Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Nighthawk (Ron Thomas)[edit]

Self promotion. vanity. non noteable. ALKIVAR™ 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - less than 45 Google hits, possible promo. Megan1967 06:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, eek, self-promotion. Wyss 11:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - horrible and horrible vanity --Brookie 12:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Egads, JPEG image with lots of text, and theme song by Gino Vannelli?! Need I say more?
I'm pretty sure this is a copyvio. If you click on the picture, there's a line of text at the bottom of the page that reads "Nighthawk Biography (c) 2004, Thomas Consulting Group" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Its not likely a copyvio because a user named Ron Thomas uploaded it. If he owns it and uploads it then its legit. However that doesnt stop the fact that its self promo/vanity. ALKIVAR™ 22:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

T3h Quarry[edit]

BJAODN. Radiant! 00:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't even qualify for that. Delete. Rick K 00:13, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should really have been given the 'nonsense' speedy tag. --Lee Hunter 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
D3l33t! It's n@nsense, d00d! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-funny nonsense. I have restored the blanking of this VfD notice (and this VfD entry) by RexatronX. --Idont Havaname 01:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- He blanked it again. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - bad, just...bad... -- Cyrius|✎ 01:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Rhobite 02:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Piffle, delete. Incidentally, User:RexatronX is likely the same as User:4.178.51.170, who has just deleted the entire VfD page (yes, the monster page), and who I've therefore listed in the vandalism-in-progress page. -- Hoary 02:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete, It's all been said. Inter 10:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wyss 11:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the author seemed high on something - probably the magic green water - perhaps the algi is hallucinagenic? --Brookie 12:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- restored unsigned vote by 151.203.37.36, whose sole edit this is
JUST LEAVE IT ALONE It's not harming anyone, just let it be, leeeeeeeet it beeeeeeeeeeee!--4.179.50.170 00:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete- *points upwards* Vhex Hvexscousin 17:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Valentina Velkova[edit]

Vanity. Fails to establish notoriety. Radiant! 00:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- ... or notability? --Idont Havaname 01:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, 6 Google hits, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - 6 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-promotion. Wyss 11:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Wyss --Brookie 12:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Variedad del Rock[edit]

While I'm all for track lists, this one is for a rather random compilation album of miscellaneous rock music. Is that encyclopedic? Radiant! 00:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - 9 Google hits mostly unrelated. Megan1967 02:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, these licensed repackagings are seldom encyclopedic. Wyss 11:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Wyss (again!) --Brookie 12:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Wyss to the point of doubting that I would ever ever ever ever have reason to vote Keep to any such compilation album. Barno 00:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Barno (just to break up the monotony of everyone concuring with Wyss) Tuf-Kat 03:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanstar[edit]

Old name for a defunct company. No content. Radiant! 00:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to ComputerLand if someone feels like creating a stub for it; otherwise Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 08:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect would be helpful. Wyss 11:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to ComputerLand; otherwise Delete --Brookie 12:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Computerland and rewrite since the ComputerLand article does not exist at present. Megan1967 01:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done. We might want to delete ComputerLand, though. Ben Standeven 20:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to ComputerLand. Carrp | Talk 22:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Big Sheet[edit]

An Excel spreadsheet created by a person unknown to Google. This might be the least significant article I've ever seen. --Lee Hunter 23:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hoax. Google for "mike mixon" + "big sheet" or for "mike mixon" + "spreadsheet" got no hits. --Idont Havaname 01:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete garbage. Cleduc 04:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - speedy? Patent Nonsense.--ZayZayEM 08:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some sort of vanity self-promotion or whatever, nonsense... speedy anyone? Wyss 11:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Big Ego more like ! --Brookie 12:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. No google hits. --jag123 20:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless and vain. No grounds for Speedy, though. vlad_mv 14:49, 18 Feb 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 transwiki. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Divine Liturgy of Saint James (Transcription)[edit]

This a direct, barely edited (there is some wikification) transcription of "Saint James", for use during a religious service. No context or additional information is provided. Just a 52 kB long transcription. Phils 00:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it's not copyvio, I'd say Transwiki to WikiSource. --Idont Havaname 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless somebody's set up WikiLiturgy, in which case TransWiki. Cleduc 04:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Wikisource (liscence??)--ZayZayEM 09:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not an article, WP not a datadump. Wyss 11:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource if not copyvio --Brookie 12:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource. Rick K 22:07, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource. I doubt this is a copyvio. We already have Liturgy of Saint James that explains what this is all about. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwikisource. —Korath (Talk) 02:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not an encyclopaedia article. JamesBurns 07:18, 26 Feb 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 or DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thundercats outtakes[edit]

Originator. Delete. I believe that the "Thundercats Outtakes" article should be deleted. It was not really a significant Internet meme, but more just a "look at this, isn't it cute?" kind of forwarded e-mail. Furthermore, I really wonder if there are copyright issues involved, although Wiki doesn't host the media. — WCityMike 00:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Funny stuff (I used the clips in the first mix CD I ever burned) but not encyclopedic. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'd rather see an article about this meme than Goatse.cx. Alternately, merge with blooper. 23skidoo 01:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. When I saw the VfD message on that article, I was pretty sure this was a "bad language" kind of issue, because of all the swearing on those quotes. That doesn't offend me, but anyway, I'm surprised. The article is all there, and it's pretty complete, too. So why delete it? Because it's not notable? There are several hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that deal with much less notable subjects, with much less content. Somehow, they're still there. What I'm trying to say is, I do not think we have the need to get rid of this article just because it's "not important enough" to be listed on Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia as "the encyclopedia where we'll find everything we won't find on other encyclopedias", so I think it does fit here. That said, keep it. By the way, this article holds absolutely no copyright violations.--Kaonashi 02:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "the encyclopedia where we'll find everything we won't find on other encyclopedias" is not a very accurate description of the reasons that Wikipedia exists, and its goals. Look at the standards at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia." Doesn't really support the premise of "if we wouldn't find it on those other encyclopedias, it belongs here." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any reason not to merge this with Thundercats? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going with merge into Thundercats myself. Good idea. Technogeek 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused (I have no knowledge of the cartoon)... if it really is a widespread meme phenomena I'd be kind enough to say merge into Thundercats--ZayZayEM 08:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not encyclopedic, WP not a blog or datadump. Wyss 11:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In the article on Thundercats - Ho! - put "in mid-2003, an MP3 of profane out-takes featuring the voices of {whoever played Lion-O and Snarf} was widely circulated on the internet. {link to external source}". That's all this meme needs; actual quotes are overkill, more suited to Everything2. Whoever wrote the article couldn't even be bothered to include the year. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It was circulating way before that -- probably about 2000 is when I got hold of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, this is another problem with the article; can somebody cite (a) the dates of the original recording sessions in which the bloopers appear - and given that some of the dialogue includes specific plot details, this seems possible (the 'mega-condenser' seems to appear in episode 42 of season one, 'Feliner Pt 2'), and (b) when the bloopers were 'leaked' and who by? I can understand Wikipedia having an article on the 'Troggs Tapes', and perhaps Orson Welles' frozen peas commercial, but the underground nature of most bootlegs renders them un-encyclopaedia-ble. I used to fancy Cheetara, in fact I still do; she can hit me with her hand-activated bo staff [1] as much as she likes. I believe that more women should wear furry costumes, with pointy ears. (...) Also, there was the 'Blundercats' thing a while back. [2] -Ashley Pomeroy 18:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, and all of those quotes make it a copyvio. Delete. Rick K 22:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Partial merge, and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and mention on ThunderCats per Ashley Pomeroy. Certainly don't merge the profanities into this article for a children's show. :) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge any useful and tasteful information into Thundercats. Carrp | Talk 02:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete. Merge info about the "legendary bloopers" with Thundercats, move the quotes to Wikiquote. -- user:zanimum
Merge anything useable to ThunderCats, no redirect. Megan1967 05:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Costa[edit]

Non-notable. Only recording is an independently-released EP. Rick K 00:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this hoaxy self-promotion. Wyss 11:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - self promoting rubbish from a Nonabee --Brookie 12:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Treehouse car[edit]

Hmmmm, let's see... one car that was seen on Ripley's Believe It or Not!, and that anecdote embroidered with speculation about what could be done in the future with that concept, especially by the government of Brazil. Why does that sound vaguely familiar? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Created by vandal who swarms wikipedia with neologisms, often of their own invention. Mikkalai 04:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or out of misguided kindness merge only the concept into treehouse--ZayZayEM 08:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism (trying to make a mark on the English language via WP). Wyss 11:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - what nonsense! My local planning control officer would have something to say about this idea if I tried it! Picking up Mikkalai observations - is someone watching the vandal concerned? --Brookie 12:22, 13 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 02:12, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Phonisicle[edit]

Not a word - I've worked in the recording industry and have never heard it, and (double checking myself) there are no results on Google. HyperZonk 00:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the gen:
- A couple of days ago -cle was created. Like many, I suspect, when I saw it my first reaction was that that was blatantly false etymology. For starters: "corpsicle" is a pun on "popsicle", which in turn is derived from "icicle". I was all ready to write a sarcastic note on the talk page, complete with mention of "bicycle", "muscle", "corpuscle", and "pinocle", when I turned up the fact that the "-icle" root of "icicle" in fact does refer to a spike-like shape. So I aborted my note thinking that the {{move to wiktionary}} process would sort out the problem of the other words. Other editors apparently have not been as restrained, or have not done as much research. The addition of "testicle", "rusticle", "phonisicle", and "fungusicle" appear to have been made in order to make the point that the etymology as presented is ... cough ... slightly too broad. It is only "icicle" that has the "-icle" suffix. The remaining words are derived from "icicle" ("popsicle", "rusticle"), are puns on words derived from "icicle" ("creamsicle", "fudgesicle", "corpsicle"), aren't derived from an "-icle" root at all ("testicle"), or are nonce words to make a point ("fungusicle", "phonisicle").
I vote: Fix, and Wiktionary, -cle before this nonsense gets out of hand (note that the {{move to wiktionary}} notice has unfortunately been removed); and Delete both phonisicle and fungusicle.
... and a vandalism watch on the anonymous users who are giving us all of these neologisms (further ones are "phonopolis", "gyropolis", and "paleontopolis"), bogus additions to polis, and Wario the Quario. Uncle G 02:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete not notable neologism - zero Google hits. Megan1967 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is created by a user who persistently creates neologisms with "polis". I tried to talk to him, in vain. I consider this vandalism, hence speedily deleted. Mikkalai 04:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

John Cryan[edit]

Non-notable. Not every local politician can be on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 01:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not quite encyclopedic. Wyss 11:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sorry he's dead - but let him RIP - I don't need to know more --Brookie 12:28, 13 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unquadnilium, Unbiseptium, Unquadunium, Unquadbium, Unquadtrium, Unquadquadium, Unquadpentium, Unquadhexium, Unquadseptium, Unquadoctium, Unquadennium, Unpentnilium, Unpentunium, Unpentbium[edit]

