that mean all articles devoted to commerical enterprises should be deleted?

• Not at all. Large, notable commercial entities form an integral part of world culture, and surely deserve an article in an encyclopedia. For a primer, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and what's in, what's out. Best, Meelar (talk) 07:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 09:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too minor a radio show to deserve a place in Wikipedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability deficit. Charles Matthews 10:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del nonnotable —msh210 18:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Vasudhaika kutumbam

Foreign discdef - no real indication from this of whether it is used at all in English and if so how. 20 Google hits. Grutness|^hello? 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or move to Wictionary if feeling motivated. For same reason as Megan1967. -Casito⇝Talk 23:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This Wikipedia article is a dictdef. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. --Dcfleck 17:27, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 01:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Cardioretinometry

Very new if not original research; neologism. All references were produced by the author of the article. Moreover, this article published recently outlines how important people in the world are trying to destroy cardioretinometry via virus and trojan attacks. Is this the kind of dangerous material we want in the encyclopedia? Delete barring refereed references. +sj + 05:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I find 60 unique google hits for "CardioRetinometry". Many of them refer to an alleged virus attack that targeted the term. Every hit that I scanned (including the "warning messages" about the attack) was authored by Sydney J Bush PhD. DOpt. (IOSc. London) who also signed this article. Searching for several key phrases does not find an obvious duplicate so I do not believe this to be a copyvio. He claims that this concept has been published in British Medical Journal but I can find no evidence of either CardioRetinometry or even of S Bush as an author. I believe that this falls afoul of our No original research rules. An identical article was cut-and-pasted in at CardioRetinometry by the same anon contributor. (That article is now also tagged with VfD and points to this discussion.) Delete both versions. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've found the "British Medical Journal" publication: it appears to be a letter to the editor [4] --Carnildo 19:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. I don't get what you mean by "dangerous material". --Carnildo 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if the "Global PharMafia" and/or the cartel of "Organised Medicine" are indeed behind a [virus and Trojan attack] on cardioretinometry, why, surely it would be far too dangerous for Wikipedia to host this article! After all, we all know how dangerous that Russian origin website ".ru" is. Delete, BTW. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real science has been done in this field, with interesting results. The article at present is a bit of a puff piece, hopelessly POV, densely written and often rather bizarre, but that's no reason for deletion. It just needs cleanup and removal of the original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be real, but I can't find any evidence of it online. A Google search results in about 110 hits: 20 on the use of "cardioretinometry" as a virus/trojan horse target keyword, 70 hits from "vitamin C as a panacea" sites, which are worthless as the basis for a scientific article, two sites that don't exist, VfD discussions on three Wikipedia mirrors, a few press releases, one "letter to the editor" in the BMJ, and two sites listing that Dr. Sidney Bush has an honorary doctorate. What part of this could I use to write an article? --Carnildo 19:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of this study finding a possible link between narrowed retinal arterioles and long term risk of hypertension. One could write up an article explaining how this may or may not be evidence to support the cardioretinometry hypothesis. One could document the trojan stuff. NPOV is very powerful, we could produce an article that would enable people to make sense of the claims and understand their basis (or the lack of it). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the article to remove all material that is unverifiable, irrelevant, POV, or original research. The BMJ article you mentioned doesn't seem to be relevant -- it's for a fairly conventional diagnostic technique, while cardioretinometry seems to be about measuring pixel-level differences in digital images of the retina. The article is now a substub, and barely more than a dicdef. --Carnildo 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This research IS completely new and original: I would like to delete the entry CardioRetinometry (with a Capital 'R')as it was submitted prematurely. I am happy with the other entry 'Cardioretinometry' (small r ). I am a practising Optometrist with many articles published in our optometric journals over the last 50 years. This new technique is one which scares the Global PharMafia. The GOOGLE search went up to over 2,200 before they regained control and deleted most of the malicious websites. This 'snowstorming' of Cardioretinometry so that it could not be found in the blizzard of 'results' must be significant? I had no control once my Press Release "Cardioretinometry Attacked" was issued to tell the world what was happening and to warn people not to 'CLICK' on to .ru Russian malicious websites. I am now being criticise for this? Cardioretinometry was featured at the top of the Bolen Report for 3 days twice! Prof Hickey and Dr Roberts mention it or me by name 14 times in Ridiculous Dietary Allowance.: with 100 scientific objections to the RDA. See also their "Ascorbate - the Science of Vitamin C" The new definitive textbook. They say "the RDA is not science - it is politics." Around half the USA adults take either beta-blockers or statins. This market is seriously threatened if optometrists measure people's vessels, prescribe harmless antioxidants and monitor them to keep them in good health. My medical colleagues are split. I have some on my medical panel. One was threatened and had to leave. I was subject to a scurrilous attack via the General Optical Council alleging I had published his name without permission. This gives the measure of Medical and Pharmaceutical dirty tricks of which I was warned by the vitamincfoundation website. They are not frightened of the Global PharMafia. I find no words to describe people who would suppress the truth and harm tens of millions of people than risk offending the PharMafia or Western Palliative Allopathic Medicine. Have these people consciences? If they have links with medicine or pharmacy they should declare themselves incompetent. Naturally, I wish to claim credit for the discovery following £80,000 worth of unfunded private investment on parallel glaucoma research leading accidentally to this discovery. I am currently preparing a paper for submission to "Medical Hypotheses." The BMJ challenge by Wong came before I was ready. my replies are to be found in Replies to Wong in the Rapid Responses July 23rd, Nov 26th. 04. There are so many links to the BMJ Rapid Responses that the critics compromise their own image who insist they cannot find them. Positive criticism please? Sydney J Bush

By positive criticism, do you mean meaningful criticism aimed at content, or do you just want encouraging comments? My immediate reaction was negative, based on the following:

1. The topic suggests this is a new diagnostic procedure by which cardiovascular health can be assessed by visualizaton of the retinal vessels. Appropriate coverage of a new diagnostic test is to compare its sensitivity and specificity to established techniques for assessing the same thing. If something this basic has not been done and published, then this procedure is not ready for prime time so to speak. It is certainly simple, but I see no references to proof of value.
2. The discussion of this new diagnostic procedure is mixed up with advocacy of extra vitamin C for vascular health. It is simply a separate topic, and both the diagnostic value of cardioretinometry and the therapeutic value of vitamin C need to be proven independently of this tangled mess.
3. Credibility is lowered to near zero by preposterous and overblown claims: that this is a "new science", that it is under attack by the Pharma Mafia, that it will put cardiologists out of work, etc. No cardiologist is worried. The medical literature is full of reports of relatively simple measures of health (e.g., finger contractures as a subtle sign of prolonged poor glucose control), and no one is suppressing the "secrets" of healthy living. Vegetables, vitamins, and exercise don't put anyone out of business and no one suppresses them. Why is this different?
4. Anything that Tim Bolen is touting is likely quackery, like Hulda Clark. You really don't want to be associated with him.
5. Your website doesn't seem to understand that Medical Hypotheses is a journal that publishes pure unproven speculation (for a page charge too?). When you cite it in a way as to suggest it enhances the credibility of the technique, you make me think you are either extremely naive or downright dishonest.

I am not quite positively sure this is quackery, but I'm pretty close. Is that positive enough for you? alteripse 02:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AUTHOR'S FURTHER REPLY: Thank you for your considered comments: 30,000 NLM papers mentioning vitamin C since 1950! FIVE PAPERS! on 'CHD and ascorbate.' I should rest my case for a conspiracy against vitamin C? Optometrists in N. America, an eye doctor in Los Angeles (met at a dinner given in my honour) and optometrists in the UK are now starting Cardioretinometry. They understand the 'before' and 'after' images (some of medical patients) there for everyone to study. My paper in 'Medical Hypotheses' (if they publish it, for no major medical journal will be allowed by the Global PharMafia to publish it) will mention a virtual forty year absence from the literature of coronary heart disease (CHD) papers (5 YES FIVE PAPERS! if you search for 'CHD and ascorbate' and the five since 1995!)There have been over 30,000 papers mentioning vitamin C in this time but trivial and trivia on CHD. It is as if the literature has been swept clean! All CHD and ascorbate papers vacuumed out! I estimate that between 5,000 and 10,000 papers on heart disease and vitamin C are missing. Are you aware of anybody benefiting from the research mentioning vitamin C in the 30,000 papers? How many receive advice to take more vitamin C from physicians? Yet when I was a medical student we were trained in it to know better! That vitamin C impacts on the cardiovascular system and scurvy kills this way needs no further proofs. There has been a serious distortion of the literature. Prof Hickey and Dr Roberts mention the word 'genocide' in their works. Dr Mark Levine (RDA committee) no longer answers correspondence. Cardioretinometry, by direct observation of impacts on retinal arteries reveals this and will expose the fraud. My friend Prof Denham Harman, Emeritus prof. of cardiovascular research, Nebraska, brought antioxidants and arteries to our notice in Nov 57 with the Free radical Theory of ageing and Disease. That was another new science. My closest medical contacts admit the suppression privately and also agree that Western Medicine is run like the Nazi Party. The half life of vitamin C in the plasma is 30 mins! Pharmacologically indefensible 'Milligram once/day medical madness' is killing the majority before their time who do not have a good vitamin C 6th gene. View the images yourselves. The best images, showing hypertension reversed are saved for my coming textbook and lecture to the Univ. of California Berkeley Campus Macula Group when I return to the USA. Spend some time please, looking at the 'before' and 'after' images and begin to understand their significance. They cannot be faked. I have hundreds like them but to Prof Elliott, Head of Dept at Bradford, it is not worth the bus fare to come to Hull to see them. (Sorry David but you know it is true) It is not easy at first sight, even for some optometrists to immediately realise what they are looking at. But the better Ophthalmologists do! Go see an optometrist and study your own arteries before and after four months of 1 gram qds pure asocbate powder. Look for cholesterol disappearing from the arterial bifurcations. Ask the optometrist to send the images to me if you wish on cardioretinometry@hotmail.co.uk (2Gb to handle them so practical to consult me anywhere in the world) and e-mail me on sydneybush@hotmail.com Thank you. Sydney Bush

