Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 5

June 5

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (blanked by creator) --cesarb 02:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Liang

This is a very long vanity page on a 20-yr-old film student with no directing experience yet, and no accomplishments. Includes phrases like: Always intent on directing film, it was in 1997, when Mr. Liang first saw American independent filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights" that he became enamored with the idea of writing his own scripts. At this time, Mr. Liang wrote several rudimentary screenplays that have since been lost. Translation: after watching a movie, he wrote some scripts, but he then lost them. Negative notability, and blatant self-promotion. Delete. Harro5 00:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. - Vanity, non-notable biography page. -- Marcika 00:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Furthermore, the original author, User:207.237.6.27 (presumably Mr. Liang himself), has first removed the VfD notice and then blanked the page entirely. I doubt anyone's gonna miss it, seeing as even the author obviously doesn't... -- Captain Disdain 00:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. DS1953 01:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since he's never run for public office. Perhaps we should add text to the new article form warning people that vanity pages are not likely to be around long. ----Isaac R 01:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was a consensus in favour of keep. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:27, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

H.R.

• Delete non-notable. Revolución 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP Important artist with numerous released albums, both solo and with Bad Brains. The article needs help, though, I'll rewrite into a nice stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Since being rewritten, this article seems worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. Kel-nage 00:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: My problem isn't with the figure. Bad Brains were a great band, and he's important, but "HR" is a common acronym for Human Resources. I'm a bit worried by this name priority. If HR and H.R. were disambiguations and pointed to a H.R. (musician) article, I'd be delighted. Geogre 02:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Move I think Geogre has a good idea. --Etacar11 03:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to H.R. (musician). JamesBurns 04:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Definitely notable, one of the most influential hardcore/punk musicians ever. -CunningLinguist 08:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as Geogre. Capitalistroadster 10:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Geogre. Very notable (though CunningLinguist exaggerates slightly methinks). Certainly could be expanded too. -R. fiend 22:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Geogre. Redirect 'H.R.' and 'HR' to disambig page.Fabartus 05:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Move, Disambig. And here I was thinking it stood for home run. See also TD. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:02, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Keep Human resources needs some disambiguation, though not a seperate dab page; it's usually abbreviated as "HR" with no periods, not "H.R.". siafu 20:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by BanyanTree (nonsense, I think) --cesarb 01:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aryia

• Delete patent nonsense. Revolución 00:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense doesn't get any more patent than this. (Unless there was a reality shift while I was asleep or something.) And that means we can skip the debate -- PN is subject to speedy deletion. So I changed your VfD to a simple Delete. If the administrators disagree they can change it back. ----Isaac R 01:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This one is hi-larious. This takes the concept of micronation to a new level. I love it. Geogre 02:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, micronations dissent from traditional concepts of nationhood. This article dissents from traditional concepts of reality! ----Isaac R 02:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Hold your fire

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Revolución 00:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More to the point, it's not a phrase book. ----My hovercraft is full of eels!
• Fire! Err, I mean, delete. (Not a Baedekker.) Geogre 02:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While common, there is really no room for worthwhile expansion in the article. Mr Bound 19:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hold Your Fire, the album by Rush. — Phil Welch 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre (Criteria #1 and #2: content was: '{{vfd}}Humper dink is a Monky found in the Amizia Basen.') --cesarb 02:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Humper dink

• Delete looks like a hoax. Revolución 00:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax, or newbie test. Contents is "Humper dink is a Monky found in the Amizia Basen" in case anyone wants to speedy it. Kappa 00:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's Engelbert Humperdinck the composer , Engelbert Humperdinck the singer, and of course Humperdink Duck. But alas, no Humper dink monkey. A shame, really. ----Isaac R 01:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong speedy delete... about as clear a case of speedy deletion criteria as you'll ever find. I guess if we're being very kind we could also redirect to Engelbert Humperdinck but only after deleting this nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Sorry, folks, but this one was a really clear criterion #1 and #2. It's a test and no content, and a hoax, and just, basically, a dookie in the punch bowl of Wikipedia. Geogre 01:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blatcherism