More extrapolationcruft, in line with the binilnilium nomination. All information on these pages is boilerplate or simply mathematical extrapolation, which could be carried out ad infinitum. (And why pages on these particular non-existant elements?) Eric119 01:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete (again). These placeholder names are for elements which do not exist and have never been created. Should they ever be, they will be given a more formal name. Let's wait until then to create an article. Denni ☯ 02:33, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Redirects to Systematic element name ~~Transuranium element~~, since these atomic number are greater than 92. The names are proposed by IUPAC btw so it's not really a hoax as such, see [3] . Megan1967 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect amended as per above. Megan1967 00:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I second the Redirect. (Still trying to figure out how they can guess the appearance of an undiscovered element...) — RJH 04:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete imaginary topic, do not redirect. Gazpacho 05:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect it may seem odd to some, but there are people who will look up such bizarre words. Joshuaschroeder 07:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redirection would be unhelpful until such a thing exists (WP not a word construction manual), vapor-element. Wyss 11:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since the problem with redirecting is that there is no practical end to the series (e.g. quaddiseptium, etc). Radiant! 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Systematic element name, which describes the scheme by which these names are constructed—and redirects are cheap. Do not redirect to transuranium element, because these elements exist as nothing but figments of an overzealous imagination, and such a redirect would be confusing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Denni. If/when these elements are found/created, they will eventually be given a new name anyway.--jag123 21:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These articles can be recreated when the elements in question are observed. -- The Anome 00:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful information. Redirects considered harmful in this case, as if there is a list of all these elements, they will be coloured as blue links, suggesting we have separate articles for them. The chances of anyone actually searching for these names is fairly remote. sjorford:// 09:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point, delete, no redirect. Kappa 19:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, do not redirect. —Korath (Talk) 02:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, no redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, no redirects. Carrp | Talk 22:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

PyTalker[edit]

Non-notable. 0 Google hits. Eric119 02:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, ad, link platform, could be speedied. Wyss 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - drivel --Brookie 12:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete - the talker base was created on the 12th February, so it's easy to understand why doesn't Google still lists it. (comment by anon [User:193.136.236.65])

Even if it had some Google hits, it wouldn't be notable - having 0 Google hits is an extreme case of that. The point is that this is a piece of software that very few people have heard of, so it is extremely unlikely that someone is going to be looking for an encyclopedia article about it.

Basically, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your own software. There are other sites for that - a much more appropriate place, for example, is the Python Packages Index.

You are, of course, welcome to contribute things to Wikipedia. A good way to contribute is to find a topic that you know about, that other people would want to learn more about, and that isn't covered fully enough, and write or expand an article about it. When I joined Wikipedia, for example, I didn't write an article about the Python parser for parsing expression grammars that I was coding at the time, but I did write an article on parsing expression grammars. RSpeer 17:47, Feb 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fungusicle[edit]

No hits on google. CJCurrie 02:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As per the explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonisicle Delete. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete. Anon user has created several neologism articles. Rhobite 02:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

This article is created by a user who persistently creates neologisms with "polis". I tried to talk to him, in vain. I consider this vandalism, hence speedily deleted. Mikkalai 04:24, 13 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Paleontopolis[edit]

Neologism. see also Fungusicle, Phonisicle, Romantiphobia. Rhobite 02:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

As per the explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonisicle Delete. Uncle G 02:53, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

This article is created by a user who persistently creates neologisms with "polis". I tried to talk to him, in vain. I consider this vandalism, hence speedily deleted. Mikkalai 04:19, 13 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami Aid[edit]

This was a non-notable event involving the earthquake. It didn't get big ratings like the 9-11 aid. In fact, the only coverage on it was entertainment shows and not even the news. The only promotion I ever saw was on the show Access Hollywood, which incidentally is on the same network this was broadcast on. I doubt it even garnered enough money to pay for its production costs. Ashley Grant 03:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, of course this is notable. It's odd that your very first act on Wikipedia is to try to get an article deleted, but I'm happy that you seem to have figured out everything perfectly - it's almost as if you've used the site before! Rhobite 03:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've shifted it closer to the right categories. This is often a more appropriate use of time than nominating an article for deletion in my opinion. Philip 04:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep i think being on multiple television networks is noteable enough. ALKIVAR™ 05:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No case to answer. - RedWordSmith 05:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A national broadcast for charity which includes two former US presidents and A-list celebrities definitely passes the notability test for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. And for the record, Access Hollywood is syndicated, not an NBC program. Rick K 22:11, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No valid case made for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -Cookiemobsta 01:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No valid reason to delete provided. —RaD Man (talk) 02:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Otakubox[edit]

Non-notable website, "still in construction". Google hits for this expression seem to refer to the domain otakubox.de, which includes an IRC server. JoaoRicardo 04:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, ad. Wyss 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-promotion. --jag123 21:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 08:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written. Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tsuishui[edit]

An article on the Internet nickname of someone not notable. The first edit by this user, perhaps a mistaken try at establishing a user page. JoaoRicardo 04:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete pronto. -- Hoary 05:36, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, either as a user test or as contextless platform for a link, spam, not an article. Wyss 11:29, 13 Feb 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. —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Abdin Tarkmani[edit]

Non-notable — J3ff 04:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a user test. Wyss 11:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity rubbish --Brookie 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15:26, Feb 14, 2005 SimonP deleted Abdin Tarkmani (content was: '{{db|vanity blanked by author}}') —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's up[edit]

This page is supposedly about the 4 Non-Blondes song of the same name, but beyond that bit of information, the page says nothing more about it. Even if it did, I don't see how one moderately popular song by this particular band merits its own encyclopedia entry. Katefan0 04:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Cleanup. Article seems to be about the phrase which could be turned into a good article - does need a lot of work though. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, etymology is not correct, dicdef of a trivial construction. Wyss 11:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has added to it to make it even worse since I slapped the VFD tag on it. Katefan0 15:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to the 4 Non Blondes album the song is from. I don't know which one that is. Rick K 22:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to 4 Non Blondes, unless someone wants to write an article on the song. Megan1967 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 00:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article is what's up... for deletion, and I give it an EXTREME KEEP. Agree with Capitalistroadster; this article does require some cleaning. —RaD Man (talk) 02:15, 17 Feb 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. jni 16:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creative content[edit]

First of all, this isn't the right title for it, since this is a book review. Secondly, once the POV opinions about the book are stripped away, the remaining information is barely worth starting a stub with, as it amounts to just the title and the author. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad copied from [4]. Gazpacho 10:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad, copyvio. Wyss 11:25, 13 Feb 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. jni 16:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xvala[edit]

Nothing more than an ad for a vintage clothing store. Katefan0 05:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Advertising. Inter 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, spam in a can. Wyss 11:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete --Brookie 16:31, 13 Feb 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. 5 Keep votes, 3 Delete votes, 3 merge votes, 2 redirect votes. Article is kept, but no consensus between merging and redirect. Anyone can be bold and merge and/or redirect the article themselves. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 2 delete votes. JamesBurns is a newbie... with 75% or more VFD votes. Interesting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Four Great Inventions[edit]

The information is definitely worthy of inclusion, but not on its own page. Merge with ~~China~~ Science and technology in China and delete. Katefan0 05:04, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) (Changed merge page Katefan0 19:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC))

If you want to do a merge, just be bold and do the merge. Don't invoke VFD. Deletion is not the final step in a merger. Uncle G 05:20, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- China's achievements can be politically charged, as tied up as they are with national pride, I thought it best to put it up to consensus. But thanks for the tip, I appreciate it. Katefan0 05:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with China, no redirect. Megan1967 06:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not an encyclopedic classification. Wyss 11:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think the use of this term seems to be incredibly common in the Chinese media (both sides of the Taiwan straits) for whatever reasons - a Google search for the Chinese term would show up 179,000 pages, see here) and , there is actually an equivalent article of the exact same name ("Four Great Inventions") in the Chinese Wikipedia see here in Chinese. --JuntungWu 18:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC). Note that I am not saying this is a strong keep and I would support a merge somewhere as well. JuntungWu 18:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is the English Wikipedia, and even if this phrase is common and notable in Chinese, that doesn't mean that is common or notable in English, and deserving of an article. The content (that is, the fact that these four inventions originated in China) is of course important; but the inventions are more appropriately included elsewhere, such as China. --BM 21:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I doubt that this should be merged into China. Perhaps into a history of Chinese technology if there was one. Wincoote 21:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup/expand. It sounds to me like this is a culturally significant claim, frequently repeated by Chinese ethnic or cultural advocates. The current stub has some value in making a more comprehensive article about the claim. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think the point of my VfD request is being missed. Of course the information is valuable, but this is not the proper place for it. It should be included elsewhere, like China or the articles on the inventions themselves. Katefan0 16:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not paper. I tend to believe that this page should remain because it should ultimately be about something not entirely comprehended in China or History of China: the fact that Chinese ethnic or cultural advocates have generated a slogan, apparently fairly familiar among Chinese speakers, that these four inventions are great Chinese inventions. There seems to be some significant investment of effort in publicising this claim among Sinophones worldwide. If so, the phenomenon itself is significant and worthy of its own article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I see your point and in some ways agree with it, but I'm still not sure that this is the proper venue to air it out. It seems to me, based on your thoughts, that a more proper article could be created that would talk about this cultural phenomenon in a more big-picture way -- not only as it relates to these four inventions; something like China's Public Image or China's National Pride. The Chinese are obviously very concerned with their public image and there are multiple examples that could be explored (their space program is one). But of course that would require a creation effort from someone well-versed in the issue, which I am not. And as the article stands now, it's fairly useless. Katefan0 17:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
      - PS — Actually, we do already have Science and technology in China; the article is a dog's breakfast; it contains large portions of what looks to be an unwikified PRC press release. There is a brief section on History of Science and Technology in China, which should be perhaps fronted, and the business about PRC government sponsorship of research and education heavily edited, wikified, and pared down, assuming it is not a copyvio. Off to cleanup now. AAR, if the consensus is not to have a separate article on the campaign, this would seem to be the place to merge and redirect this. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article and reorganise together with Science and technology in China, with the latter rename as [[Science and technology in mainland China]] or [[..in mainland China after 1949]]. — Insta ntnood 18:05, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve, possibly rename. Important concept to the Chinese. Kappa 23:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Science and technology in China and expand the discussion there. No merge necessary because they are already discussed in the same level of detail as the current version of this article. Rossami (talk) 16:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Science and technology in China and expand the discussion there. No merge necessary because they are already discussed in the same level of detail as the current version of this article--Ji ang 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, terms and phrases not appropriate for English Wikipedia. JamesBurns 07:20, 26 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lil' Scrappy[edit]