Dr. Bush, whether cardioretinometry is quackery, or whether it's a jaw-dropping medical breakthrough that isn't being published in any major medical journal because "Western Medicine" and the "Global PharMafia" are controlling all the major medical journals, doesn't really change the answer we have for you: Wikipedia is here to reflect notability, not to create it. Arguing to us about how great and wonderful cardioretinometry is won't change that; our policies prohibit unpublished research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REFUTATION NOT ABUSE An account of Cardioretinometry was published as a BMJ rapid response on July 23, 2004. The response can be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7457/79 The term Cardioretinometry describes a series of observations on the vasculature of the eye and its response to high doses of ascorbate (vitamin C). These observations, if independently replicated, could have substantive implications for the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease and other conditions.

Currently, Cardioretinometry refers to a hypothesis with some supporting clinical observations. Like any new observation, it requires replication. Moreover, the reported observations can easily be replicated. The experiments necessary are extremely low cost, take only a week or two and can be conducted by any competent optometrist.

Dr Hilary Roberts and I included a description of Cardioretinometry in our recent book "Ridiculous Dietary Allowance" (see www.amazon.com). Notably, the book issued an open scientific challenge to the RDA for vitamin C and other recommendations for low doses. The RDA book was reviewed before publication by a scientific representative of the UK Institute for Optimum Nutrition. It was then submitted in draft form to both the NIH and the US Institute of Medicine who were asked to provide a rebuttal. Finally, over two thousand copies of the RDA book were made available as a free internet download for open review. Readers were asked to reply providing details of any significant errors in the text. No such errors were reported. Since this was a most exacting "peer review" process, I suggest Cardioretinometry should remain until refuted scientifically. Dr Steve Hickey

Sorry, but the conspiracy theory is silly and as soon as you start comparing your opponents to Nazis, (see Godwin's law) you have further reduced your credibility. Now if I ignore the preposterous, you are making 2 separate rational, testable, scientific claims:

1. That your retinal photographs are a valid assessment tool for cardiovascular health (i.e., risk of stroke or heart attack I assume), and that changes in the retinal vessels reflect real change in risk of these events. It sounds very much like a technique that one might compare to carotid doppler ultrasound. Look at the studies that established carotid doppler ultrasound or some similar techniques for assessing risk short of coronary angiograms. How did they get proven or rejected? The same way every other diagnostic test gets confirmed useful or rejected-- by demonstrating its actual predictive association with cardiovascular events, or by demonstrating a close correlation with an accepted and proven test that predicts such event. Why not simply do that instead of crying conspiracy and suppression? This technique might be a valid method of testing vascular health even if the vitamin c claim is not.
2. The assertion that extra vitamin C will lower risk of cardiovascular events should be provable or refutable by other techniques besides cardioretinometry. Why can't it be independently true or false? It shouldn't make any difference which valid measure of blood vessel health or cardiovascular risk you use, if the benefit is that striking, it should be demonstrable. I am not a cardiologist or an expert in the relationship between diet and heart disease, but I suspect there have already been some studies attempting to demonstrate a relationship between cardiovascular health and vitamin C use. What have they shown? The vitamin C claim might be true even if the retinometry technique proves worthless.

In other words, the road to establishing your claims is clear, if not easy. You have offered no proof of this hypothesis and it should not be presented as established fact in an encyclopedia. If you are quick to bring in nazis, claims of suppression and conspiracy, and claims to other people to disprove it, our decision heuristics will categorize you as someone who is too illogical to take seriously. Sorry, these are just the rules that we all play by. alteripse 01:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AUTHORS REPLY. I most certainly have offered proof. Enough proof to convince many optometrists and one ophthalmologist; enough proof to worry Official Western Medicine. The proof is first time ever demonstrated reversal of arterial disease (and that means heart disease) by an adequate number of fundus images published on the Internet.

I have not offered proof that the arterial improvements are due to vitamin C. That is my hypothesis. But seventy years of literature is strongly supportive of arterial benefits with no refutation to be found whatever, of mmegadose vitamin C (over 10 grams/day) failing to produce benefits, except my own comments on a single patient. Not a single article claims it is harmful to arteries. Apart from these basic, elemntary considerations Cardioretinometry was the new technique that revealed these microscopic improvements and as such the technique cannot legitimately be excluded from the encylopaedia. I hypothesise that had my practice not been the only one in the UK to dispense vitamin C in 200 gram pots of pure powder, I would not have had the opportunity to discover them. CardioRetinometry, starting as a diagnostic technique for glaucoma, happened to be the right tool in the right place at the right time to reveal changes never before demonstrated.

CardioRetinometry is a here to stay fact of life seen by hundreds of my patients who return for it.

How can the images be denied as proof? I am grateful for Prof Hickey's comment. I have a duty to report evidence as I find it in my clinical work. The evidence for conspiracy against vitamin C is a second issue. It is building. If I am able with the help of other optometrists to prove conclusively that vitamin C redverses retinal atheroma, and this after 70 yrs of Official Medicine, will it not finally prove the physicians to be charlatans?

(1) Allegations against me by Official Medicine rejected by the General Optical Council. (2) direct atacks on Cardioretinometry by Global PharMafia - (the title sounds right for the Internet Attacks) Why should they spend so much except to protect beta blockers and statins a $50Bn ? (my guess) market. (3) MRSA provides more evidence: My first eBMJ letter drew no reply to the challenge. My second letter stopped the correspondence. (4) The 'skewed' entirely disproportionate resarch 30,000 vitamin C papers on relative trivia. Below is an analysis to prove the point: (5) The RDA book with 100 valid scientific objections to the fictitious RDA and not contested by Official Medicine is damning evidence. This is not the place for a review of this subject, It is a pity that it is being used to criticise CardioRetinometry. CardioRetinometry is a new tool to assess ther impact on arteries of diverse nutrients like, magnesium lecithin, Vitamin B6, GLA and a vast range of others for their relevance to individual arterial health, in a totally direct and non-invasive manner with microscopic accuracy, never before possible.

CardioRetinometry will save millions from early death whether by identifying a vitamin C deficiency or any of a dozen other factors positive or negative.

EVIDENCE:

Total Vitamin C Papers NLM EntrezPubMed database.

Vit C = 29,884 Ascorbic Acid = 30,287 Ascorbate = 8483

  "Coronary heart disease AND vitamin C"     search produces

1961 to 1967 not one paper

1974 to 1979 NONE (until Emil Ginter's "Decline of CHD mortality with VC")

1960 to 1978 21 pprs.

Past 12 months 16 pprs

and the year before 26 pprs!

Regarding the vitamin C suppression, four years ago a Prof. of Medicine told me "Things are getting better." (his exact words)

Interestingly?

Vit C AND Deficiency 2,892 pprs

Vit B .. .. .. .. .. .. 14,844

Vit D .. .. .. .. . 7,897

Vit E .. ... .. .. 4,426

Vit K .. .. .. .. . 2,139

CALCIUM .. . .. .. 11,447

Sodium .. .. .. .. ..6,073

Potassium .. .. .. .. ..4,427

Magnesium .. .. .. .. 4,857

People obviously feel safe doing Calcium and Vit B research, not upsetting anybody. I myself have been asked by many ophthalmologists not to find a cure for cataract.