Neologism with 52 google hits. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete. If you go by the news media, every politican has his or her own ism. But we strive for more long-term notability. ----01:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The neologism is one factor, but truthfully the reason for deletion is that, whether the term is in use or not, it is not stable. It's ephemeral. While "Thatcherism" indicated a precise set of economic policies and a particular manner of dealing with dissent, this attempted coinage will slide away because there is no single method or policy, so this will go away as soon as dissent to Blair does. Geogre 01:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologistic rant masquerading as scholarship. Blairism is a recognised political term in the UK - although it is ephemeral - of this I've never heard. The concepts involved can be, and are, discussed elsewhere. Anyway, isn't Blair’s ideology about opportunity - known as opportunism? --Doc (?) 13:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The White Lion, Thornbury

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:53, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Delete. There must be a White Lion in many English towns. I wouldn't trust this article because it's by a known vandal who cannot spell Gloucestershire. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I did my homework and the place does exist. I change my vote to merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, with redirect, or keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even though I wish Tony would stop dragging personality issues into VfD discussions. They don't help (especially when the delete consensus is pretty much a foregone conclusion) and they damage our ability to work together. ----Isaac R 01:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sorry if you think that I've done this in any case, let alone this one. I think you've misunderstood what I wrote (my fault). The edit history of the person who created this article (whom I'd never encountered before this) shows that he is engaged in some pretty blatant vandalism. That isn't a personalit issue, it's a fact that tips my judgement on this already rather dubious entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Call it what you want. It is not useful to make general allegations against users here. Let's talk about content, not people. ---Isaac R 02:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That was actually a very specific allegation. The editor in question has vandalized. The fact that an article has been produced by a vandal is a factor in determining whether it can be taken on good faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If you have a basis for these allegations, you should pursue sanctions against the user. But as long as we allow somebody editing privileges, we have to assume good faith. Without that assumption, this whole collaborative editing experiment is a waste of time. ----Isaac R 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • That may be your interpretation of "assume good faith" but it is certainly not everyone's. Many people interpret it as "assume good faith until an editor betrays that faith; after that, the burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that their edits are sincerely meant and worthwhile." I don't see how everyone's time is wasted by learning from experience; I don't see why we must assume that an editor who has vandalized in the past is now making good edits until it's proven that those specific edits are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • That would turn every discussion into a debate over good/bad faith. One last time: let's talk about CONTENT. ----Isaac R 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • No, I think once someone is a confirmed vandal it pretty much settles the debate on whether they can be counted on for good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Just a pub. Single businesses (like high schools) are not proper subjects of articles unless they are notable in some way and stand out from the others of the type. Wikipedia is not the restaurant guide. Geogre 01:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this pub stands out because "it won the 1999 Britain in Bloom" award for Best Pub Display. Could be merged with Thornbury if not kept. Thanks for the research Uncle G. Kappa 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge There isn't much reason to keep this stub, but there is a good article on Thornbury that it would easily fit into. Sonic Mew 13:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, this pub is already mentioned in the Thornbury article, and there is even a picture of it, but there isn't a need for its own aritcle. NSR 18:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to more complete parallel article. Mr Bound 19:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As it happens the White Lion, Thornbury is verifiable (there in an entry in the British Pub Guide, for instance. So I could buy a merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire. There are three other pubs in Thornbury on beerintheevening.com, so if someone is keen on pubs it might be fun to add pub entries to British villages and towns. Quite a large task, though. There must be around twenty pubs within a half hour walk of my house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Thornbury, South Gloucestershire - one of many real and fictitious pubs with that name - Skysmith 10:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Suisei (mythology)