Poor guy seems to be named after some character in a 1930s B-movie, but that aside, he hasn't yet put out his first album. Not notable (yet). -- Hoary 05:33, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Comment: the "split EP" it mentions has 21 tracks [5] and "lil' scrappy" gets 86,000 google hits [6]. Kappa 06:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet, agree with Hoary. Megan1967 06:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep The EP referred to in the article is , according to All Music Guide, actually an album which reached #12 on the Billboard album charts and #3 r and b/hip hop charts last year. A single "No Problem" reached the US top 40. Meets criteria for inclusion for Wikipedia Music project. Needs to be expanded and added to and I hope to do that myself. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Have rewritten article adding chert success, forthcoming album and work on Lil Jon's single and on tour with Lloyd Banks and Young Buck of G-Unit.Capitalistroadster 09:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — J3ff 07:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons given by Capitalistroadster and to address systemic bias against people with silly names. Kappa 13:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. OK, I take it back about the name. And I've somehow managed to stay mum about Dizzee Rascal and even the truly non-notable Camilla Parker Bowles (let's see, the Guardian tells us she got one O-level and Wikipedia tells us that she once actually worked [gasp!] for a living, as a receptionist). -- Hoary 14:45, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Keep for meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. (this is not based on the article, but on CapitalistRoadster's comment) Tuf-Kat 03:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP! He is a well (VERY well) known new major-label recording artist in the American Southern hip hop music scene. Good grief, people! --b. Touch 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't stand this ig'nunt fool, and his pic is enuff to make anyone retch. Still, a legitimate subject matter for Wiki. deeceevoice 20:14, 16 Feb 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. jni 16:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Mexa Channel[edit]

Ad for non-notable web forum of 21 people started last month. Delete. Gazpacho 05:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ditto, delete. -- Hoary 05:26, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete, Non notable. Inter 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad, almost a speedy. Wyss 11:22, 13 Feb 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. jni 16:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spur58[edit]

Not notable, under 200 hits on Google, including stuff that's not about them. Maybe someday, but there are an awful lot of bands out there with self-produced albums, and most of them have more press. HyperZonk 05:53, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Wyss 11:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 03:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Chequers 04:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if it's not expanded and cleaned up properly. With regards to the Notability Guidelines, the article makes only a vague claim of "going all over the country". With all the vanity removed, all that remains is a useless substub. Wipe 13:43, 16 Feb 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. jni 16:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jew Squad, Improvisers' Union of Westlake Village, Allan Steiner, Danny Moss[edit]

These related articles are listed all together, because if one has enough merit to keep then they probably all do. Seems to be basically some sort of highschool vanity thing. No relevant google hits that I can find. Wolfman 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: 06:15, 13 Feb 2005 Curps deleted Jew Squad (patent nonsense; content was: 'A group made up of Westlake's Coolest Jews...The Jew squad is a reformed conservative organization dedicated to the eradication of the Gentile...')

Delete them all, vanity. -- Curps 06:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this junior high school stuff -- Hoary 07:28, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete. Rhobite 07:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete these pranks. Wyss 11:20, 13 Feb 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. jni 16:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tuti[edit]

His complete name (Tuti Fornari) gets 53 Google hits, most restricted to the city of Campinas in Brazil. And his site is amateurish. JoaoRicardo 06:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article does not establish notability, website promo. Megan1967 07:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 11:20, 13 Feb 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. Death phoenix 01:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Universidad Católica[edit]

User:68.126.250.240 created this article to refer to the Universidad Católica de Santa María, in Peru. Then he/she thought better: moved the content to Universidad Católica de Santa María and blanked this article. I reverted it to turn into a stub when I noticed the awkward situation. This sould not redirect to the new article because there are many Catholic universities in Spanish speaking countries which could be called "Universidad Católica", like Universidad Católica de Temuco and Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. JoaoRicardo 06:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then you've just gained a foothold onto making a {{disambig}} page, just like Saint John's University. Why is this in VFD? I don't understand. Uncle G 07:03, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- Yeah. This should be made into a disambiguation page. — J3ff 07:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Alright, alright, I'll punish myself for it. Disambig page created. Can I take out the VfD proposal? JoaoRicardo 08:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: The general ettiquette is to show your desire to remove the nomination by striking through your comments above (using <s>text</s>). Removing the VfD tag early is severely frowned upon. Too often, it is a tactic used by vandals to try to disrupt the process. At the end of the 5 day discussion period, the nomination will go through the Wikipedia:Deletion process. If the consensus is still an overwhelming "keep" at that point, anyone (including you) can follow the process to close the discussion and remove the tag. Rossami (talk) 17:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, let the VfD run. Wyss 11:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Carrp | Talk 17:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a useful disambiguation page. Megan1967 05:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Supremegames[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Uncle G 06:50, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Delete, ad. Wyss 11:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. Non-notability established in the article: "Supremegames is a small basic website". Google agrees with 31 hits; about half are domain registrars saying it's free, and half of the rest are different Supremegameses. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 9 keep, 4 merge, 10 delete. dbenbenn | talk 18:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation geology[edit]

This page is essentially a repost of material from the previously deleted page Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. User:Ungtss took most of the material directly from there and simply reposted it in this section. We should be avoiding reposting deleted material. The article as it stands right now reads like a creationist screed and should be deleted. Joshuaschroeder 06:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, not a screed. It describes creation geology claims in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 07:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
or, merge to Flood geology and optionally rename that article to something more encompassing. I enjoy debunking creationism in any forum where it's appropriate; I also fully agree with Philip's comments below. As I said in two previous creationism-related nominations, having an article is not an endorsement. And Megan, no personal attacks, please. Gazpacho 10:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It presents personal opinions as facts. There may be questions or uncertainties about some of the geological tests but that does not, in any way, validate the alterantive explanation. The arguments for Creationism should stand or fall on their own merits. Weaknesses in the arguments for Physical or Evolutionary Geology do not validate Creationist Geology. Furthermore the failiure to apply the same rigorous debate to theories of Creationist Geology can only serve to bring discredit upon the theory. ping 07:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"presents personal opinions as facts" is a basis for cleanup rather than deletion, although I don't see the article doing that. Furthermore, Wikipedia's goal is to describe, not to find truth. See the "Pseudoscience" section of NPOV. Gazpacho
Delete, reads like screed to me. Wyss 11:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing what makes this more of a "screed," and less appropriate, than e.g. Dianetics, Ayurveda. Gazpacho

They're a bit screedy as well, aren't they? Wyss 18:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. creation geology is creation geology. if it reads like screed, fix it. but it's encyclopedic, and addresses the issues i think. it's not a repost -- it contains a lot of new information, and some old. PLEASE follow the VOTES FOR DELETION POLICY and only vote for deletion if it meets one of the criteria -- this doesn't meet any of the criteria, except "we don't like it." "We don't like it" is insufficient to delete. we fix that by EDITING. Ungtss 13:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is an encyclopedic rendering of a possible interperetation of the facts. I would support someone adding a criticisms section if they are concerned that the current rendering is not NPOV enough, but the topic itself is sound regardless of the fact that many people on Wikipedia disagree with the points being discussed. They do represent a distinct and real interperetation that has been posed by various groups, and so this does legitimately warrant a topic to discuss these views. -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It isn't really a repost of the deleted article. For one thing, I think it has existed for a while. However, it is still true that there is very little, if anything, in this article that is not a recap of the same basic creationist arguments to be found in such articles as Creationism and Creation science. If there is something which isn't duplicated elsewhere, that little bit could easily be moved elsewhere. The sections that relate specifically to geology are recaps of the arguments in Flood geology, or arguments about dating techniques which overlap Radiometric dating and Young Earth creationism. Creationism being a notable view, albeit far from mainstream, Wikipedia obviously must cover it. But how many different articles should there be, all pushing basically the same pseudoscientific arguments? Do editors trying to maintain NPOV have to play whack-a-mole in numerous different articles related to creationism? --BM 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i disagree. this page has minimal overlap. creationist views on radiometric dating are covered NOWHERE else, and neither is the material on the antediluvian earth -- this page contains material covered NOWHERE else -- where would suggest we put it? as to whackamole, yes, that's what this is. except we moles aren't giving up:). Ungtss 17:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with them going in Flood geology?Joshuaschroeder 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