No BMJ copyright can be claimed for reproducing my own letters below. Since I am accused of "silly" support for my allegation of a vitamin C conspiracy I add this to the mass of suppressive material e.g. the "CardioRetinometry Attacked" evidence. How does one offer evidence other than a statistical analysis of literature pointing to the distortions due to omissions? One has to be more perceptive to see something that is NOT there especially if one trusts the medical profession and is not looking for fraud. That is the problem.

My Letters to e-BMJ 29th Nov. 2004 Re Reducing MRSA on orthopaedic wards are now reproduced below. Make up your own minds as to whether or not vitamin C is being suppressed at the cost of lives to presereve medical incomes. Even Dr John Reid's own mother died of an MRSA infection. Klenner WROTE "Physicians would rather the patient die than adnmit the power of vitamin C beyond the range of a vitamion!" He was not the first.

==

Editor BMJ, 30th July 2004 From Dr. Sydney J Bush PhD. DOpt. (IOSc. London)

Sir, "It is increasingly widely known that concentrated ascorbate, especially at plasma levels that can be safely achieved by intravenous application, has successfully overcome conditions formerly regarded as incurable.

Nakanishi (1992 and 1993) reported that application of ascorbate topically to bedsores was able to remarkably enhance the bacteria killing effect of antibiotics. Nakanishi also noted that Staph. aureus which had been antibiotic resistant prior to this treament, 'disappeared from the area.' (Thomas E.Levy.MD. JD. "Vitamin C, Infections and Toxins. Curing the incurable" 2002 XLibris Corp. ISBN 1-4010 6964-9)

References: Nakanishi T. (1992) "A report on a clnical experience of which has successfully made several antibiotic resistant bacteria (MRSA etc) negative on a bedsore" Article in Japanese Igaku Kenkyu. Acta Medica 62(1):31-37

Nakanishi T. (1993) "A report on the therapeutical experiences which have made several antibiotics resistant bacteria (MRSA etc.) negative on bedsores and respiratory organs." Article in Japanese. Igaku Kenkyu. Acta Medica 63(3):95-100.

Klenner Fred. MD. FCCP. Too many to list in J. of Southern Medicine and Surgery and Tristate Medical Journal.1949 onwards.

Cathcart R. (1981) VITAMIN C, TITRATING TO BOWEL TOLERANCE, ANASCORBEMIA, AND ACUTE INDUCED SCURVY Medical Hypotheses, 7:1359-1376, 1981"

Sydney J Bush

Competing interests: None

==

Editor BMJ, 29th Nov. 2004 From Dr. Sydney J Bush PhD. DOpt. (IOSc. London)

Sir "I am unable to understand why, after publication of the evidence I submitted on 30th July quoting the two papers on the efficacy of ascorbate in killing MRSA in Japanese research by Nakanishi T. and available on Entrez PubMed, no interest at all has been shown.

Could it not be the case that non-toxic IV ascorbate would provide an instant solution to these infections and many others, and may one ask why it has not been done? There is not even a negative paper to be found in the literature on the subject of multigram doses of ascorbate IV - only many successes and positively beneficial sequelae. The prompt resolution of many bacterial and viral infections by ascorbate IV have been reported by Klenner F and others from 1949 onwards.

If the public has to wait much longer as the death rate mounts, might not MRSA patients start discharging themselves from hospitals in order to start injecting themselves?

I would."

Sydney J Bush PhD. DOpt. (IOSc. London)

Competing interests: None

OK, you have convinced me. This is nonsense and I vote for deletion as well. Do you really not understand the difference between proving your point as I described above (items 1 & 2) and your approach which is making bold claims with little evidence and then claiming conspiracy and suppression when no one is convinced? You could be dooming the best treatment idea anyone has had in decades by this approach. If your method and treatment are valid it will have to wait for someone else willing to do the work to prove it and get the credit for it. You have chosen the "crank-martyr" role and intelligent people will continue to ignore and dismiss you. Sorry. alteripse 12:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CARDIORETINOMETRY IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS Sydney Bush may be doing himself no favours in his replies. However, his observations and hypothesis are interesting and potentially important. Alteripse (above) rightly points out that the danger is we could loose a beneficial treatment. Perhaps someone could rewrite the entry in a more acceptable format. That is, resubmit "Cardioretinometry" as a hypothesis, with case study support, awaiting replication. This is the current scientific position of these observations. Steve Hickey

The world will hardly lose cardioretinometry if Wikipedia declines to have an article on it at the current time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MANY THANKS Congratulations to whoever took the trouble to rewrite this entry. Its presence in Wikipedia may help stimulate another optometrist to replicate/refute these claims. Steve Hickey

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

F's and g's

A tic-tac-toe variant invented by some bored college students, and unknown outside of their circle of friends. Doesn't deserve a mention in tic tac toe, let alone its own article. — Gwalla | Talk 05:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no made-up stuff. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like an interesting game, but there's no evidence for use outside their circle of friends. Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on author's remarks on talk page. Gazpacho 08:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game, also the element of mathematical functions is superficial at best. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is documented by a reference that the game is known by a larger group of people. --Niels Ø 08:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• It's kinda interesting... amusing actually. I don't want to vote for deletion just yet... perhaps it could be merged to some "Math Game" catagory? Weak Keep. Linuxbeak 14:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: I have invented interesting games myself (or so I think), but they do not belong in an encyclopedia (yet?). It is not a mathematical game any more than tic-tac-toe; actually less, in a sense: The use of coordinate axes and function notation is not math, it's obfuscation.--Niels Ø 10:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: surley thats the point, by making it more confusing you are making tic tak toe more challenging and by extension more interesting.
• delete -- gee, does this mean I can add the dozens of boardgame variants I invented with my friends? No? Then this can't be here either! Master Thief Garrett 02:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KeepSeems like a perfectly acceptable alternative game of tic-tac-toe. As there are variants to chess, why not T3... unsigned vote by 201.129.225.217 (talk · contribs)
  • comment: The chess variants we have articles for are generally well established. This is not, and is in fact unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 06:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it were original research, then probably delete (sadly), but insufficient evidence that it's original research, so until solid evidence is given keep.
  • Unsigned vote by SocratesJedi (talk · contribs) --Dcfleck 18:25, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep i've played it and it is very good. Also it does state at the beginnig that it is a tic tac toe variant, i see no reason to remove.
  • Unsigned vote by 84.9.100.140 (talk · contribs) - user's only Wikipedia edits are to this VfD page. --Dcfleck 18:21, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 04:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Superboss

Neologism. Fredrik | talk 05:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Boss (video games) and replace with redirect. -Casito⇝Talk 23:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Good idea, merge. Radiant_* 07:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you motivate why this should be kept at all? I have never heard the term "superboss". Google gives only a handful of results that use the word as described here. Fredrik | talk 10:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because 1) redirects are cheap, and 2) it discourages recreation. Merging in this case would be trivial. Radiant_* 13:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as Casito said. --Dcfleck 14:36, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

History of history

del. Original research. I could have converted it into a redirect to Historiography, but I want othier opinions here. Mikkalai 06:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. History of histories, all is history saith the preacher? I don't think anyone looking for historiography will type this into the search box. --Angr/_comhrá 06:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone adds credible sources and references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historiography. --G Rutter 13:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historiography. Good first instinct, after all there is a field that traces the historical phenomenon of history being recorded... -- 8^D ^gab 15:56, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historiography. Much of the content should be junked, since none of it is sourced, but the concept itself should point towards the appropriate page, as I think it's quite possible that it'll get some hits from people who don't know the correct terminology. – Seancdaug 17:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, if I didn't know the correct terminology it's possible that I would have searched for this hoping that it would be a redirect to the correct article. Jeltz talk 19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote now since I have relaized that it might not be that good with an incorrect redirect. Jeltz talk 09:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historiography.-Casito⇝Talk 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In my opinion, Historiography is quite different from just a "history" of history. The current History page covers all the possibilities with links. What is on the current History of history page is just History and some original research, is it not? It certainly is not "History of history." ---Rednblu | Talk 02:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historiography. Cheap and possibly useful to someone who blanks on the more correct name. FreplySpang (talk) 02:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Rednblu is correct - Historiography is not exactly the history of history. A redirect there would be IMO incorrect. Megan1967 04:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even though Rednblu is correct, enough people think that 'historiography' is a kind of 'history of history' to warrant the redirect (but I wouldn't recommend merging anything) Radiant_* 07:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Creation. – ABCD 01:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Creating