Contents is "Suisei (水星) is a figure of Japanese mythology and is the messenger god. This is also the Japanese name for the planet Mercury." I believe the "figure of Japanese mythology" part is incorrect, coming from Mercury being a messenger god in Greek mythology. "Suisei" means water star, Japanese planets mostly take their name from "elements" like water, wood, fire etc, not from mythical beings. Kappa 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After more content has been added, this article should now be merged or kept in my opinion. Kappa 21:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but edit let's just remove that part and add more information.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --- No, you can't save the article by removing controversial facts. That leaves you with "Suisei is the Japanese name for the planet Mercury" and I don't see an article in that. ¶ Incidentally, this myth-myth is also on List of geological features on Mercury. Makes you wonder if there isn't some general misunderstanding. It does so happen that the Japanese name for Wednesday is Suiyobi (water day). The Japanese didn't start using a 7-day week until they opened up to the West in the 1870s. So this might be a nod to the fact that Wednesday is Dies Mercurii in Latin. Perhaps Suisei is the Japanese name for a western god? ----Isaac R 03:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Japanese names for the first five planets were adopted from Chinese. (The more recently discovered planets are a different story). Search of 水星 turns up only the planet, or discussion of Western mythology. Same findings at ja:水星. --Tabor 04:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone who actually knows something about Japanese mythology is willing to defend it with reputable cites. Somehow I don't see that happening. Schmeitgeist 22:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• My username is the Chinese/Japanese name for the planet Mars, so that much is true. Abstain until I can do more research. Fire Star 04:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the fact that 水星 (water star) is the Japanese name for the planet Mercury is not disputed. This is easily confirmed. The question is whether it denotes any Japanese mythological figure, because without that, there is nothing to support an article here. --Tabor 18:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment --- It's interesting/useful to examine ja:水星. (What? You don't read Japanese? The Google translation is suprisingly readable.) That article has a big section on Mercury in western mythology, but nothing about any Japanese messenger god. ----Isaac R 18:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, as there is no dispute that Suisei is the name of the planet in Japanese, (and ***CHINESE**** for that matter, which is the original language from whence the name comes), and there is mythology associated with it. It just needs a rewrite. 132.205.45.148 19:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine. What's the article about? The fact that Suisei mean "Mercury"? If that's all you have, it belongs on Wiktionary. ----Isaac R 20:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - article has since been expanded. ··gracefool |☺ 03:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Current article has nothing about Suisei as a Japanese mythological figure. ---Kusunose 03:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Assuming it survives, I'll merge/redirect it back to Suisei. Kappa 21:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - with four different stub catagories, one would hope it would recieve some expansion attention from a ethnic interested party once finals are over. Fabartus 05:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asabane Measuring Instruments

Supposedly a company, no indication of where they are, and description of what they do looks meaningless. Not able to locate a website, and in fact a search turned up only one hit that's not a Wikipedia mirror [1]. For that matter, the article's only sentence matches that page word-for-word, so we're probably looking at a copyright infringement as well. Either way, delete. --Michael Snow 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A quotation that short shouldn't give us copyright issues, but notability does seem pretty unlikely. ----Isaac R 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

IWA National Festival

This article was created back in January as an advertisement for a 2005 event sponsored by the Inland Waterways Association. It's since been classified as a stub, but nobody's added to it, and I don't think anybody will. The IWA is a noteworthy organization, but they sponsor a lot of events like this one, and I don't think the individual events are particularly notable. ----Isaac R 01:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Announcement for an event, news release. Wikipedia is not a place for announcements. Geogre 01:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. JamesBurns 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The current entry reads like a promotion. But 'The National', along with smaller festivals like Canalway Cavalcade in London, is an important part of the UK canal scene and has a long history. To vote to prevent future discussion of the event as a separate article would compromise discussion of issues related to announcements and consultations that tend to be made at the National, such as the formation of the Waterway Recovery Group as a result of discussions at the 1970 event.

It is likely that many future articles will want to reference the National without including a block of material relating to it in their body. For example any article relating to canal restoration in the UK will want to reference the formation of WRG and the campaigning aspect of the National, especially in the past when it was often held in inaccessible locations to promote boat traffic.

Material relating to UK canals is only just creeping into Wikipedia, despite a significant online presence. As far as I know there is only one person (not myself) adding significant content. To have to work around a ban on having a separate article on one of the key 'hub' aspects of the post war history of the canals can only discourage further activity.