they're not about the flood. Ungtss 01:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with BM. There's obviously a place for this type of information on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other articles where this same pseudoscience is covered, like Creation science. It's fine to have an article about Chakras for instance, but we don't need separate ones for Heart chakra and Root chakra et al. Katefan0 15:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: And redirect to flood geology (I change my vote). 16:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Bensaccount did the five-tilde-typo [7]. dbenbenn | talk 18:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's already a Flood geology page. This page doesn't cover more than this. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Offers nothing that isn't covered elsewhere, is insufficiently NPoV, and recycles material earlier successfully VfDed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, geology is a science, creationism is not. The name of the article is therefore an attempt to mislead. Megan1967 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was tempted to vote delete on the grounds that it could be combined with the Flood geology article, but the latter is already fairly large and this article does cover different material than the Flood geology article. In any case, if they were to be combined, it would probably be best under the title of this article.
- On another note, I again see that a number of people here are voting to delete purely or partly because of their personal POV on the topic (for example, Megan1967, the entry just above this). That such people can't see how much their biases get in the way of NPOV causes me to despair that Wikipedia will never achieve its goal of truly presenting a neutral point of view. As with writing articles, voters should vote on whether the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, not on the basis of their personal POV, no matter how common that POV may be. Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Are you claiming that creationism is a science? Science relies on testability of proof. Creationism relies on the written words of the Bible, a book with a religious POV. Faith is not science. You can't ignore the facts. It has nothing to do with claims of my POV. Of course being a christian yourself Philip wouldn't have anything to do with your position now would it.Megan1967 06:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Are you claiming that your POV is undisputed fact? Because it isn't. It doesn't matter what I claim. Creationary scientists do claim that it is as scientific as uniformitarian views, and, although getting it's framework from the Bible, is also based on hard scientific evidence. Those are the facts. Your implied claim that it indisputably not science is simply not true. You may (hypothetically) be right that it is not science, but that is disputed by very many people, including many scientists, so you are, as I said, basing your vote on your POV. Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Sign your posts next time Philip. Creationism is not based on "hard scientific evidence". Creationism is based on the writings of the Bible - that is not science, that is faith. I would seriously challenge your statement that "many scientists" support creationism as science. Research does not back up your claim. For example - "Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%." see [8]. 0.15% does not equate to "many" Megan1967 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I normally do sign my posts (and I have now signed that one). But to get to the point, you are still ignoring that it is a POV that you are using to justify a deletion. Do you dispute that others claim that creationism is based on hard scientific evidence? I don't know why I'm asking—I asked last time and you ignored the question in favour of arguing your POV again. Personally, I would consider even your attempt-to-minimise 700 scientists to be "many" in the sense that it is a non-trivial number. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        And if you think that creationism is not POV, you are sadly mistaken. Creationism takes the view from a religious point, there is nothing scientific about that. You still haven't provided any evidence that creationism is more popular than evolutionary science except from your own POV. Any number provided by any survey wouldn't satisfy you. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        What makes you think that I think that creationism is not POV? I'm saying that evolution is also POV, and that you are therefore voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV, which is not a valid reason to delete. It is also your opinion that there is nothing scientific about creation. Others disagree. I never claimed that creationism is more popular (although I think that argument can be made with qualifications). Where did you get the idea I was claiming that? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I couldn't agree more. It's not PoV to point out that Creationism isn't a science; the only people who think that it is are the creationists themselves, just as the only people who think that phrenology or Marxism are scientific are phrenologists and Marxists — and that's not enough to make it an open question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - The only people that think evolution is the only correct view are evolutionists. What does that prove? Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        And many people once thought that the earth was flat, was created in seven days and was the centre of the solar system, but that still did not make it true. Megan1967 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Ignoring that the "flat earth" belief was mainly fiction, you are correct. Many people now think that evolution is true, but that does not make it so. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Do you believe that the earth is flat? Then your arguments are not based on science. At least you have changed your arguments from "few" believe to "many" believe. I believe that is a concession on your part. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        No, I don't believe that the Earth is flat? Why do you ask? I haven't changed my arguments (and therefore haven't conceded anything). What makes you think that I ever denied that many believed in evolution? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - The first paragraph makes it clear that it's considered pseudoscience. what else do you want? the fact is, it EXISTS, just like phrenology. but phrenology isn't up for deletion. why are you voting to delete an article on a topic that exists, and which is flagged as pseudoscience in the intro? Ungtss 13:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        If you agree that it is a pseudo-science then Creation Geology is misnamed as such. Creation Pseudogeology maybe. Whatever. Calling it Creation Geology is misleading. Megan1967 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Perhaps so, but that's what the creationists call it, so the naming convention guidelines are pretty clear that that's what the article ought to be called (if there's an article on it at all). For example, we have an article on the "true Catholic Church" called, yes, true Catholic Church, not because the article should in content or in tone approve of the claims of the subject of the article, but because that's the generally used (self- and otherwise) description. Alai 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Creationists may call it that but that doesnt mean the majority call it that or that it is true and correct. Creation Science and Creation Geology are oxymorons. Megan1967 06:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        So you keep asserting, but NPOV is about not claiming something disputed to be true even if you think it is true. If it was, I would be claiming that creation is true, but I for one am prepared to attempt a neutral point of view. Can you? Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        You are not neutral Philip. I've seen your profile page. It's quite obvious you are not neutral on this. So don't try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes because your public position on creationism is noted. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I'm not claiming to be neutral. I'm claiming that you are not neutral either, yet you are basing your vote to delete on your non-neutral POV, which is an invalid reason to vote to delete. How about you address my points instead of attacking me? My position on creationism is, as you say, public. I don't shirk from that. But that is not the point. The point is that your position is also public, and you are invalidly basing your vote on your opinion. How about actually addressing that point instead of stating the obvious about me as though it has some relevance to your invalid vote???? Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        My vote isn't invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV, well according to Wikipedia articles on what faith is and what science is, I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        My vote isn't invalid. I said that your reason for your vote is invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. But, according to you, disagreeing with the topic is reason for deletion? That is the point that you are still not addressing. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. What makes you think they don't? People that believed what the Bible says (i.e. what we would now call creationists) were quite involved with setting up modern democracy. Without them we may not have democracy. But now that you have raised that topic and I have responded, let's not go down that sidetrack. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Did I say it was? No. I was saying that your vote on that was for invalid reasons, and you keep on raising other issues instead of sticking to that. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV... No, I keep asserting that your POV is being invalidly used as justification for voting to delete an article about a different POV. I'm not claiming that faith is science; where did you get that idea from? I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. That's a non-sequitur. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. But it is merely a POV that it is a misleading title. And even if it is, renaming should be the solution instead of deletion. Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        
        (my edit coincided with those below)
        I don't comb the encyclopedia for articles to delete; when one is proposed, and it's in my sphere of personal or professional interest, I look at it and vote accordingly. In so far as there's any inconsistency in this (and I don't think that there is any), it would apply to most people on most VfDs.
        Besides, it's slightly disingenuous to point to the fact that we're told in the first paragraph that the subject is considered to be pseudoscience. Would an article describing at length the theory that all North Americans were intellectually and morally inferior to other nationalities, and accursed by god, be acceptable if it said at the beginning: “This theory is rejected by mainstream thought and considered to be groundless“? A short description of a pseudo-scientific theory is one thing, but a full-length encyclopædia article whose only critical comment is one sentence at the beginning is another. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        first, your comparison to north american inferiority is rather silly, since almost half the united states population ascribes to this idea, and the MAJORITY of people worldwide ascribe to it, so it's by no means a fringe view. Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        That rather misses my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Interesting you should give this hypothetical example, Κυριος Ετητης ;) In America in the 1910s and 20s, the leading evolutionary textbook taught practically the same thing (or specifically, white supremacy) — yet the ACLU went to court to fight for John Scopes' right to teach from this very book:

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter's Civic Biology pp. 195–196)[9] 138.130.194.229 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this would bear on the debate... particularly since modern science has basically discredited the idea that different ethnicitics are descended from different species of early man (and, therefore, has discredited the idea that certain races are inherently genetically inferior). Katefan0 14:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

- - - - second, feel free to add the mainstream challenges to the creationist views at the end -- npov provides for that -- nay -- npov DEMANDS that -- but why are you voting to delete an encyclopedic entry describing a particular view of geology? Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        You've ignored most of what I said (and the reason I gave for my vote). In short: a psudo-scientific theory pushed by a geographically restricted (if unfortunately politically powerful) group of religious fundamentalists might warrant a short article; it doesn't warrant one of this length and detail, especially when little mention is made of its status. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        perhaps if your premises were correct, your conclusion would follow. but you of course ignore the entire religion of Islam, which ascribes to a young-earth interpretation of geological phenomena, including the flood. geologically restricted? hardly. dominant in north america, south america, nearly universal in africa and the middle east, all the way through to Indonesia, and at least 5% in Australia. Evolution is the geographically restricted fringe view -- a uniquely Western materialistic phenomenon. Ungtss 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        As a religious belief, you're right; as a pseudo-scientific theory, presented as scientific (as it is in the article), you're wrong. And that's the point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        if religious belief and historical belief were separable in this case, you'd be right. but since this is above all a HISTORICAL belief about a deliberate act of creation, a garden built on a river, and a really big flood, you're wrong. that's my point. divorcing science from religion in this case is rather silly. genesis is either historical or it isn't. Ungtss 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Why are you conflating science with history? Even if I thought that Genesis was an historically accurate account of the beginning of the world, that wouldn't mean that I thought that creationism was scientific (it wouldn't even mean that I took Genesis to offer an explanation of the beginning of the world. I wonder if you're aware of what distinguishes science from non-science and pseudoscience? This isn't the place to go into it, but I'd be happy to discuss it somewhere appropriate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        i'm aware of how the contemporary scientific community defines science and pseudoscience, and that creationism falls within the latter category. of course, i find that definition to be unreasonably narrow, but that's beside the point. the fact that creationism is pseudoscience doesn't change what it is -- and it is primarily a historical argument, based on an ostensibly historical account, and the subsequent interpretation of contemporary phenomena in light of that history. to accept the account as historical is to interpret natural phenomena in light of it. Ungtss 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Well, first, it's not just scientists who think of science in that way (many of them religious believers of a less literalist persuasion), but also philosophers of science (and many theologians). But, secondly and more importantly, what do you take the importance of science to be? What distinguishes science from guessing, or choosing the most congenial theory, or just believing what you're told? What's the relationship between the scientific method and justification? Thirdly, and finally, how soon before we fall off the edge of this screen? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        lol:). shall we continue here?

- - - - This vote isn't about whether Creationism is as a science, a pseudoscience, etc. This vote is about whether Creation geology warrants a separate article. If there is enough encyclopedic material on Creation geology that is distinct from the material presented in numerous other articles about creationism, then it should have a separate article, whether Creation geology is science, pseudoscience, or utter kookiness. I don't think there is enough such material, and the proliferation of articles related to creationism seems to be just a POV-motivated attempt to increase its presence in the Wikipedia and make it seem more like valid scientific view. The proliferation of articles also complicates the task of editors who are trying to ensure that creationism is presented in an NPOV manner. So the number of articles on creationism should be reduced, and this one seems like one of the first that can easily be dispensed with since the little material it contains that doesn't overlap other creationism articles can easily be merged with one or more of the others. --BM 14:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I'm open to the idea since this ship looks like it's sinking. how do you suggest we do it? Ungtss 14:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        My first take on this is to move the material on antideluvian geology and dating techniques to the "Creation geology" section in Creation science, keeping the link to Flood geology as a separate article. Creation science is currently only 9K in length, so there is plenty of room for expansion. Indeed the Creation geology section of Creation science currently has a "sectstub" tag, calling for the section to be expanded; so this move would also permit that tag to be removed. --BM 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        That seems to me to be a very sound place to start. I must admit I share a lot of the concerns you raise. There does seems to be at least a strong suggestion that there's a strategy here of "add creationist POV faster than it can be taken out/NPOV'd", so it's a bit rich for said advocates to cry "NPOV foul" when the removal of POV material is supported. Nonetheless, there's no reason material on this topic shouldn't be here, provided it can be put in a NPOV context. (By which I do not mean, 'we've written our creationist POV stuff, add some POV "evolutionist" material and it'll thereby be NPOV.') Alai 18:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        let's put bizarre accusations of strategy to rest, shall we? this page was created to address issues unique to creation geology, and it is absolutely, without a doubt, best addressed here, because:
        
        1) it parallels other creation science pages
        
        2) putting it in creation science will make creation science ridiculously lopsided on one topic
        
        3) it doesn't do any HARM to have this page here -- it's not taking up any space that wouldn't be taken up on another page -- on the contrary, it covers unique material precisely on one topic.
        