Dicdef. Alai 06:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to creation? Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as MacGyver suggests. Average Earthman 10:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect -- page history will show i attempted this, but mr. bensaccount thought this was a very important page and reverted twice. Ungtss 11:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Bensaccount would do well to notice the dictionary, over there. We don't need to disambiguate to the level of individual parts of speech. I've added an interwiki link to creation. As per MacGyverMagic, Redirect. Uncle G 16:05, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is a compendium. Bensaccount 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. -Casito⇝Talk 23:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ironically, compendium explains that a compendium doesn't subdivide to the point of individual definitions. Uncle G 04:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Actually it does. There is no reason why it shouldn't. I wrote this article after people kept deleting valuable, though definite items. Bensaccount 22:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as above. --Carnildo 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect-Casito⇝Talk 23:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creativity. This page is about what humans create, is it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Creating, you'll find that this article is just fallout from the perennial Creationism debate. So, no, it's not necessarily about humans. Uncle G 04:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
    • Good eye! Good eye! I think I see what you mean, Uncle G. So the content of the Creating page is a misleading end for all those links because this end page has only a picture of a human "Architect at his drawing board, 1893"--Not the "Angry God on his throne." Is that right? So the links in all of the Special:Whatlinkshere/Creating list are wrong! Is that what you are saying? Good eye! Good eye! So how do we fix all of this so that the high-school student coming through gets some good assistance in sorting out this adult world of confusion and Creation vs. evolution controversy? Can we simplify all of this to be useful for the high-school student that visits us? Does redirecting Creating to Creation solve it? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creativity. Megan1967 04:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Megan, or transwiki to Wiktionary unless there is already a Wiktionary article like this. --SuperDude 04:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Educommunication

Neologism; 102 Google hits; possible original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with the above. Phils 09:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neolog. -Casito⇝Talk 23:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Edumacation. No such thing? Darn, then delete. -- 8^D ^gab 02:56, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Excommunicate. Radiant_* 07:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mackensen (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BestBdultService.com)

BestBdultService.com

Advertising, non-notable (website says "Total - 7"), article's title is misspelt. —Markaci 2005-04-20 T 07:15 Z

• Speedy delete if possible as both link spam and a copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 07:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete copyvio spam. This IP has a history of spamming. Gazpacho 08:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nothing but spam. David Johnson [T|C] 21:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. --Carnildo 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam spam spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sedaghat

I cannot see that Mr. Sedaghat passes the "average college professor" bar for notability. I don't intend this to be an attack on Mr. Sedaghat personally. Sjakkalle 09:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio. Professor of chemistry, but it doesn't bother to say where. If you google, you find the Southwest Missouri State University and a very familiar looking block of text (basically, this article is cut and paste from his website, pictures and all). Googling suggests the university may arguably not be in the top 50 universities in the US midwest, let alone the world, so my arbitrary rule of thumb I came up with a couple of days ago doesn't get him in either. The publication list isn't that impressive (five journal papers and two patents, and getting a US patent is notoriously easy). So would appear to be a teaching professor at a mid ranking state university, which doesn't really impress me that much to argue for an original article to be written. Average Earthman 10:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for doing the checking AverageEarthman, the publication record is hardly outstanding for a science academic, I would have to say that he fails the average professor test, delete --nixie 14:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Almighty dollar

Dicdef and a pretty nastily POV one at that. Delete. --Angr/_comhrá 10:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Non-encylopedic, but I don't see it as so much POV. — JIP | Talk 10:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that this has already been transwikied to Wiktionary and deleted from Wikipedia, once before. See Wiktionary:almighty dollar. Wiktionary doesn't need a second copy. Transwikiing to Wikiquote:Washington Irving is inappropriate, too. This article doesn't contain a quotation. There are thus no transwiki escape routes. Please consider what to do with the article here, in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:19, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
    • If it already has been transwikied, then delete. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's a tricky one. There isn't really any such specific concept or thing as the Almighty dollar that warrants an independent article; and redirects to Washington Irving, to dollar, or to monetarism don't seem appropriate. I'm currently at delete. Uncle G 11:19, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Term gets 92,000+ Google hits (not surprising, we've all heard it before), and makes a distinctive, pithy commentary on the American obsession with money. My search also turned up a few books titled with the phrase - Almighty Dollar: A Psychiatrist Looks at Money, by Eugene L. Lowenkopf; Greenback: The Almighty Dollar and the Invention of America, by Jason Goodwin; and Almighty Dollar Bill, by Adrienne Golday and Taylor Barnes. Personally, I'd like to know more about the origins of this term. -- 8^D ^gab 15:51, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
  • Read Wiktionary:almighty dollar and you'll find out pretty much everything. Uncle G 16:57, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Almighty delete —Wahoofive | Talk 18:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; even if the phrase might deserve mention in some other article, there's nothing to warrant a separate article on it, and what is there now is pure trash. RussBlau 19:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, bordering on a speedy. 'Almighty Buck' is a well-known term, but 'Almighty Dollar' isn't. David Johnson [T|C] 21:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The phrase (or the related Almighty buck) deserves an article, but this isn't it. --Carnildo 22:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems pointless now, but I will note for the edification of David Johnson and Carnildo that "Almighty buck" gets 20,000 Google hits while "Almighty dollar" gets over 90,000. I found three books on Amazon.com with "Almighty dollar" in the title, and none with "Almighty buck." I'm not saying the article is usable as written, but there should be an article on the concept - and Almighty buck should redirect to it. -- 8^D ^gab 04:20, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, bordering on trivial nonsense. Megan1967 04:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless heavily expanded, and even then, you'll have to convince me that this actually deserves an article. Meelar (talk) 04:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic Dsmdgold 13:11, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this waste of bandwidth. Linuxbeak 14:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and purge Wikipedia of pointless articles! Forgotmytea 11:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Kazuhide Uekusa

The article which hurt his honor. For the same reason, deletion request nominated and deleted on ja.wikipedia. (Sorry, I cannot write English well.) -- Lusheeta 11:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• (Delete) In addition two redirect pages || Eronomist and Tekagamist.Toyoda 12:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Japanese peeping-toms aren't necessarily notable--nixie 14:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Voyeuristic Professor. Much more notable than most economics professors. Klonimus 03:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as it seems he was known as an economist before this "incident". The article should probably focus more on his professional and academic accomplishments, though. / Uppland 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available in the article, his academic career was not independently notable either. I see no evidence that he passes the recommended "average professor" test. Delete unless further evidence is presented. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. -Casito⇝Talk 23:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since he was a professor and a TV commentator and I'd vote keep in any other circumstances. Agree with Uppland about focus, the peeping thing could be one line. Kappa 05:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment/question: one of the linked articles calls him "a well-known economist who was a regularly featured guest on television programs". Is this just a tabloidy exaggeration? He was also a professor at what appears to be a very prestigious university (with the obvious reservations that I know nothing about Japanese universities, and on Wikipedia all universities are prestigious). That the article contains less flattering information is not a reason to delete if he is reasonably notable for other reasons. Uppland 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Waseda is definitely an "Ivy League" equivalent. Kappa 19:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, belongs in Wikinews. Radiant_* 07:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinews is public domain and Wikipedia is GFDL, therefore it is not possible to legally transwiki from here to there. In any case, this news is almost a month old. ☺ Uncle G 23:52, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Keep. When it is translated into English it will be a nice article that sheds light on Japanese culture. --Zero 15:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ernesto Corripio Ahumada

Delete, because:

1. Article is one sentance.
2. Article contains no actual information about subject, other than a derogatory remark.
3. I was unable to substantiate the factual nature of the derogatory remark - no relevant Google hits.