Declaration of interests: I am an ordinary member of the IWA, an active WRG volunteer and a regular attendee at the National. This is being posted from a boat on the UK canals.--80.229.232.148 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete --MarSch 13:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs {{attention}}, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 03:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry Brit, not encyclopedic. Advert/Promo to boot. Be glad to see articles on various canals and their history. It's our history too. Fabartus 05:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Page has now been updated to something more suitable--80.229.232.148 16:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been much imporved. - SimonP 14:50, Jun 18, 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mistakeonomics

Neologism = unencyclopedic. Delete JeremyA 01:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

—see also Mistakonomics. JeremyA 01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Academic Challenger 01:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Intended neologism, with less currency even than "errorspace" (web space for misspellings of common web site names). Geogre 01:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Mr Bound 19:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. the wub (talk) 08:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Quite an absurd article. Why can't they accept criticism gracefully like everyone else does, and stop coining such phrases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.110.60 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 May 2005

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding it to today's log. --cesarb 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The lead question is a straw-man. I'm not a religious expert, but this word has been around for years. The definition has to be broadened by someone who is more versed in religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.49.149 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 Jun 2005

• Nonsense. It may need to be rewritten, but it would be ridiculous to say that islamophobia isn't an important issue today. Citizen Premier 04:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 67.173.12.211 (talk · contribs) added "Keep." in front of the above vote. --cesarb 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Islamophobia is similar to anti-Semitism, homophobia, negrophobia etc. It is a fear or hatred against people who are or appear to be Muslim. It should NOT be deleted becasue it is a valid article. See the examples of Islamophobia. Farhanikarim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.12.211 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 May 2005

• No it is not similar to anti-Semitism, homophobia, negrophobia etc. since it is based on reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.186.121 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 Jun 2005

• This has been up for a vote before and survived; Remove this at once.Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. To use the rhetorical tool so frequently, and successfully, appealed to by some editors: There are 128,000 Google hits for this word. Worth pointing out too that there are daily instances of this phenomenon to be found in routine anonymous vandalism to WP articles! (Speaking of which, ... how come person who wants the VfD won't sign a name?) BrandonYusufToropov 14:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Important issue, though the article is in desperate need of NPOVing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Farhanikarim. If the Islamophobia article is to be deleted so should Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia articles. AmyAndrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.12.211 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 May 2005

• Keep. Important issue. I see no problem with the article and all argumets presented against it sound like islamphobia retorics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00gie (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2005
  • This vote was registered by User:N00gie. — Dan Johnson
  • User:N00gie's only edit. --cesarb 02:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. They may be important issues, but certainly not encyclopediac material. Yes, similar "phobia" articles would need to be deleted if they were written this poorly. This should be rewritten to have an extensive history of anti-Islamic occurrences (like, the Crusades!), rather than a list attacking politicians. -- BAILOPAN 21:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BAILOPAN's Second edit. BAILOPAN, am I right in think that you don't want Islamophobia re-written, just more extenisive especially Modern interpretations of what, by modern standards, could be considered Islamophobia ?--Irishpunktom\^talk

• Keep. This is a useful article that would benefit from more editing and contributions rather than removal. The topic of anti-religious rhetoric is important and culturally relevant. -- Contribution by an unregistered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 May 2005

• Keep This article is important, because as an American I find it awfully clear that there is an anti-Islamic prejudice in the world. However, the article itself is a little POV and does not deal with issue fairly (an easy mistake to make in this type of article)--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid, notable topic. Nateji77 08:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Dunc|☺ 12:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notable topic. Revolución 13:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Bound 19:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. How ironic; the nominator is probably an exemplar of the topic. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 20:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 'Keep. I found the article informative. Marine 69-71 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 'Keep. Quite informative.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.18 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 6 Jun 2005
• Keep Article needs alot of NPOV work to remove Islamist apologetics. Klonimus 03:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Evenhanded treatment of encyclopedic subjects are, well, encyclopedic. Maybe I'm not seeing all this POV other people I'm not complaining about, either. A Man In Black 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No more absurd than anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.2.203 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 Jun 2005