        now of course, those who wish to suppress any ideas other than those they consider to be rational will naturally delete this without justification (or pseudojustifications, like "this isn't science!" or "it's pov!" -- if that's the way it's gonna go down, then feel free to integrate this material anywhere you see fit. but don't fool yourself into thinking you're justified. Ungtss 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Let's put the unwarranted level of hysteria to rest. I speak from experience, where I've attempted to resolve POV issues in particular articles (notably theistic realism and creation biology). These articles appear with text with no reasonable claim to be NPOV; there then follows endless edit wars and tangential debate on the talk pages, with the general effect of making removal of the POV as long-drawn-out as possible; and then much the same set of authors move on to do the same thing in another page. (Witness in the former case I'm still waiting for the restructuring you undertook to carry out, but you're still activity adding material to other pages.) I'm not suggesting this is reason per se for deletion, but it's pretty frustrating to deal with. (You'll notice I haven't even voted for the deletion of this page, so yelling "unjustified deletion!" at me is pretty, well, unjustified.) And if it's not a 'strategy' it's certainly a 'pattern of behaviour'. If these pages were really aiming at NPOV even in tone, never mind substance, would we really see such lavish use of POV neologisms like "creationary" and "evolutionist"? Alai 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep or merge but don't delete, this concept needs to be covered somewhere. Kappa 23:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to flood geology. I personally think that creationism is a load of hooey, but that's not at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Take a deep breath and vote Keep, for even though it is utter nonsense, it is encyclopedic nonsense, and someone may need to read about it. Merging with flood geology is equally acceptable. Antandrus 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but needs much better NPOV. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Definitely keep. Encyclopedias should include as much information as possible, and whether the anti-creationists like it or not, there IS such a thing called creation geology -- whether it was spawned from creationists themselves is irrelevant. It exists and there should be info on it. Infocat 11:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, too less information and too much desinformation. Many facts are simply wrong. -- Moriolis 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to flood geology I think 2 articles on creationist 'geology' is duplication although it would fill-out 'flood geology' enough to make that one worth keeping. If Creation biology and Creation anthropology exist as articles Flood geology can as well but perhaps it should be renamed. If it is bias - delete bias bits/edit yerself max rspct 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Delete - merge the relevant information in the various creation science articles and delete. kaal 21:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not easy to NPOV, but definately salvagable. Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I notice too much censorship (outright heavy-handed deletion) of anything that comes from creationist or intelligent design sources without trying to deal with the issues. I suspect that when people claim it is "wrong" they really mean it disagrees with naturalistic evolution. 138.130.194.229 12:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please sign in if you wish your vote to be counted; IP addresses don't get to vote in VfDs. Alai 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes they do. The usual view is that admins will usually assign less weight to an anon. user's vote. Also important is contributions history; this user seems to have made over fifty edits before voting here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, the geat thing about WP policies (and practices) is there's so many of 'em... Someone probably needs to water down Template:Anon, then, which promises "The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion", which is over-selling if they have that already. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is weaker, merely saying "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." This could stand to be a whole lot clearer, though that's getting further from the point here. (Though I may also have been to some extent confusing anon votes with unsigned one...) Alai 17:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but different admins have very different approches to how VfDs are decided: some simply count the votes, some assess the comments, and so on. All part of life's rich tapestry... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge/Delete -Atricle is the usual pure BS spouted by creationists and DOES 'read like a screed'.--Deglr6328 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- i can't help but wonder when " pure BS" and "reads like a screed" came to be grounds for deletion. quite simply, they are not. the article is encyclopedic because it describes an extant view. whether it reads like screed or not is a function of editing, not deletion. the above provides absolutely no justification for deletion, except distaste. Ungtss 15:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Gamaliel 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, disinformation. Leanne 02:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Administrator, I ask that in deciding whether or not to delete this page, you consider the following facts:
- absolutely none of the reasons presented for deletion qualify as justifications for deletion. On the contrary, they are reasons like "reads like a screed," "disinformation," and "Pure BS." I suggest that these votes are instances of Systemic bias, rather than legitimate and npov votes for deletion. Many people hate creationism just because it is creationism -- but that is NOT a reason to delete the page on the topic. the page is encyclopedic, and covers a geniune extant topic. the fact that it is WRONG does not justify DELETING it, as MANY ideas that are wrong appear on wikipedia. The deletion of this page would be a violation of npov in the face of systemic bias. Ungtss 14:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article essentially duplicates existing information which can be found on Creationism and Creation science. JamesBurns 05:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- that is absolutely, unequivocally untrue. there is absolutely no -- NO -- NO duplication. this article is COMPLETELY unique. Ungtss 16:48, 26 Feb 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. Death phoenix 02:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleo[edit]

Vanity, Delete. Gazpacho 07:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment As it stands, it is clearly not notable. However, there is a woman's magazine in Australia with that name which I consider. May also be a disaggregation page. Save my vote on this until later on. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Article about magazine must be Cleo (magazine), because Cleo is actually cleopatra. Also, miss Cleo is around. Mikkalai 08:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm ahead of you both. Rewritten article. Keep. Uncle G 08:30, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 08:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Someone is going through Mother's Big Book of Baby Names and they've reached C, apparently. --Wetman 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please try a couple of other names, like peter or nick, or sally, and be surprised how far they've actually gone. AFAIK there has already been a debate about first names or list of first names; I don't quite remember. Mikkalai 09:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nah. It really was a vanity article. Read the original. Rewriting such personal vanity articles to be about something entirely different and notable can be almost as satisfying as slapping a great big {{copyvio}} on top of corporate vanity articles. Moreover, you just know that if we do delete this, someone else will be along to write another Cleo vanity article sooner or later, or we'll end up with stub duplicates of Miss Cleo because someone omitted the "Miss". And this is no different in kind to Cleopatra, of course. Uncle G 10:01, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Uncle G.Capitalistroadster 10:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as disambiguation page. Megan1967 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm sorry to be a spoil-sport, but the new article is not a proper disambiguation page. A Cleo disambiguation page is needed when there are several articles (or redirects) on different subjects that might reasonably be titled Cleo. Usually disambiguation pages are created where there is an article or redirect titled X, and someone comes along to write an article on a different topic with an equally good claim to the title X. The solution is to give the title to a disambiguation page which lists the other articles, and to give the various other articles competing for the title a longer title along the lines of X (in Y). However, that is not the case here. Few of the listed articles would properly be titled Cleo except for the magazine, which is a red-link, meaning it hasn't been created yet. Rather than a disambiguation page, the proposed new content for the Cleo article is mostly a List of people whose first name is Cleo and other things somewhat related to the word Cleo. That isn't a disambiguation page; it is just a list masquerading as a disambiguation page, in this case an especially dumb list. Furthermore, as a process point, even if it was correct to edit the original article in this way, it seems to me very questionable to do it before the VfD vote is completed. This is not the article that was originally written, or even on the topic of the original article, and at least in principle, the article that was submitted to VfD has 5 days to be considered. If it was OK to change the subject of an article submitted to VfD because it seems to an editor to be vanity, then it would be OK to let administrators simply speedy-delete such articles. However, there has never been a consensus for allowing administrators to speedy-delete articles for reasons of vanity, however obvious the vanity might seem to the administrators. People voting on VfD should either leave the articles alone until they are deleted; or else clean them up on the subject on which they were originally written. In this case, that subject is the name "Cleo" But they shouldn't switch the subject to something else, even if that is a fake disambiguation page. People can comment in the VfD vote that the title should be used for a disambiguation page, but people should wait until there is a consensus from the VfD process before they mess around with articles that are submitted here. --BM 02:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Examples like peter or nick, or sally, or pick your faforite name show that given-name articles do not always abide this. Mikkalai 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of those three, only Sally is really a disambiguation page, and only two of the several entries in that list are proper entries for a disambiguation page, meaning links to articles that otherwise would be titled Sally if there weren't competition for that title. The other entries are miscellaneous Sally-cruft. Disambiguation pages should be for disambiguation. As for Peter that is really just a List of famous people named Peter masquerading as a disambiguation page, with a couple of sentences thrown in about the name. Same thing for Nick. So my opinion is that those pages are bad examples to be emulating, and arguably should be deleted. --BM 02:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Quite. But these names are the first that came to my mind. Be sure that there are dosens of such. Did you try, say, er... Simon, Thomas... Mikkalai 05:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Simon, ditto what I said about Peter. Thomas, ditto. These are all just lists of people with that first name masquerading as disambiguation pages. On this Simon list, there is only one article which might logically be titled Simon, and that is Simon (game). On the Thomas list, there aren't any. It seems like we have quite a few of these Lists of people with the first name X articles masquerading as disambiguation pages. --BM 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I am not arguing with you. That's exactly what I am pointing at. Something must be done with it. Lists of people whose first name is Tom or Sam seem weird. But since there are lots of such articles, the issue must be discussed at administrative level, to have a common decidion for all such articles, rather than VfD them one by one. Mikkalai 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion of VFD process moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Uncle G 21:12, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete. Now finally regarding my vote. I vote to delete because once the apparent vanity is cleaned up, this article's topic is a sub-stub about the name Cleo. I don't think sub-stubs are preferable to red-links. If someone cares to expand the article during the VfD (on the subject of the name Cleo), then I will reconsider my vote. --BM 01:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment It might have been helpful, at the time when the article was transformed, for someone to have provided the original text that was being voted on prior to its transformation. It sometimes can take quite a while to find and retrieve items from the history. Just in case it still is helpful, here it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleo, a female name. One of the examples who use this name is Cleo Leong. Her full name is Leong, whom she is a Risk Manangement science student living in Hong Kong.

Keep as disambiguation page. FYI i just added Cleo (television) to the list. bbx 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. I think name disambiguation articles are entirely valid, if some of the things or people concerned are commonly referred to by just that name. For example, someone looking for the apostle Peter might reasonably expect to find him under Peter; so might someone looking for Peter Rabbit if they didn't realise that Rabbit functions as his surname as well as his species. In addition, the history of the name can be encyclopaedic. I do think that pages like Peter should be limited to those commonly known simply as 'Peter' though; so Peter Green and Peter Jackson have no place there. On this specific case, Miss Cleo, the women's magazine, the TV series, the physicists' collaboration, and the programming language at least all look like things which people might reasonably expect to be able to look up as simply 'Cleo'. TSP 15:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the disambig, and good save. —Korath (Talk) 02:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Uncle G's version, well done. Gamaliel 21:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Good job. Don't have time to research the CLEO advertising awards, maybe someone else will add them... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:39, 18 Feb 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 to Planets in science fiction. Death phoenix 03:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Synnax[edit]

Imaginary and non-encyclopedic. GRider\^talk 20:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think "mentioned" says it all. Wikipedia does not include everything mentioned in any book, whoever the author. Delete. -R. fiend 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've rescued this from speedy deletion. The page does not appear to have passed through the VFD process correctly. It was never listed at WP:VFD according to the edit history, and so its nomination may not have been been seen by many editors. I've listed it here, now, in order to give the article a fair shot. My comments on this article are on record. Uncle G 07:48, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional planets (not enough info to warrant its own article) Radiant! 10:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cruft. Wyss 11:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional planets or somewhere. Kappa 12:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional planets, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not merge. GRider\^talk 17:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This and much of Category:Foundation universe planets could stand to be merged ~~together~~ into List of minor Foundation universe planets. I don't the minor ones there in general, and certainly not this one in particular, belong in List of fictional planets, if all they got was a "mention". —Korath (Talk) 02:42, Feb 16, 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. Death phoenix 02:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Farrah[edit]