-- Dcfleck 12:08, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Delete - Do we need a Page for every Cardinal ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as libel? --Carnildo 23:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and rename Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada. RickK 23:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • You realize, of course, that cleanup in this case means rewriting every word of the article. -- Dcfleck 01:40, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's common in cleanup to rip the stub up and start again. What of it? In answer to Irishpunktom's question: why yes, eventually. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete and list on requested articles. Radiant_* 07:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 04:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please do some research prior to nominating articles for deletion. He's a Cardinal, Archbishop emeritus of Mexico (retired 1994) and currently Cardinal-Priest of Immacolata al Tiburtino. I think he may also be a member of Opus Dei, and he probably has the ear of the Pope. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Please do some research ..." I did, as I mentioned in the nomination. Sorry I don't measure up to your exacting standards... --Dcfleck 02:42, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• This is still nothing but an attack page and thus speediable. It doesn't even provide the context that the guy is a Cardinal, besides an external link. But yes, we could use a page on every Cardinal; request, or keep in a hypothetical improved form. Samaritan 19:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...which we have now. Yay! Barnstars again to Tony Sidaway. Samaritan 02:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree it would have been speediable in its original form. That is easily remedied by turning it into a valid stub. Which I've done. Please reconsider your votes. I've taken the liberty of requesting help with cleanup and VfD on the talk pages for the articles about the current pope and the RC church. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I expanded the article a bit more, but it should probably be moved to Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada for consistency with our other Cardinal articles. Is it okay to move an article while on Vfd? -- Ferkelparade π 20:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, because he is a Cardinal and thus noteworthy. Needs renaming ASAP to fit in with wikipedia practuice (cardinal in name), Redirect to Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada. I suggest this isremoved from Vfd and speedily redirected. A separate article should not have been created, --SqueakBox 20:14, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I fully agree with Tony -- Ferkelparade π 19:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has now been cleaned up. --Oldak Quill 19:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect. It needs to be a redirect to an already existing article using the man's proper name, Ernesto Cardinal Corripio y Ahumada. --Gerald Farinas 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, rename and redirect and remove from VfD. -- KTC 20:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect now that it has been changed. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now clean up. KeithV 20:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now cleaned up, but more work can be done. --Neigel von Teighen 20:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmmm, I posted some requests on the current pope article talk page and the RC church article talk page, at around 19:30 UTC. By some amazing coincidence this very day at 19:58 UTC there has appeared on this wonderful Library of Babel an extremely professionally written, encyclopedic article at Ernesto Cardinal Corripio y Ahumada. Brothers and sisters, learn from this. We can do a lot for Wikipedia by following the principle: "only connect". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony.... ask and ye shall receive!! ;) --Gerald Farinas 21:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Though I disagree with you, Tony. The answer should be: "Heck, yah!", not "Why not?" Opusaug 05:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Now that Gerald has done all the work, there's no point in keeping the original article. Bratsche^{talk random} 12:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Antipope Benedict XVI

This article is currently on French VFD as a fictional character from an obscure novel masquerading as fact. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If it's a fictional character masquerading as fact, then delete. What's a "counter-antipope", anyway? — JIP | Talk 12:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We have written a new article, fr:Antipapes imaginaires, where we explain the story of the fictional antipopes, and then we will transform the fictional antipopes pages in redirects to the "encyclopedical" article. Hégésippe Cormier 13:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If I understand the above comment correctly, then translate the new Fictional antipopes article from French and redirect this article there. If that doesn't work then delete Thryduulf 15:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Done translation - see Antipopes in fiction.Charles Matthews 14:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. The real antipope listed at this site was Antipope Benedict XIV. --Idont Havaname 15:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Gadiv

Article content:

"gadiv" is both a pseudonym for the artist George Dodge and an acronym of his name (George Arthur Dodge IV). His work is geared toward sculptural assemblage and painting.

Problems:

1. Non-notability, both for "George Dodge" (no Wikipedia page, no Google hits for this particular artist, as far as I can tell) and for "gadiv" (37 hits, a minority of them apparently referencing this artist, most posts to www.deviantart.com apparently put up by the artist himself - plus one hit for his defunct web site, http://www.idgonemad.com/
2. It's had an {{explain-significance}} tag on it since inception (Apr. 9) with no further edits. I think it's basically an unambitious vanity site.

-- Dcfleck 12:34, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Concur. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (pending; error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline/New version

I created this page to get consensus for a change to Logarithmic timeline. This has now been accepted and the main page altered (not by me), but this page was not deleted. I'd blank it, but other people have also edited the page. G Rutter 12:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete after merging as necessary. — RJH 15:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Is there a reason not to redirect in order to preserve the attribution history? Rossami (talk) 22:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:There's nothing to merge, as the changes were accepted and made to the main article, so I also don't see any need to keep this, even for its attribution history. --G Rutter 10:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Perins Community School

This article makes no attempt at establishing notability, the entire text is:

Perins Community School is a secondary school in Alresford, Hants, England.

and an external link that I can't get to work at the moment (although this internet connection has been intermittently flakey today). The BEEFSTEW score is 0. Also note that "Organic growth" has not worked for this article as it has not received any expansion since it was created on 2 December 2004. Those not familar with the UK education system should note that being a community school is not in itself notable - there are hundreds if not thousands accross the country. Thryduulf 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that now it has been expanded very slightly but it still scores 0 on BEEFSTEW. Being a "specialist sports college" isn't notable, as many (most?) successful state secondary schools have become specialist x colleges recently. As I understand it, you just have to show that you're a little above average in the local area in a particular field, and you get this status which is just a mechanism for gaining more funding for that particular subject. Thryduulf 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Substub, may as well add a list of schools in Alresford to that place's article (since that is also a stub).
  • Average Earthman forgot to sign at 16:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) [5] —Korath (Talk) 18:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • D'oh. I've added education to the Alresford article. And some history of the town as well. Average Earthman 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And I still can't type properly. Spelling of Alresford corrected in entry above. Average Earthman 21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since it's apparently the fashion to appeal to authority for school vfds these days, even Jimbo thinks it should be zotzed. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable- virtually every school which isn't a faith school or a city academy is called a comunity school. --G Rutter 18:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia policy and Jimbo's recommendation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm we seem to be making some progress on the reasons for deletion. Actually I dispute Korath's interpretation of the Jimbo thing, but I don't particularly mind deleting substubs if they've had a chance. I will still vote Keep and give it more time, because even average secondary school have important and interesting things to be said about them, like how they raised the sponsorship needed to become a specialist college, why they specialized in that field, if that choice was influenced by the sponsors, and how the specialization changed the nature and level of examination achievements. We should be able to keep quality articles on average schools, because they are quality articles on verifiable subjects which significant numbers of people might want to read about. It doesn't mean we have to accept permanent substubs on every school. Kappa 18:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specialist x colleges have nothing to do with sponsorship, all the extra money comes from the Government. There are a few UK schools that have been taken over by private organsiations, but that is completely different, and they have all been failing schools - which this clearly isn't.

Any information on whether the specialist x status has had any effect on examination results would be apropriate at Education in the United Kingdom or Education in England if its not a UK-wide policy (I don't know off the top of my head) where it can be contrasted with those schools that aren't specialist x colleges, but at the level of a single school it isn't anywhere near statistically significant. The only way that it being a specialist sports college could have any impact on its notability is if it was the first or last (and it certainly isn't the latter) to become one. Thryduulf 19:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Schools are required to raise £50,000 private sponsorship, in support of their application. This proves to be difficult for some. Schools which can demonstrate they have been fund raising for at least a year can apply to the Specialist Schools Trust for a top up grant from centrally held funds" [6] The story of their specialization might not be "statistically significant", but it's interesting and informative. Kappa 19:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was apparently misinformed about the sponsorship. Thryduulf 21:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and continue to expand. The school was cited by Tony Blair as one of the 16 most-improved seconday schools in England a few years ago. Last year it became specialized in sports, making it unique and interesting. The article is much more than one sentence now. Secondary schools should not need to prove notability. --BaronLarf 20:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• As I have mentioned above, specialising in sports does not make it unique. Google returns ~8,400 results for "Specialist sports college", 8 of the first ten results are for different schools, those that aren't are from the BBC and are about two different schools. Thryduulf 21:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thryduulf is correct, specializing in sports does not make it unique, there are growing numbers of schools with specialized status. Kappa 21:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so I take it back about the sports college designation making it unique. There are 231 in the UK [7]. Even so, it should be kept. It was one of 16 schools named by Blair to be the most improved a few years ago. [8] Secondary schools should not have to prove notability. --BaronLarf 21:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

All that may mean is it used to be crap and now isn't. It doesn't feature in the BBC website's top 195 schools for GCSE results, or top 199 for 'added value'. Average Earthman 21:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep this please it looks like a notable sports college Yuckfoo 21:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 22:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article has become somewhat extensive and still fails to say how this school is exceptionally notable. Deleting all non-notable school articles, whether public or private, is a long-established precedent. Changing it would be a serious mistake. -Casito⇝Talk 23:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, deleting school articles because they don't meet the definition of notability according to a few geeks like us would be a serious mistake. This article has been expanded from nanostub to informative article since it was posted to VfD, and now establishes notability (even though it's not a requirement for inclusion). Relax and accomodate. —RaD Man (talk) 01:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All public institutions belong in Wikipedia. Especially school's and libraries. Klonimus 03:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article as is establishes notability. Capitalistroadster 05:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is subjective. If there is any notability in the article it is not very noticable. Vegaswikian 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. "Almost all students have English as their first language." for a school in England is extremely trivial. Radiant_* 07:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Alresford and delete - Skysmith 09:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As Per all schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's grown to a size and level of detail that makes it worthwhile Fg2 01:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More interesting than most, I guess, but who cares when the head took up her position? The amount of league tables and other stats would mean setting a dangerous precedent (not GWB) by keeping this. The JPS 00:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't working to a deadline and schools are important. Oliver Chettle 02:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 11:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcfly85 04:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep clearly improving Houshuang 01:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. This is an encyclopedia not a directory. Master Thief Garrett 01:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The account User:Master Thief Garrett was created 2 weeks ago. Welcome. —RaD Man (talk) 06:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with leif --Zantastik 03:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and schools are notable. Regardless, this article is now a bit more than a stub and is much more encyclopedic now than it was when it was listed here. - Jersyko 18:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks like a very valid School stub to me.  ALKIVAR™ 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it has greatly improved since it was first listed. [9] Tallyman 22:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal_motto