• Keep. I didnt believe it existed until I read the comments by the editor who submitted it for deletion. Now, of course, I am a believer. Hornplease 04:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's absurd that this nomination is still even being voted on. ulayiti 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Article is poorly organized. Its overlap with Persecution of Muslims should be considered when editing both articles. — Dan Johnson 21:04, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC) Delete. I see little chance of NPOV here. — Dan Johnson 03:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Keep, but totally overhaul First of all surely this is a constituent part of Persecution of Muslims in that it looks at one of the causes of such persecution. It is also horrendously organized; the first heading is criticism of the concept the article has yet to define. The 'reasons for Islamophobia' is horribly condescending and POV, saying something like 'obviously it is because ignorant Westerners are unable to discern fundamentalist Muslims from non-fundamentalist ones.' The closing idiot's parade of supposed Islamophobes makes no mention of the fact that most of the people mentioned represent the extreme right of their respective country's politics, have little popular support, and by no means represent any kind of majority view. A number of quotes are taken out of context and falsely verified by non-existent footnotes. Unless this is totally whitewashed it needs deleting. Stephen 15:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep; the term is new but relevent to current affairs and widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristocratac (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 Jun 2005
• Strong keep, per most of the comments above. Kaibabsquirrel 05:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am against deletions (and revertions unless vandalism). I learned something from reading it, and that is all that counts. That does not mean that any page can't be improved, but I am against deleting it. --Noitall 21:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. -- Eagle^amn 01:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Stephen about half-strength. 'Reasons for Islamophobia' are more sophmoric than condescending. NPOV should be applied to 'examples of'. Fabartus 05:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is obviously a notable neologism and a phenomena worth discussing in it's own right. Axon 14:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but must be totally overhauled. Article as it stands is POV to a laughable degree. Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, just to name a few, have done extensive work on this phenomenon, and their views should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 Jun 2005
• Keep but must be totally overhauled. --Germen 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but needs rewrite. Although the term may or may not be a neologism, it is one which has acheived common currency and the article will certainly proves useful for anybody interested in the word. "Islamophobia" is a term frequently used in the British and English-speaking media, and its omission from the Wikipedia would reflect badly on the project.illWill 19:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is not a newly-coined phrase invented here, and the article is not absurd: on the contrary, the subject is worthy of note. I question why some think the article needs a rewrite: in any case whether it needs rewrite work is a separate decision to be made in a forum different from this one. --Mysidia 22:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm pretty sure this was put on VfD by someone who was upset that Islamophilia was gonna be deleted and wanted to prove a point - enough said. Blackcats 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment on above - This article was put on VfD before islamophilia, so maybe it's the other way round.

I stand corrected - I had forgotten to look at the starting time stamps. It looks like Islamophilia was was created after this VfD was under way - likely in response to this one not being deleted. Blackcats 02:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is an important, perhaps even excellent article. As there is a consensus on keeping it, can we now remove the VfD banner? --Thüringer ☼ 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The discussion is still in progress. You may not remove a VfD notice while the VfD is active. I have returned the notice to Islamophobia. — Dan Johnson 02:26, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Keep. lots of room for improvement. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but probably cleanup. Jon the Geek 03:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Goldencat

No released albums, no established following, promotional in nature. Delete--Unfocused 02:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) (BTW, this is a supposedly a "caucasian internet rap artist" who is "one of the most oppressed") --Unfocused 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agreed with above Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 03:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: 14 year old who is an Internet rapper, rather than a recording artist. No evidence that his mad rhymes yo have been especially popular or notable or influential, and he is not yet a proper article subject. Geogre 12:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Harp Heaven 15:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, LOL what a wanker!!!! Sweetvermouth3 03:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and lobotomise. It's been a long time between drinks. Alphax ^τεχ 05:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pathetic drivel. Postdlf 05:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hahaha, the only thing this article is good for is the humor value it adds to someone's day. Conradrock 05:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Ted the Caver

Do we need this...um..."memecruft"? Grutness...wha? 02:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is your reason for wanting it deleted? It is a story that has been passed along online since 2002, a bit more information would be great, which could happen. --JE 03:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where shall I start? Will "non-notable" do? How about "Un-encyclopaedic"? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should have put that first, though, instead of just labelling it 'cruft'! Sonic Mew 14:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, being as I'm new to Wikipedia's policies, I'll agree it wasn't very "encyclopaedic". I dislike being flammed, though.--JE 22:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Cruft" is by definition non-notable. Delete. — Phil Welch 22:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me too - so it's a good thing that no-one was. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 247 Google hits. Delete as non-notable. --Idont Havaname 03:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established. --Tabor 03:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Memorial to a dead mass-forwarded story. Perhaps it could be found on Snopes, but it oughtn't be found here. Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 12:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As above, not 'cruft', but not notable or encyclopaedic Sonic Mew 14:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. carmeld1 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete--Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[[Po%E8mes]]