Notability questionable. See Lojinx and/or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lojinx--ZayZayEM 08:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Farrah Fawcett, the most notable Farrah and probably the only Farrah anyone will be searching for. Mike H 10:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it, and a redirect would be unhelpful in any case. Wyss 11:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep; albums released in the UK, US and Japan. Kappa 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The band has released two records in the UK, Europe and Japan on Miles Copeland's independent Ark 21 label. Has toured Japan in December and will tour France in March. Qualifies under Wikimusic guidelines. A Google search for "Farrah" band comes up with just under 64,800 hits. I hope to rewrite this expandingthe article. 1. Capitalistroadster 09:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- PS. Seems like we need an article on Miles Copeland who used to manage The Police. Capitalistroadster 10:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'll take Capitalistroadster's word on this band, which I don't know, but this substub sure doesn't make it clear why they'd be notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Amazon.com sells their albums.[10] That makes them notable enough for me. Foobaz·✐ 02:49, 24 Feb 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. ~~4 Delete~~ / 3 Keep / 3 Redirect. No consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not counting last vote. 3 delete. Still no consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Knife hand[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. A search for "Choi Bae-Dal" "knife hand" on Google gets 2 results. A search for simple Knife hand gets 24,400-- likely almost none relating to this article. TheCoffee 08:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete as ~~anecdote, unverified and~~ unencyclopedic. See below. Wyss 11:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Excuse me, but you have to do a little more than bang a few words into Google and give a cursory glane at the results! I knew nothing about him 10 minutes ago, but have already discovered that Choi Bae-Dal (745 Google hits by the way, pretty well all for him) lived from 1922-94 in Korea and Japan. His real name was Masutatsu Oyama, and he was a top proponant of martial arts techniques. "In 1950, Sosai (the founder) Mas Oyama started testing (and demonstrating) his power by fighting bulls. In all, he fought 52 bulls, three of which were killed instantly, and 49 had their horns taken off with knife hand blows" There were famous Korean comic books written about his life some thirty years ago, and the fourth largest grossing movie in Korea last year was "Fighter in the Wind", Choi Bae-Dal's life story. TheCoffee and Wyss say he "Doesn't seem notable" and "anecdote, unverified and unencyclopedic". I don't think so, guys! Having said all this, the article is brief and poorly written, but that just makes it a stub. I could live with a (new) artcle on Masutatsu Oyama/Choi Bae-Dal with a re-direct from Knife hand, but otherwise keep this, and it will get sorted sometime. HowardB 15:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Choi Bae-Dal is notable, but I don't think knife hand is article-worthy in his context. If there was a Choi Bae-Dal article, I would recommend the information here be merged there. Also, if "knife hand" is article worthy, it probably shouldn't be under that name, as the term "knife hand" is more commonly used to mean either a taekwondo block or the hand of someone using a knife. TheCoffee 20:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The plot thickens.... It appears we already have a Masutatsu Oyama article (this is Choi Bae-Dal's more usual name, it turns out). So I have put a redir from Choi Bae-Dal. Then, we have a Kyokushin article (this is a style of karate that Oyama/Choi developed -- now HUGE worldwide). In here, we have a better life of Oyama than in the main article! Also, the Masutatsu Oyama article appears to be a straight lift from Exsudo.com. So, when I have some time, I propose to:
- merge what little there is in knife hand into Masutatsu Oyama and redirect
- take the life of Oyama piece from Kyokushin and merge it into Masutatsu Oyama (and put a prominent "See also" link into Kyokushin
- fix possible copyvio problem in Masutatsu Oyama
Why do I get my self into these things! Any objections? HowardB 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As the one who put the {{cleanup-verify}} on the article in the first place, that's fine by me. Keep pending Cleanup by HowardB. Exsudo.com is a copy of Wikipedia, not vice versa, by the way. Uncle G 13:52, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification on who copied who. I'll work on it tomorrow HowardB 15:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Martial arts moves/techniques should be included. — Brim 12:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect (no merge) to Strike (attack). "Knife hand strike" is the proper term for what's more commonly called a "karate chop". — Gwalla | Talk 00:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Gwalla. —Korath (Talk) 12:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect (no merge). Having looked at Strike (attack) and a few other martial atrs sites, I concur with what Gwalla and Korath suggest. If that is the agreed outcome, I would still go ahead and
- take the life of Oyama piece from Kyokushin and merge it into Masutatsu Oyama (and put a prominent "See also" link into Kyokushin) (see above).

The other two action points I made up there are/would be moot. HowardB 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not an encyclopaedic article. JamesBurns 07:27, 26 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heptacontagon[edit]

VfD tag was added by Jok2000, but they didn't finish the job. Xezbeth 08:40, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, the only thing notable about a 70-gon is the name, which is already mentioned in polygon. --MarkSweep 08:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apply whatever decision comes out of Enneacontakaienneagon et al. Gazpacho 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete like the others, else someone'll define a 70-piece orchestra as a heptacontet. Wyss 11:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Faulty thinking, Wyss. Orchestras named with the -et suffix are named with Latin numerical prefixes, not Greek numerical prefixes. Georgia guy 16:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete or move to Wiktionary. Personally, I favor the latter. -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or move to Wiktionary - best the latter --Brookie 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Megan1967 01:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. And a bonus point to Georgia guy for the orchestral naming convention. Barno 01:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and don't transwiki, it says nothing special about this one and there are an infinite number of them. Kappa 06:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with 70 (number). — RJH 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
God. Not these again. TransWiki to Wiktionary, I think. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. JamesBurns 07:31, 26 Feb 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 (created as a redirect afterwards). jni 16:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gatotsu[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
Portuguese, might be a copyvio. Sietse 11:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is copied, Google doesn't find the source. Martial-arts related. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

More precisely, swordsmanship, and I think it says it's a fictional technique. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is a fictional technique from the Rurouni Kenshin manga series. I don't believe it deserves its own article, and the text is not encyclopedic. It could be added to the main article, but it is really a dificult text, that tries to mimic the estereotyped writing of samurai masters, full of metaphors. I would rather someone more knowleadgeble in the manga wrote about it. JoaoRicardo 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sounds like its not worth the trouble of translation & JoaoRicardo seems to think it's not even worth a transwiki to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Apparently (barely) valid topic, no problem with someone writing something from scratch. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete--ZayZayEM 02:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, minor fictious manga character. Megan1967 04:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, untranslated, made-up cruft. Wyss 18:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Rurouni Kenshin minor characters or Saito Hajime. The character, Saito Hajime, isn't all that particularly minor, as he's very well remembered among fans of the serious. It is about his swordsmanship move and there is a small note at the bottom of the page for Saito Hajime. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Saito Hajime. Kappa 14:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Saito Hajime as per AllyUnion. JoaoRicardo 05:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of General Slocum victims[edit]

Not notable; no contextual information or links Brookie 09:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no context, potential for a fork. Wyss 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, another useless trivial list. Megan1967 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've added the context. Someone reading the article on the General Slocum disaster might find it interesting to have the list of names available, but it would clutter the main article. JamesMLane 16:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the necessary context. I am still inclined to vote delete because Wikipedia is not a memorial. The discussion at the main article is excellent. The list of people who died adds nothing to an encyclopedia. An alternative might be to transwiki this list to Wikisource. Yes, I realize I am suggesting an approach that is inconsistent with, for example, the list of Sep 11 victims but we have to take these nominations one at a time. Rossami (talk) 17:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete if delete references to 9/11 victims. lets not be temporalcentric. Just because you didnt see it on TV doesnt mean it not important --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Rossami that this should be deleted because it's a memorial. I'm not quite sure what useful purpose this list would serve. Carrp | Talk 17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it's not a memorial, it's a list. See for example Columbine High School massacre#Victims. Individual articles on the victims would be memorials unless they were otherwise notable. Although, I would actually find such memorial articles an interesting window into a bygone era. But at any rate, I think the list is a useful addition since a quick scan of it gives a feel for the sex, age, & ethnic distribution of the victims. Wolfman 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but... if this is not elsewhere on line, let's find it a home (maybe Wikisource?). If it is elsewhere on line then link to that from General Slocum. I would not favor a deletion if it means that this material would not be on line anywhere. (Also, it needs a clearer citation. The name of a newspaper, without a date, is a poor citation.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is either a memorial or a copy of primary source material. Either way, not encyclclopedic. I'm going to check the article with the 9/11 victim's names, and if it hasn't already been through VfD, I will submit it, by the same logic. (Further note: the list of WTC victims has been moved to a special memorial site: sep11.wikipedia.org. There are still lists of the Pentagon victims and the passengers on the planes.) --BM 19:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 9/11, general slocum, and columbine victims should be treated the same. but if you don't want them here, they should be wikisourced - not deleted. Wolfman 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with them being transwiki'd to Wikisource, provided we can correctly cite the source, and someone verifies the text against the source. But, by the way, what is the source for this list? --BM 22:42, 16 Feb 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. Block compress error: pending deletion tagged. Joyous 20:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dabog[edit]

Likely a hoax - Google searches fail to find anything relevant. Other contributions by the same IP near that time seem like someone was playing around. TrueGnu 10:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Gazpacho 10:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nonsensical. Delete Radiant! 10:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Nonsense. Inter 11:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some sort of vanity hoax. Wyss 11:06, 13 Feb 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. Death phoenix 02:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stevenson Ranch, California[edit]

This just seems to be a neighborhood and there is no mention of notability. Delete. — Brim 10:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 10:55 Z
Keep and cleanup. --SPUI (talk) 11:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it, cleanup tone. Wyss 11:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move - can it find a nice home in some geo' based article? Brookie 11:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep real places. Kappa 13:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep all real places. Rick K 22:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Real exurb near LA. Capitalistroadster 10:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's real, it should stay. Carrp | Talk 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delete crackhead vfd poseurs. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 17 Feb 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. Death phoenix 03:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

William Richard Ormsby-Gore, 2nd Baron Harlech[edit]

Who? Non-notable, 1 line bio, AND the article title doesnt fit bio standard. Alkivar 03:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Improperly placed VfD. I'm finishing the process of listing it. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 10:51 Z