The text of this partial page is inflammatory, hate-mongering. There is no real value to this submission by someone who is against this particular man (Ratzinger) or against Germans generally, etc. Sjr 14:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --Carnildo 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raymond Mustard

A "closet heterosexual"(!) Not notable. Thue | talk 15:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as non-notable vanity. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 12:19, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ecopalooza, Palooza, PALOOZA, Ecopalooza Green Living Expos

Vanity; not notable; four identical pages created by same user with different keywords to advertise the same event. RussBlau 16:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Spamvertising. -- 8^D ^gab 17:04, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Delete advert, spam, notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. -Casito⇝Talk 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertising, Google-bombing and lots of other reasons I can't think of right away. See ya there! - Lucky 6.9 20:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Piveral

Nonnotable high schooler del —msh210 17:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this vanity. David Johnson [T|C] 21:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Should have been a quick delete. -Casito⇝Talk 23:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Linuxbeak 14:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 18:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as redirect. sjorford →•← 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trilian

Google shows nothing similar to the content of this page. Del as hoax. —msh210 17:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I speedied it as nonsense. Content was: "Trilian is a three legged animal that they found in the atlantic ocean and it is really awesome. So take that Bleys Derosa". Xezbeth 17:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • And you consider that "nonsense"?  ;-) RussBlau 18:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Trillian as reasonable misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• I've re-created it as a redirect to Trillian -- it's a likely misspelling. --Carnildo 23:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Trillian. Megan1967 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to Trillian. - Longhair | Talk 02:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 01:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Martin Gomez

It's a CV (résumé). If nonnotable, then delete; otherwise, fix severely. But Google has ~201 reuslts, so I'd say nonnotable. Del. —msh210 17:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe notable locally, but not on an international encyclopedia. David Johnson [T|C] 21:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Regardless of google test, nothing seems notable in CV. -Casito⇝Talk 23:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

FrontSlash

Article about FrontSlash, an IRC user. Vanity page.

• Delete. - Stoph 18:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic. Onlyemarie 18:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 18:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Meh, just Speedy it. Author is an anon IP who seems interested only in these vanity articles and vandalism. A similar article by the same author with slightly less context than this one was speedied just a bit ago. android↔talk 18:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rubbish/vanity. But not quite a speedy unfortunately. David Johnson [T|C] 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even make an attempt to be funny... *sigh* Linuxbeak 14:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thayer Hirsh

Hoax or personal attack. And NN to begin with. Rl 18:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if it was genuine, it is still NN. -Casito⇝Talk 23:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (pending). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Poqet PC programming

Even if a lot of work was done, this would be a how-to guide to programming an obsolete machine. As it is, it is full of vague, generic advice and not much else. Steve.Sc147 18:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. -Casito⇝Talk 23:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Celebrinots

Reads like an anonymous user complaining about a local fashion trend and speculating as negatively as possible about the mindset of people who engage in it. Nothing in the article indicates the term has been used (or the phenomenon described) by anyone other than the original editor. Since the only google hits for it are mirrors of Wikipedia, I rather suspect the editor just made it up himself. Delete. Binabik80 18:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism —Wahoofive | Talk 19:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A quick glance at the Categories give away how non-serious the author is. This borders on vandalism. -Casito⇝Talk 22:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism and personal essay/rant. Joyous 21:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one-man neologism. Philthecow 16:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism, idiosyncratic, non-encyclopedic. Also suggest looking over any other contributions by same writer for similar stuff. -- Karada 17:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if you wish. However, I wish to state that I did not start this article. I was merely trying to be helpful by attempting to improve the entry. At the top of VFD notice, it is clearly stated that one may try to improve the entry and that is all I had I attempted to do today. I don't always sign in when making edits or improvements. To Karada, I don't think you should be casting aspersions on my writing integrity or question ALL of my contributions on the basis of only one item which you didn't like. I am addressing this issue here as I am new to Wikipedia and couldn't figure out how to contact you directly. ~~ Ladycascadia 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.

Not notable in his own right. Merge anything of interest into the articles on his sons. RickK 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Both of them? I realise there is policy on family members that applies, but mightn't this one usefully run on a bit? Charles Matthews 19:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd was placed by anon user and I see it as simple vandalism of the article to cause a stir. I say we should not take this vote seriously as Benedict XVIs father has been in the medai extensively over the past two days. I took off the tag, but will differ to an Admin if they really think that is a deletable article. -Husnock 19:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • FOLLOWUP: I saw the anon user might have been a legit person. Thats fine and Im sorry for taking it out. If so, the tag should go back in. We just have SO many problems with anons going through adding VFD tags and Dispute notices that they are often taken as vandalism. My statements about this man stand on why he should ahve his article, with the situation with Adolf Hitler's relatives a perfect example. The Hitler pages lists relatives down to the half nephew and all of them have articles. If this article gets deleted then, by rights, all of those would have to go as well. I vote KEEP. -Husnock 20:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not AT ALL vandalism, thank you. We frequently have votes for deletion of non-notable relatives. RickK 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I vote Keep for now, since a merge later is an easy option. But I think it can be argued either way, so I disagree with above the comment that this doesn't need a vote. Charles Matthews 20:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's already so much information here that to merge it into either or both of his son's articles would detract from their quality. Better to link to the father and cover it once, in one place; there's also the likelihood that more information will be added here, making the proposed merges yet more cumbersome. - Nunh-huh 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Georg's article under a title Biography of Pope Benedict XVI; if it's eventually decided that Georg would have qualified for an article on his own, this would probably still be an appropriate place to shift material from the Pope's main article. MisfitToys 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article can stand on its own. Notable person, esp. now. I agree with Charles Matthews that a later merger is likely, but that would only be appropriate after this topic matures. -Casito⇝Talk 22:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough - and otherwise, he would have to be developed on two separate pages, might lead to inconsistent results. -- 8^D ^gab 22:59, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pope Benedict XVI. No evidence has been presented that he is independently notable. (Georg's article should probably also be merged but that's a different discussion.) Rossami (talk) 23:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Quit silliness. Georg Ratzinger is a famous musician, who directed a world-famous choir, the eldest in the world, for many years, has made numerous famous recordings, and is a prelate in the Catholic Church. --83 unsigned comment by anon user:83.109.158.50
    • That is, of course, a judgment call. However, he held that position for quite a long time and until his brother was a strong candidate for elevation no one considered Georg noteworthy enough to create an article. WP:MUSIC wasn't really written with classical music in mind but it's interesting to note that none of the inclusion criteria appear to apply. You are free to disagree with me but please be civil and fact-based when doing so. You should also sign your comments using ~~~~. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 23:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is well written, and I personally think that because of some efforts of this gentleman, the Pope's thinking and actions will forever shape our world. Zscout370 23:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article makes more than a satisfactory case for notability.23skidoo 00:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If what is on the page is true, I would want to find this information on its own page--even if the page was no longer than what it is. Apparently, the issues of the father are different from the issues of the son. And the examination of issues about pro- or anti-Nazi expression is clearer to me on two different pages in this case. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable father. Klonimus 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Pope Benedict XVI, and add redirect. Not inherently notable on his own. Megan1967 04:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Given the interest in Pope Benedict's background and inaccurate coverage suggesting his background was a Nazi one. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's likely to be more than enough material published to make this worthwhile. Material on family life is otherwise likely to clog up Pope Ben. Slac speak up! 05:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with an article about the Pope's father. — JIP | Talk 07:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as relative of celeb. Radiant_* 07:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable and it's good that we have an article on him. However, I'm concerned that the article cites no sources whatsoever. It even says things like "various sources state" and "the majority of media sources later made it very clear". Can we have some references then please, otherwise this looks like original research. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable plus merging makes articles harder to find. N-Man^talk 11:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Paryly because that Pope Benedict XVI article will expand to a stage that more articles have to be created to condense information. Also, who can provide the birthdate of his Ratzinger, Sr.? Tan 22:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per reasons listed by Tan. He has two notable sons, so I'd relax the "family members" rule over that. However, if he were just an uncle or something, I would delete. Keep this one. --Idont Havaname 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm not too familiar with the family member policy, but we must consider that he may become notable / more notable after his death, and then the fact that you have two sons in Wickipedia; My biggest concern is that if we merge now, we will find ourselves de-merging in the future -- It's simply too soon to make a definitive decision unsigned comment by anon user:138.88.41.120
• Keep. He might not have been notable a week ago but he's certainly notable now. -JCarriker 03:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Greaser 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is now the father of the pope, one of the most visible figures in the world. This makes him inherently notable. A merge would just clutter an article that is now experiencing a huge number of edits.Bratsche^{talk random} 21:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep - his son is the Holy Father. Oliver Keenan 10:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- he's the popes' old man. - Longhair | Talk 11:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Parents of famous people are appropriate article subjects, as their influence on their offspring's opinions is a matter of historical significance. Keep. --Centauri 09:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is crazy. We don't need articles on every famous person's relatives. Gamaliel 09:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Johan Öijer