Atrocious formatting, completely unencyclopedic Tiefighter 02:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think this falls under patent nonsense.... delete – ugen64 04:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article tells us the ISBN of the book that had been copied and pasted wholesale into the article, along with its price in pounds, dollars, and euros. Copyvio. Uncle G 04:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 04:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. Revolución 19:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Joel Gretsch

Is being the son-in-law of William Shatner sufficiently notable? I abstain for now but want to hear what others think. Emiao 02:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep/Expand he's starred in a couple tv series. IMDB --Etacar11 02:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems like a notable stage/tv actor from this biography [2] but it's also pretty much copyvio of that site. Being someone's son-in-law is not very relevant. Kappa 02:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would vote keep if not a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If this article is not a copyvio, I would vote

Keep but cleanup if the article is about the actor Joel Gretsch

Delete if this is about Joel Gretsch as William Shatner's son-in-law. Aecis 10:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's too hard to tell. What's there now looks like a genealogical database entry or a theatre register, rather than an article of any sort. I agree with Aecis that if the rewrite takes the POV of the relation, then this should just be a redirect to William "the Bard" Shatner, but if it's an actor bio, then it can be kept. The end verdict is, I suppose, send to clean up, with VfD pasted onto its talk page. Geogre 12:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite to emphasize his own acting career, not his family relationships. He is one of the principal actors on the television show The 4400 which will be airing another season this summer. --Metropolitan90 18:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We need to stop using VfDs to deal with every cleanup issue. Now we're even getting VfD nominations from people who don't want a deletion! That wastes everybody's time. Here's some cleanup processes that you can start with much less fuss:

1. Research and rewrite yourself.
2. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Previous editors will see this (if they still have the page on their watch lists) and maybe respond.
3. Slap on an appropriate dispute, maintenance, or cleanup tag, which will bring the article to the attention of people who like to look after such things.

----Isaac R 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • It's not a requirement. If you have issues with the way VfD is being used, discuss it on the VfD Talk page. Don't use a particular article's vote to attack the nominator or the process. This is Iasson territory. RickK 21:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • See rewritten version. --Metropolitan90 02:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable shatner. Klonimus 03:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as nonsense. Kappa 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Update: This article has been rewritten to a simple stub. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dental alveolus

appears to be a hoax Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete From a quick google search, I gather that it exists, but that it is a term for an area in the mouth, not a medical condition. Therefore, I am unsure what to do with it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or speedy) as nonsense. Or someone could write a real article about tooth sockets. Kappa 03:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after somebody writes a real article on it; this version should go to BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. It is a noted dental topic. The inflammation of the dental alveolus is called odontobothritis btw. JamesBurns 04:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What should we do for now though? unless someone's rewriting it right away... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{nonsense}} to try and get this out of the way . Kappa 07:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mike perdue

non-notable person Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article on a young drummer who has a website (not a band...), and lists his teachers. Harro5 03:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: CV. (Musicians going for the professional placement in orchestras name their teachers, as studio music is one of the few areas where an apprentice system seems to still exist.) I'm sure he has more skill than 99% of the drummers for pop bands who get empty entries, but Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Geogre 12:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sarg 13:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, and the article has been blanked, presumably by the author. --Etacar11 22:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matutinal

Dictdef. Text is Of, relating to, or occurring in the morning; early. Propose transwiki and delete. RJFJR 03:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It has been transwikied before, and appears on Wiktionary already. --Tabor 04:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Duplicate material, possibly a procedural speedy. Geogre 12:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ··gracefool |☺ 03:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abscondia

Hoax article created in conjunction with Dental alveolus, listed above--Tabor 03:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete nonsense. Kappa 11:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Prank. (Still, I must say that I do like the idea of in abscondia instead of in absentia for people who miss the company meeting on purpose.) Geogre 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete prank, nonsense, and association with aforementioned deleted article. --Etacar11 22:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Shared Vision