Keep. All peers are notable and this one is more notable than most: MP for more than 20 years and had many high offices in County Leitrim. Dbiv 10:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but expand, it reads like genealogy. Wyss 11:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - but we do need to know a bit more than just a title; British titles and their history are interesting and important. Brookie 11:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expand. Megan1967 01:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Categorised to MPs, and that status mentioned. Wincoote 01:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Peer and MP. Well done Wincoote. Capitalistroadster 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if he was a peer, wasn't he an MP by virtue of being a peer? Many peers never bothered to appear in the House. What, if anything, did he do there? If he did something in or for County Leitrim, let's hear what it was. Pace Brookie, but British titles and their history of are of no interest to me (because I'm British?) and mostly seem to be of little, if any, importance. I'll vote when I know more about him. -- Hoary 04:43, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- He was an MP who inherited a peerage. I haven't had the time to fill out the biog yet. Dbiv 19:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless more can be said, if we are to be at all consistent to previous decisions on this page. I strongly disagree that all peers are notable; this chap was the SECOND Baron Harlech, i.e. a peer only because his father was, and Baron is the lowest of the orders of peerage; and will have been in parliament (though MP is always used to refer only to members of the House of Commons) only because he was a peer. If the 'average professor' and the 'average middle school' aren't notable, the average peer certainly isn't. If this chap is notable (and if, indeed, he was an MP), fine, but his reason for note needs to be mentioned and is orthogonal to his peerage.
Comment. He was an MP (House of Commons) for Sligo from 1841 to 1852, and for Leitrim from 1856 until 1876, when he succeeded his brother as 2nd Baron Harlech. His brother, who had been an MP too and a groom-in-waiting of Queen Victoria was created 1st Baron Harlech in 1876, with the special provision that his younger brother (our hero) would inherit the title in the event of no male offspring. The 2nd Baron didn't have to wait long because his brother died the same year. The 2nd Baron was also High Sheriff of County Leitrim, and Lord Lieutenant of County Merioneth. He achieved the rank of major in the 13th Light Dragoons. I don't have any information about whether he did anything notable in these posts. Some of the later Barons Harlech were quite notable. --BM 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! I couldn't find anything on the page or in the first few Google hits explaining this. As a Major, an elected MP, a High Sherrif and a Lord Lieutenant, I believe he's notable for reasons mostly unconnected with his peerage; keep assuming that all this information will find its way into the article. I re-emphasise that I don't believe that "all peers are notable" - all a hereditary peerage is is a distinguished family, and in some cases not even that distinguished. (Should I at this point mention the non-notability of my late great-uncle Lord Hatch of Lusby just to taunt someone into making the page?) TSP 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Lord Hatch of Lusby is very notable! He was one of the last peers to be told formally to shut up by the House when he continued to ask questions and refused to sit down. I think I also ran into someone who lived in the London flat he used to live in, which was in Peckham Rye. Dbiv 22:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Sounds like him :-) Write about him then, you seem to know more about him than I do... (It was mostly an idle reference to the traditional "I'm a more notable [a] than he is a [b] and I'm not in Wikipedia", which I see has got one Wikipedian an entry that is currently resisting deletion - I think that pretty much all life peers probably are notable, given that it's about the highest honour the United Kingdom can award.) TSP 00:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 02:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mtiedemann 10:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 20:02, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anorexorcists[edit]

Non-noteable band. A google search didn't bring up any results about them.--Kross 11:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. What he said. There's been quite a bit of stuff like this lately, and we have a rule, so shouldn't we display it somewhere, or have we already done so? -- Kizor 11:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Notice how they made articles in 4 languages. That's how I found it (through Russian wikipedia - it was really their mistake, we don't have many bands here :) ). Grue 21:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self promotion. Only 3 google hits. --jag123 21:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, harmless self-promotion. Wyss 02:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 03:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Chris Williams[edit]

Delete. I wrote it, he sucked. Da-da-da-da-da. Mike Hackney 17:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:15 Z

Delete - what an odd entry! Brookie 11:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, aside from an appearance on the show he hasn't done anything notable. Megan1967 01:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cruft. Wyss 02:05, 14 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Due to a miscalculation, the actual result is no consensus. The article is kept for now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lori Rubinson[edit]

Delete. Mike Hackney 17:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:15 Z

Delete - is this another odd entry from Mr Hackney ? Brookie 11:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cruft. Wyss 02:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Network sports commentator now. Megan1967 06:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Dream Job. Gamaliel 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Zellin 01:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Dream Job fancruft. JamesBurns 07:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Steve Almond[edit]

Vanity. The only thing notable (?) about him seems to be that he brags about his sex life. Radiant! 11:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - vain nonsense - not really interested in his sex life - cabbages are more interesting! Brookie 11:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, promo, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for preceding reasons. But what if cabbages are involved in his sex life? Barno 01:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion and it's true, I've had encounters with cabbages that were much more exciting. Wyss 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ugh. I don't even want to guess how one of his sexually explicit stories earned him the nickname "Scoutmaster Money". Carrp | Talk 17:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Stevin Hoover[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Radiant! 11:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete or move to Wikifelons! Not notable - just another con'! Brookie 11:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 01:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't the 'droid we're looking for, move along, move along. Wyss 02:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Cleduc 03:28, 17 Feb 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. Death phoenix 03:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eduardo V. Manalo[edit]

While it is a lengthy bio, it isn't really notable. He is deputy exec minister of a church, an amateur radio enthousiast, and 'said to be involved' in the founding of a church IT program, and joined in a protest with tens of thousands of others. Vanity? Radiant! 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not noteworthy Brookie 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can elaborate on notablity I sort of agree with Howrad B. But I'm only going to Abstain --ZayZayEM 13:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I cannot claim to know an awful lot about 'Eddie Boy' and the INC, but even a cursory surf of relevant pages and other Wiki entries around the topic show that a) INC is a major religious and political factor in the Philippines (it is said that in 1998 the sect helped Joseph Estrada take the largest winning margin ever in a presidential contest) and b) Eduardo Manalo is a pretty big cheese within the organisation. Admittedly the article needs some attention to make it more interesting and informative (need some Philippinos who know the intricacies of the religious-political scene to help out here). But this is definietly NOT a canidate for deletion. HowardB 15:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - 31 Google hits. For someone who has claimed to have done a lot it's not showing up on Google. Megan1967 01:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 02:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. First let me say that I am not Filipino, and I have no axe to grind for Iglesia ni Cristo or Eduardo V. Manalo. In fact the religion/cult, call it what you will, is most likely a strongly negative influence in the Philippines and in other parts of the world. It wouldn't bother me if it disappeared off the face of the map. But you can't ignore the facts just because you are ignorant of the situation or the country , or don't like what you read. The fact is that Iglesia ni Cristo is a hugely influential organization (millions of adherents/members around the world, and probably the second biggest group after the Catholic Church in the Philippines). Politically, it is a king maker, and is credited by the Philippines' media of having been pivotal in getting Joseph Estrada elected as President in 1998, and (switching sides) very influential in getting President Arroyo re-elected last year (Arroyo and her honchos made a courtesy call on Eduardo V. Manalo just before INC awarded her with their support). Manalo himself clearly has a major influence in the organisation and over its millions of adherents. His grandfather founded it, his father (aged 80) runs it, and the chair is getting very warm! And several people here are saying delete this because it is "self-promotion" "not noteworthy" , "vanity", "not notable". Get real! HowardB 05:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You've just talked yourself into adding that little lot to Iglesia ni Cristo and Eduardo V. Manalo. ☺ Keep pending expansion by HowardB. Uncle G 14:01, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Done, I think -- most of it was there -- particularly in the INC article HowardB 15:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep based on what HowardB says. / up+land 18:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Be careful using the Google test on subjects from non-English-speaking areas. — Gwalla | Talk 00:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amen. HowardB 09:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, definitely looks notable to me. Looks like early contributors may have misinterpreted him as merely a postholder of a single church; in fact he is a major figure in a large sect. TSP 10:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm a former member of the INC and Eduardo Manalo exerts greater influence over Philippine elections than Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson do in the U.S. Be careful though of blatant POV edits to Iglesia-related pages by fanatic members. --69.231.202.227 01:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. From a quick google hunt he seems to be quite an influential character. -- John Fader 01:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

EyeQ[edit]

Name used for some tech articles, not notable enough. Radiant! 11:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - not very helpful or encylodedic Brookie 12:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's an attempt at a disambiguation page. I think that the best way to create disambiguation pages is to let them grow naturally from the conflicts that arise between articles with the same names. There's nothing wrong with creating a disambiguation page from scratch, of course, provided that one is also going to create the articles that it disambiguates amongst. Had this page just been created hours ago and with some dangling hyperlinks on it, I'd have given the page the benefit of the doubt. As it is, it has been five months and this page has seen effectively zero growth. The dangling hyperlinks that were there were never filled in. Indeed, the original article seemed to be a weak attempt to justify advertising the fourth item by masquerading as a disambiguation for the other three. They are all simply non-notable brand names as far as I can tell. There is, however, a record label "Eye Q" that appears to fulfil the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines criteria, although I'll let others be the final judges of that. The article could be completely rewritten to be about that. Move to Eye Q if that happens. Otherwise Delete and allow Eye Q to happen

Keep- and rewrite the article --¿? 16:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Check this user's contributions: personal-attack pranks, vandalism, bogus inquiries about Nelson Mandela, etc. This may not be a genuine vote. -- 17:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - there's no article here, and no articles being disambiguated. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is a stealth ad. Wyss 01:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No real content, it does look like an ad. Carrp | Talk 17:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep (5 keep, 3 delete). Death phoenix 04:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Black moon[edit]

This seems to me to be an invented phrase, and therefore original research. I'd be satisfied if references documenting the history of the phrase were provided, but I couldn't find anything relevant to this on google. --Eric Forste 00:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I agree that it is an invented phrase. The originator's intent is apparently to contrast it with blue moon, which itself was a misunderstanding on the part of Sky and Telescope back in 1946. The similar term dark moon is well known, but it has nothing to do with calendar months. Joe Kress 20:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:42 Z

Delete - agree with the above Brookie 12:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems to come from [11] (astrology), [12] (astronomy), [13] (Wiccan religious ideas). So I wouldn't call it original research or a neologistic phrase. 132.205.15.43 22:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Lunar phase. Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, in effect, a neologism. Wyss 01:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Per astronomy cafe the second new moon in a month is known by several names: black moon, finder's moon, spinner moon, and secret moon. But if you delete this, the Black Moon (disambiguation) page also needs cleaning up. — RJH 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well sourced outside of Wikipedia. Parallels the better known blue moon. Rossami (talk) 02:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Little known but exists max rspct 19:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Haham hanuka 08:46, 21 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire moon[edit]

Original research (or rather, an invented phrase). See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rising crescent moon. --Eric Forste 00:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:42 Z

Move to dry moon leaving Cheshire moon as a redirect because "dry moon" is more well known: [14] [15] [16] (the last misinterprets dry moon). The article should be expanded appropriately. Cheshire moon originally appeared in USATODAY. — Joe Kress 22:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
It gets a few thousand Google hits, so the 'phrase' has to have come from somewhere. 132.205.15.43 22:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Lunar phase. Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dupe. Wyss 01:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to [17] the phrase itself dates back atleast to 1989. At [18] is a painting of the Cheshire Moon. 132.205.45.110 20:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well sourced outside Wikipedia. However, I have no evidence whether "Cheshire moon" or "dry moon" is the more common usage. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Informative article.nuthing wrong max rspct 18:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful. JamesBurns 07:38, 26 Feb 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 lunar phase. Death phoenix 04:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rising crescent moon[edit]