Prank or vanity article (it is seriously difficult to tell what the intention is with many of these articles...) for a non-notable Swedish teenage heavy metal bass player. Was first posted under his last name Öijer, which I redirected to the poet Bruno K. Öijer, but later reposted under his full name, including the interesting genealogical tidbit that Bruno K. Öijer is his father's cousin. - Uppland 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I hate to use the google test, but "Johan Öijer" only gets one hit. I only see what appears to be a concert program. -Casito⇝Talk 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del vanity —msh210 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. bbx 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, I consider Google to be a very good test! If it hasn't heard of someone/something yet, then who has? Master Thief Garrett 02:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Christopher D. Thieme

Being chairman of a private equity group with international offices in five cities at the age of 25 is a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately, Google search on "Newcastle Group" + "Thieme" turns up no hits other than Wikipedia clones. Either Christopher D. Thieme is not chairman of Newcastle Group, or Newcastle Group itself is not very notable... take your pick. -- Curps 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Christopher D. Thieme is the Chairman, and Newcastle Group is quite real, but being a private, closely held company, some information about it is not well known. It manages assets of 13 billion US dollars.
  • There are plenty of private closely-held companies that are fairly secretive about their affairs. However, it ought to be possible to verify basic information. You claim that this company exists, that Christopher D. Thieme is the chairman, and that there are $13 billion is assets... Google cannot verify any of the above three statements. -- Curps 20:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the proof of your assetion? RickK 21:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. There appears to be a "Newcastle Group" out there, but it doesn't appear to be the one mentioned in this article. --Carnildo 23:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The micronation stuff proves it's a hoax. RickK 23:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I can state categorically that this individual is a real person, however the rest is unverifiable.--Gene_poole 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell us what your source is? That may help determine verifiability and notability. Jonathunder 05:09, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to claim that this kid doesn't exist just that he isn't what he claims to be. RickK 21:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like User:ExplorerCDT created the Newcastle Group article. I left a message on his talk page. Jonathunder 22:20, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it gives me great pleasure to vote to delete regarding an article about me. I didn't expect to deserve a wiki article until sometime well into next year. Now if I can only find that pesky stalker (4.188.213.145) under that Chicago ISP who keeps trying to follow me around Wikipedia (and previously vandalized my user page), I'll ring his neck...especially for writing a crappy article. I don't even know what a micronation is, but I feel free to ask about market caps. —ExplorerCDT 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (pending). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Newcastle Group

This private equity group does not appear to have a website. Google hits on "Newcastle group" seem to refer to scientific collaborations. In particular, searching on "Newcastle group" + "Thieme" (the claimed 25-year-old chairman, see Christopher D. Thieme) turns up 3 hits, all Wikipedia clones. -- Curps 20:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Christopher D. Thieme is the Chairman, and Newcastle Group is quite real, but being a private, closely held company, some information about it is not well known. It manages assets of 13 billion US dollars.
  • The problem is, it seems its very existence is not very well known (to Google at least). Google of "Newcastle Group" + "private equity" only seems to turn up Wikipedia clones and a handful of other false-positive hits. -- Curps 20:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this company is so private that little is known about it, I think that qualifies it as being not notable. -Casito⇝Talk 22:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. There appears to be a company called "Newcastle Group" out there, but it doesn't appear to be the one mentioned in this article. --Carnildo 23:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Its supposed chairman is non-notable, and a hoax as well. RickK 23:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 08:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Wordsworths School

Doesn't appear notable. David Johnson [T|C] 20:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, Oscar winning actor, Rugby Union world cup winning sportsman, a teacher from 1945 to 1962 who wrote Lord of the Flies (novel) and won the Nobel Prize for literature? Nah, can't see anything notable there. Come on, even I'd say this is a Keep Average Earthman 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Damm, I should have looked more closely at the article. It should be kept of course... David Johnson [T|C] 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: Unless someone objects, can this be delisted? There is no point in marring a perfectly good article if everyone agrees it should be kept. —RaD Man (talk) 04:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination fails to comply with deletion policy criteria.--Gene_poole 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, which policy are you referring to? android↔talk 02:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The policy that I named 2 lines above where I am posting this response. --Gene_poole 04:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the obtuse non-answer. That was a sincere question. Wikipedia policy is spread out all over the place and sometimes contradicts itself. All I wanted was a link. Sheesh. android↔talk 04:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Probably of a piece with the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic rationale he used on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/El Camino Bible Church. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Gene Poole is just being argumentative. The deletion policy is not all-inclusive, and as long as your nomination was made in good faith, it is valid. While I'm sure there are good arguments for keeping this article, "invalid nomination" is not one of them. Radiant_* 07:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • Once more, for the dummies: There is no Wikipedia policy that explicitly names "non-notability" as a valid criterion for article deletion - let alone even defining what the term is supposed to mean. Nominations for deletion made on the basis on "non-notability" are therefore completely, totally and unquestionably invalid. End of story. --Gene_poole 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Once more, for the intellectually dishonest Wikilawyers, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits nomination of articles under any criteria other than bad faith. That's why it's a vote (with discussion) for deletion. There is, though, an explicit prohibtion against double voting through sockpuppets, which I'm glad to see has stopped for certain editors. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the lesson in misrepresentation; to my knowledge nobody here has claimed that nominations unsupported by established policy are explicitly forbidden. However, the monotonous regularity with which such nominations are concluded as keepers should serve to illustrate the futility of perpetuating such resource-wasting exercises by nominators seeking to promote as consensus eccentric opinions at variance with precedent and prevailing community attitudes. --Gene_poole 04:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • • futility of perpetuating such resource-wasting exercises by nominators seeking to promote as consensus eccentric opinions at variance with precedent and prevailing community attitudes. Mileage varies. No, actually, reality varies. --Calton | Talk 11:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • First, read No personal attacks. Second, you are wrong about the 'monotonous regularity' by which they are kept. Notability is a de facto criterion, and the fact that you don't like it does not give you the right to badger people who do. Civility dictates otherwise. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No question. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even before I attempt improvement. This school's history and alumni make this school notable, even though notability should not be an issue when it comes to high schools. --BaronLarf 02:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Great example of a notable high school. android↔talk 02:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school, worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable alumni and teacher make it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although there are lots of schools like that. Kappa 05:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of schools with a teacher who later won the Nobel Prize for Literature? I doubt it... Average Earthman 10:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • True, the fact that Lord of the Flies is about schoolchildren makes it more relevant. Kappa 17:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Make a mention in Salisbury and delete- Skysmith 09:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Are you suggesting that the Salisbury article should be somewhere in the education menu? Oliver Chettle 02:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep it doesnt seem deletable Yuckfoo 21:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable with a good bit of history behind it. --NormanEinstein 14:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Average Earthman's post.  ALKIVAR™ 09:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Algiers Agreement

A copy of the agreement is not encyclopedic. Maybe it could live on WikiSource or another Wikimedia project? In any case, this article should be deleted unless someone wants to re-write it. David Johnson [T|C] 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Belongs at Wikisource. Though I must say keep, but re-written as a good stub.-Casito⇝Talk 22:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am working on a re-write. Please give me a couple of days on this. Ground Zero 23:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD discussions generally last for 5 days, so you'll have plenty of time. android↔talk 01:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending Ground Zero's rewrite. Important agreement that ended the Eritrean War. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have placed the text on wikisource here. Assuming that a rewrite appears, Keep Dsmdgold 13:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• I've taken the first run at a re-write. Others are invited to improve on my work. It is odd that we have an article about the agreement to end a war for which we have no article, but that is a part of Wikipedia's idiosyncratic charm. Let's hope there is an article on the war some day. See also Ethiopia-Eritrea War Ground Zero 16:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Now that Ground Zero has rewritten it, Keep. A useful contribution to a subject Wikipedia is weak in. -- llywrch 20:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Re-written, so keep. Ditto to Llywrch's comment. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 08:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Floyd of Rosedale

A trophy contested in one football match between two universities doesn't seem notable to me. Maybe it could be merged somewhere, but it probably isn't worth it. David Johnson [T|C] 20:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A 70 year old trophy passed between two very notable football teams is notable. Stuff like this adds a lot of depth to Wikipedia. Well researched, too. Merging it somewhere would be unacceptable, as it is large enough to clutter any related article. Also, there is no good non-biased placed I can think of to merge it. I'll clean it up and Wikify it, it will look a lot better-Casito⇝Talk 22:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are other articles about similar trophies. Rmhermen 22:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important local sporting tradition in midwest. Well done Casito for the rewrite.
• Keep. It's an obscure piece of regional culture/tradition, worth hanging on to.