Looks like a dicdef, possibly a neologism. Disscussion page sounds like creator wanted to use page for discussion. A search for vision shows a definition for a company vision, and this sounds like the same thing. --InShaneee 03:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Self-evident dictdef, plus a call for penpals. Geogre 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikispam. --nixie 07:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Meg Bikmbaum

non-notable. The entire article is: "Meg Bikmbaum is an illustrator." Googles for Bikmbaum is 7 hits. We know next to nothing about this person. If we can't find out more, including what is notable about this person, then we should delete. RJFJR 03:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Meg Birnbaum, if notability can be established, else delete. --Tabor 04:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apparently unverifiable. Kappa 07:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable. Geogre 12:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. 17 hits for Meg Birnbaum, presumably who the creator meant. Under either name, I don't think she passes the bar. --Etacar11 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Etacar11. Pavel Vozenilek 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

• Delete, this redirects to "alleged weapons of mass destruction" because I moved it there. Why start an article on something that doesn't exist? There's already an article about this, called Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, though I seriously question the neutrality of such an article with that title. Revolución 04:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Are you seeking to delete a redirect? Or are you thinking the redirected article should be deleted? The target article is plain awful, but is there a need for an article called Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Not really. A more natural redirect might be Iraq War and one of the subheads there about the build up. Geogre 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not quite sure what you want here, but keep one article at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (not its present title) to be consistent with the naming of other pages. The fact that they were a figment of Anglo-American imagination aside. Now, instead of the usual 5 day rule, how about making it 45 minutes from doom? Dunc|☺ 12:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Tempted to say - 'delete - non-existent'. But given that the search was a matter of international interest, an NPOV article should certainly be kept somewhere (it deserves a whole article), so Keep (alleged is fine, although unnecessary, since no-one debates they existed at some point (after Rumsfeld sold them?) --Doc (?) 14:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) merge is better --Doc (?) 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI would vote merge with Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destuction but that article is already too long. The title should probably be Alleged Iraqi weapons of Mass Destruction. Falphin 17:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic in its own right, whether or not the weapons existed, or existed in the quantities alleged. The controvery was quite notable (and still is). No Account
• Keep surely there were some.  Grue  19:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As we can see from articles like Unicorn non-existence of the referent does not mean that the topic cannot be encyclopedic. --Tabor 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to merge with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, where material may be utilized in a cleanup of that article. --Tabor 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, since I think the latter title better fits our style guide requirements. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Tabor. Notable topic likely to be of historical interest. Capitalistroadster 23:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Could not find article, but we have evidence that it exists. Somewhere. Merge. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, 9000 Kurds are quite sure of the use of weapons of mass destruction b the previous government. Klonimus 03:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually there's no conclusive evidence that the Iraqi gvt. gassed the Kurds, and even a number of U.S. government and military agencies have concluded based on chemical tests that Iran was actually the responsible party. See the Halabja poison gas attack article. Blackcats 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, concur with Klonimus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. the wub (talk) 08:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and be very wary of POV in articles like this. Radiant_* 12:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and rewrite. That article title is POV. --Scimitar 14:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it does certainly need a cleanup. Blackcats 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep: goofling 'Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction"' yields nearly 1.8 million hits. Considering the paucity of weapons found in relation to the extraordinary sum of weapons used to vanquish the overblown threat, 'alleged Iraqi WMD' is an apt title, and an entirely valid article subject. Ombudsman 16:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as previous comments ··gracefool |☺ 03:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alternatively, merge as above. Inherently POV and dishonest title. Kaibabsquirrel 05:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Merge anything suitable. Neutrality^talk 05:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful. Redirect might be useful. --Habap 18:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Smith (philosopher)