Capitalistroadster 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep per Capitalistroadster 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) —msh210 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While this might not be included in a traditional paper encyclopedia, it is the sort of article that adds value to Wikipedia. --NormanEinstein 14:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This trophy has historical value to both the schools and the Big Ten, and to the states as well. Frank12

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep article rewrite. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Family traditions

• Keep but Modify.

As the writer of this 'personal essay' - I'd like to throw in my two cents - this is my first addition to Wikipedia - and admittedly it isn't very 'encyclopedia like'...my hope in posting it was that someone else would step in and make it 'encyclopedia like', since this is something I know about first hand but I do not know about writing encyclopedia entrys. I adapted this 'artice' from a posting I made to a Pagan Clergy Webgroup. We were talking about it on said webgroup because it came up that there is very little information 'out there' on the subject. Thus, I think that is is beneficial for Wikipedia to have such an article - though it clearly needs some 'help'. ~ Lady Ament-Drake (gypsy_curiosa@yahoo.co.uk). (no Wiki sign-off, written by 70.28.63.182)

Personal essay. Maybe it is salvagable if someone wants to spend some time on it, but I think it's probably best to delete it and let someone re-create it later if they want to write a proper article. David Johnson [T|C] 20:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree 100%. To delete this article would be a mercy killing. Page should then be re-created as a redirect to tradition. -Casito⇝Talk 22:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Strangest thing I ever voted on, reads like a Wiki-ised chain email! They even sign off with their name! So, yes, let's be kind and kill it, and leave the namespace open for some other inspired person. Master Thief Garrett 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep as revised. Master Thief Garrett 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- life is like that folks, sometimes Indian vegetarians like me also have to agree for mercy killing. Amen!--Bhadani 17:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep- article since modified.--Bhadani 13:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My additional comments - Done, after seeing the "writer's" comments, I will try to modify the article. Let me see what can be done? God is great.--Bhadani 18:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • my vote Delete (mercy killing) is withdrawn. I have commenced revision and re-writing of the article. I am not sure of the outcome though.--Bhadani 19:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • oh, see, this is the "inspired person" I was talking about! Well done! Even at its current state it's probably no longer worthy of deletion. I'll say it again, well done! Master Thief Garrett 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I have almost completed the revision of this article - drawing inspiration from the original article (contents of which I have incorporated in my revisions), and I find wikipedia a wonderful place.--Bhadani 10:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I should add, though, that you should re-vote to keep. As it is one person voted to delete, I changed mine to keep, and the anon user voted to keep but anon votes aren't as important as those of logged-in users. Therefore, this will end in a stalemate. Might as well make it end happily ever after! Master Thief Garrett 11:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Swamp Water

not notable / origional research / cookbook. I can find several references to swamp water as a beverage, but they all refer to alcoholic drinks. This reminds me of a friend who would make Mountain Beer by mixing Mountain Dew and root beer. -Casito⇝Talk 21:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as long as we are keeping cocktail recipes here we should treat non-alcoholic ones the same way. Rmhermen 22:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but we can't even verify this one exists. Delete. Meelar (talk) 23:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia keeps recipes of notable cocktails (see List of cocktails). I can list several cocktails unique to my circle of friends. One would have to show that Swamp Water is notable, and not unique to a certain circle of friends.-Casito⇝Talk 00:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't keep cocktail recipies here. The recipies go in Wikibooks:Bartending:Cocktails. What we keep are encyclopaedia articles about cocktails (with the implication that they have to be more than just arbitrary names to label recipes). Compare Martini cocktail and Wikibooks:Bartending:Martini (which could do with some expansion, incidentally) to get a rough idea of the difference. I'd be happy to Wikibooks this to Wikibooks:Bartending:Swamp Water as long as it is demonstrated that this is the generally accepted name that this recipe goes under, which this article doesn't. (I've made up names for arbitrary mixtures of soft drinks, too.) Of course, this article doesn't belong on the encyclopaedia for the reasons given by Casito, so Delete. Uncle G 04:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Weak keep. When I was a wee lad, I remember our swamp water was a mix of root beer and orange soda. I get the impression that there isn't a single Swamp Water, but rather that is a concept that is regularly invented independently by creative, thirsty young people. I think we might be able to say something about that concept. (There might be a similar mechanism at work among creative, thirsty adults which leads to the alcoholic variants.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a recipe. If it can be proven that it has notability other than what's inside of it and how it's made, I'll change my vote to keep. Mo0[talk] 06:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless clear and verifiable evidence is presented that this name is used by a significant group. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki Wikt. This is not a recipe precisely; see comment-vote of TenOfAllTrades 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC). But it is a dicdef. —msh210 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From the comments here, it seems that swamp water is a reasonably common name for a variety of green-brown beverages. If this is a researchable topic, and someone wanted to write an article about it, then keep. But this is not that article. FWIW, the swampwater I am familiar with is vodka, orange juice, food coloring, and dry ice. Shimmin 17:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 01:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Knights of glory

Delete as non-encyclo/vanity about once-great (?) gaming clan. FreplySpang (talk) 22:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as above Vegaswikian 22:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete From the author; although I don't consider it vanity I feel that the article even in it's best form won't support much traffic, so I rescind my earlier statements and ask for deletion.
• Delete vanity, non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm willing to assume good faith, but unless I'm convinced this is actually notable, I can't see it really belonging here. – Seancdaug 23:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't really see the point of any gaming clan having an article here unless they've gained notoriety outside of the game they play. Mo0[talk] 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Belifan

This really looks to me like a hoax, I have never heard of this word and couldn't find it on an online dictionary or google search. In any case, it's pure dicdef with no potential redirect or merge, so delete.--Dmcdevit 23:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC); amend: found on anglo-saxon dictionary, not that that changes anything. --Dmcdevit 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if it is an actual word, as you say, it's clearly dicdef, and there really doesn't seem to be anywhere where it would comfortably fit. – Seancdaug 23:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a dicdef. Mo0[talk] 06:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• transwiki wikt and del dicdef —msh210 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Forgot to say, I already transwiki-ed it. Check out the talk page. --Dmcdevit 23:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, since it has been transwikied Dsmdgold 19:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Amby

"What an amby summer this is!", "Amby-dextrous"?! Hoax, dicdef, and as such should be deleted. --Dmcdevit 23:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, for all the reasons stated above. – Seancdaug 23:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yay! Fake dicdef! Mo0[talk] 06:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Dsmdgold 18:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Eamonn Geraghty

Biographical, but subject does not appear to be significant in any particular way. Musser 23:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Practically nonsensical, and completely insignificant. – Seancdaug 23:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 05:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And... I'm supposed to care? Mo0[talk] 06:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Castlevania. – ABCD 01:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Castlevania games

It's duplicating information that is already in the main Castlevania article, and that article is nowhere near lengthy enough to need partitioning. – Seancdaug 23:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Damn. This really should just be a redirect to the Castlevania page. I don't know what on earth possessed me to list it, and I sincerely regret doing so now. In the interests of not confusing the bleeding heck out of everyone, I'm going to leave this up here for the recommended 24 hours, but I apologize for wasting everyone's time (technically speaking, I suppose this counts as a redirect vote...). – Seancdaug 23:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect, as above. -- 8^D ^gab 01:23, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Concur with speedy redirect. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good guide to games in the Castlevania series. --SuperDude 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 05:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fultum

pure dicdef, already been transwikied, see no potential merge or redirect. delete. --Dmcdevit 23:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef —Wahoofive | Talk 02:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• del dicdef —msh210 17:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, already transwikied, rhubarb ditto blablabla... Master Thief Garrett 08:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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