Entire article consists of "Michael Smith was an ethical realist." This doesn't give me enough information to find out more about someone with such a common name to expand the article. Insufficient evidence of Notability. RJFJR 04:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• From Amazon.com: "Michael Smith is Reader in Philosophy at Monash University, Australia, having taught previously at the University of Oxford and Princeton University. He is the author of several essays in ethics and moral philosophy." In 2000, Smith's book The Moral Problem received The American Philosophical Association's first APA Book Prize for excellence in scholarship. I would say that is pretty notable, but this is one of the worst legitimate stubs I have seen yet. Why do people do this? Sigh... keep DS1953 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the article a little. DS1953 04:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Prof with award-winning book passes the notability bar for me. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:47, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The award indicates notability. Capitalistroadster 10:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - No reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Capitalistroadster and Irishpunktom there seems no reason to delete and the award makes him notable. Falphin 17:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Decius 22:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notability verified. --Etacar11 23:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Takver 01:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable. Longhair | Talk 01:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Cyberjunkie 16:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Monstermetal

Non-notable, not really a musical genre. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete :P – ugen64 04:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Pretty naive article, folks. They'll do better after they've seen the inside of a recording studio. Geogre 12:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, spam/advertising, vanity... it pretty much covers all the bases. --Idont Havaname 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Prehistoric Ice Man

This was tagged for VfD by an anon, but no page created. I take no position on the merits of the deletion. Kelly Martin 04:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, Rewrite or Delete This appears to be a badly written summary of a South Park episode. Xoloz 06:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. Xoloz 21:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 20:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PS. Move or disambig as necessary. Kappa 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate to Ötzi the Iceman. Martg76 22:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to "Prehistoric Ice Man (South Park)". I've just edited the article to help it more closely fit the other South Park episode guide articles. My only objection is to the title. Many of the South Park episode pages have been appropriately titled with (South Park) appended. I recommend that in this case. I would have already done that but did not know if it was OK to move an article while it was on VfD. If anybody can confirm it's OK, I'll be happy to do it. Tobycat 05:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ötzi the Iceman (no disambig). This name is something people may enter into search box and expect serious answer. The stuff about a TV product can be moved somewhere else. Pavel Vozenilek 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per above 2 comments ··gracefool |☺ 03:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Angela leonardo

A short vanity article on a chef in Amsterdam and owns a pizza restaurant. Doesn't establish notability (there are plenty of restaurants out there), and is nothing but an autobiography Harro5 04:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of being specially famous or influential. Kappa 07:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A Google search for "Angela Leonardo" "Amsterdam" shows zero results. Not famous at all. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Mgm --nixie 07:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 20:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amos Larkins II and Amos LarkinsII

Hard vanity. Less than ten google hits. (I get 630, and I am entirely non-notable.) —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and add Amos_LarkinsII to that list... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional talk with nothing to back it up. Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 23:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Perhaps merge with Miami Bass?. Larkin (or Larkins, although he goes by other monikers as well, and google searches turned up hits for all of them), has a legitimate claim to fame: he produced 2 Live Crew, and Quad City DJ's. Article lacks NPOV (as does the Miami Bass article, which was probably written by the same user); however, google searches for "miami bass" plus various of Larkin's pseudonyms yielded a small but significant number of results. Larkin also was a significant contributor to the Electro style of house/funk/rap music, which has itself influenced other forms of music, such as Drum and Bass. --ohearn 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 03:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All entertainers are by definition non-notable. Fabartus 05:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 14:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Office chair

Has some good info but seems to be an adertisement more or less Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• If it's a straight copy of someone's copyrighted advertisement, then use WP:CP, not WP:VFD. (Most advertisements are licenced under a non-GFDL-compatible copyright licence.) If you think that an encyclopaedia article can be written about office chairs, but simply don't like the chatty tone of this article and the fact that it talks in the first person, then use the {{cleanup-tone}} tag. Uncle G 07:47, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete It's an ad. --Xcali 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. Marked as copyvio of [3] and listed on WP:CP --Tabor 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Alisonfire

Non notable as per WP:MUSIC Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I can find no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Btw Sasquatch I think you need to use subst:vfd2 not just {{tl|vfd2}} when nominating, or we can't edit the page. Kappa 08:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarg 13:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Wait til they make it big. --Etacar11 23:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alexisonfire is an existing band. Surely they could think up a more original name...  Grue  05:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a viable entry about a viable band --User:Gluesniffer525
  • Note this page gets vandalized often.  Grue  18:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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