When the Sun is high in the sky, the horns of the crescent moon always point down, and when the Sun is below the horizon, the horns always point up, so this happens every month, not every 7 to 14 months. I did some research on google, and found one bald assertion that did not give any further references, that explains what this phrase is supposed to mean. Apparently, it's supposed to mean the crescent moon with the horns pointing up and tilting neither to the left nor to the right, not even a little bit. However, it's still a poorly chosen phrase, since "rising crescent moon" already means any crescent moon at any given time when it happens to be rising! As far as I know, April Holladay invented this phrase, and even if she did not, I still think it is someone else's original research. --Eric Forste 00:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:42 Z

Redirect to lunar phase (which calls it a waning crescent moon) without adding its content to lunar phase. I agree that the title applies to any rising crescent moon, not just one that that points straight down. If the Sun is high in the sky, its glare would overwhelm any crescent moon immediately below it, so it would be unseen. If the Sun is below the horizon, the moon's horns point up only in the tropic and temperate zones — in the Arctic and Antarctic zones, both the Sun and Moon would be near the horizon, so it would again be unseen in the sun's glare (and the horns would now point left or right). — Joe Kress 20:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Lunar phase. Megan1967 00:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dupe. Wyss 01:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Lunar phase. max rspct 19:04, 16 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Nashville Predators captains[edit]

Would be better fitting if merged with this main article. Coolgamer 17:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. I vote to Keep. See Category:Lists of NHL team captains. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 11:42 Z

See redirect page or VfD version with a list of two people since I've already implemented the redirect. Mozzerati 16:36, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Merge or move -doesn't need its own page Brookie 12:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this issue has already been debated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Atlanta Thrashers captains. - SimonP 15:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect comment: to make a merge doesn't need a VfD vote and there's no reason not to leave this in as a redirect. It will make this easier to find in Google. N.B. I've already implemented a redirect. If you feel that was wrong, feel free to revert for now. Mozzerati 16:36, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Merge into Nashville Predators, no need to have a seperate list on this. Megan1967 00:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not really useful. JamesBurns 07:41, 26 Feb 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. jni 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vizo[edit]

The reason was given in the edit summary of the vfd tag addition on article:

14:25, 2005 Jan 13 User:Pavel Vozenilek ({{vfd}} requested - non-verifiable article. No links, Google doesn't known)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. Seems like they didn't know how to post to VfD. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 12:16 Z

Delete, original research. Wyss 01:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, original research. Megan1967 03:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

John Foley[edit]

There is no evidence that the subject of this page exists. Further, the associated Wikiquotes are improbable and illiterate. Delete. JPF 10:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the other poster. The Wikiquotes look completely made up, and the bio seems fabricated. Delete. User: Polylerus 22:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 12:16 Z

Delete --Brookie 16:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep- quite notable --219.78.107.115 16:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 01:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Google Web turns up numerous John Foleys. At least two of them (I didn't bother going beyond the first three pages of results.) appear to pass the "average professor" test; and a third (the archbishop) could well turn out to be notable after further research. This article isn't about any of them. If it isn't rewritten to be so, Delete. Uncle G 08:59, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax and/or nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Skazz[edit]

neologism. nn dict-def.

Unsigned. Page history says: 19:08, 2004 Dec 29 User:Smadnani

joining of two existing words to make new word. perhaps ska-jazz as a substitute.

Unsigned. Page history says: 02:45, 2005 Jan 7 User:Tedington

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 12:16 Z

Delete --Brookie 16:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Wyss 01:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 18:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Useful Sites[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. utcursch 12:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The sites may be useful, but it's not what wikipedia is for. Kappa 14:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delelete. Non-encyclopedic in the extreme HowardB 14:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rhobite 17:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete (if there is such a thing). The whole page looks like one big advertisement. 85.76.152.179 17:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a textbook example from the WP:WIN policy: collection of external links, self-promotion. Note that creator "Agret" posted his Gmail address in the article and encouraged other contributors to add links and to add their names in the Contributors section. Barno 01:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #9, bare links. Wyss 01:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16:43, Feb 16, 2005 Neutrality deleted Useful Sites

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Max Blumberg"[edit]

Advertising, self-promotion, created by User:Maxblumberg: see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- The Anome 12:53, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
If the user had made any other contributions at all I'd have voted Userfy. But he hasn't. Delete. Uncle G 16:57, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Delete - sorry Max - you're very uninteresting and unimportant Brookie 17:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing notable, looks like plain self-promotion. Zzyzx11 19:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have a thought-provoking comment... Delete this self-promotion. Wyss 01:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although we'll all be sorry for shunning him when he's elected US President in the future. Frank12
Delete, au revoir Max, you self-promoting arse. Plumbago 14:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 18 Feb 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 deletion due to block compress error. Joyous 19:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Henry Raddick[edit]

The reason was given in the edit summary when adding the vfd tag to the page. From the page history:

23:03, 2005 Feb 11 146.176.2.17 (not notable, "fame" seems to be largely "created" by the Register)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 15:00 Z

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:47, 14 Feb 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. 6 delete / 5 keep (no consensus) -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tawals[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 15:00 Z

Delete - there's no such thing as Polish mythology and there is no info anywhere in my books nor on the web on such a deity in Western Slavic Mythology either. It seems like some recent new-age invention, though I can't tell where did the author take the name for this article from. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:09, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - more nonsense Brookie 17:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — the claim that there's no such thing as Polish mythology is bizarre, and I immediately found references on the web (e.g., 1 and 2. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above evidence Kappa 22:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, may be Slavic, it's not Polish. Wyss 01:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So the references on the Web are irrelevant? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - This is not "Polish mythology" for starters. Wyss 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - But it's no good just stating that as if no reason or explanation is needed. Aside from the links that I posted (which everyone but Kappa seems to ignore), try this. Is there something I'm missing here, some reason that Halibutt and you reject the notion of Polish mythology? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - valid, if quite minor, topic, supported by web and print references. The phrase "Polish mythology" may be inaccurate and inelegant, but nominating all articles that use the phrase for deletion without so much as Googling them is a very bad idea. -Sean Curtin 02:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Mel Etitis said. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
The hell? I found a bunch of references to Tawals as a minor agricultural deity in pre-Christian Poland - all of which pre-date this entry by at least a year - right quick. Keep. DS 22:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utter nonsense, no such thing as "Polish" mythology. JamesBurns 07:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain this peculiar insistence on the part of some Users that Poland is unique in having no muthology? Is there some religious or other belief behind it? I've come across irrationality in other discussions, but this repeated blank repetition of a nonsensical claim is new to me (outside articles attracting fundemntalist religion and racist politics). What;s going on? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 26 Feb 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 - 5 Delete / 5 Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trishna[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 15:00 Z

Delete - there is no such thing as Polish mythology and the name does not even sound western slavic. Unless anyone can confirm the existence of such phenomenon or state some reliable sources, it seems like some sort of a new-age rubbish. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - more nonsense Brookie 17:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — the claim that there's no such thing as Polish mythology is bizarre, and I found references on the web (e.g., 1 and 2. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above Kappa 22:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense, hoax, whatever. Wyss 01:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So the references on the Web are irrelevant? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Mel Etitis said. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I repeat: the hell? "Trishna" is a more common term than "Tawals", and thus it's more difficult to winnow the relevant info from Google, but it's there. Goddess of the dead from pre-Christian Poland (for a slightly vague definition of "Poland"). Keep. DS 22:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm very suspicious; the two links Mel Etitis found appear to be the only information on Trishna, and they are extremely brief and nearly identical. All other references are Wikipedia mirrors, and Wikipedia just copies one of those two sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but I'd not really expect to find many references on the Web to pre-Christian Polish minor deities... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Out of interest, though, I've also found this (no mention of the names of the various deities, but at least it's further evidence (if evidence were needed, forsooth) that there's such a thing as Polish mythology, and that it contained deities of the kind referred to in the three articles under a VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utter nonsense, no such thing as "Polish" mythology. JamesBurns 07:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain this peculiar insistence on the part of some Users that Poland is unique in having no muthology? Is there some religious or other belief behind it? I've come across irrationality in other discussions, but this repeated blank repetition of a nonsensical claim is new to me (outside articles attracting fundemntalist religion and racist politics). What;s going on? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 26 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tloka[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 15:00 Z

Delete - unsubstantiated, unsupported by any source and subscribed to the non-existent "Polish mythology". [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - more nonsense Brookie 17:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — the claim that Polish mythology is non-existent is bizarre, and I found references on the web (e.g., 1 and 2). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, like the next one. Wyss 01:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So the references on the Web are irrelevant? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Mel Etitis said. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

This one, however, I'm not sure about. I have maybe a dozen words of Polish, if that, but [19] is in English (and pretty clearly indicates the existence of Polish mythology, thank you), and it seems to show that "tloka" is the spirit of community, in a metaphorical sense - in the same way that Wikipedia has spawned a spirit of community.

Delete, but NOT on the grounds that there's no such thing as Polish mythology. DS 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I see your point — it's just that 'Spirit' is capitalised in one reference, and not in the other. I'll see if I can find further evidence to push me one way or the other. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Assuming this is factual information, Should this be in the Dictionary section and/or would it be better placed under Polish Mythology? If not, should there be a seperate "Glossary of Polish Mythology" page, child of polish mythology? (I know there must be practically nil for content in the area right now, but namespace decisions should be looked at through a very long term lens IMO EggplantWizard 23:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utter nonsense, no such thing as "Polish" mythology. JamesBurns 07:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain this peculiar insistence on the part of some Users that Poland is unique in having no muthology? Is there some religious or other belief behind it? I've come across irrationality in other discussions, but this repeated blank repetition of a nonsensical claim is new to me (outside articles attracting fundemntalist religion and racist politics). What;s going on? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Szeptem[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 15:01 Z

Delete - there is no such thing as Polish mythology and the article is on the tone of voice, not on some strange, mythology-related phenomenon. Not only magic words can be said szeptem (whispering), just like with any other tone of voice. Alternatively, we could simply create articles on all other generic Polish words for scream, shout, roar and so on -- but WP is not a dictionary. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - nothing of note Brookie 17:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I think someone's laying the ground to sell something with all these nonsense "Polish mythology" articles. Wyss 01:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Granted; this one is szeptemishly feeble. Delete. DS 22:37, 17 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

aait[edit]

Merged link into amputee#External Links*. Ready to be deleted now. I don't even think it needs a redirect. -- Dbroadwell 15:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to merge histories. Mgm|^(talk) 15:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website advertisement. Megan1967 00:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad, no redirect. JamesBurns 07:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abdulkarim Ghuraib[edit]

He was noteable, for one event. He's been noted in Iran hostage crisis leaving nothing unique here. -- Dbroadwell 15:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nothing of note Brookie 17:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - only Google hits return are those of the Wikipedia article. If he really was important enough in the hostage crisis it's not showing up on Google. Megan1967 00:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, potential fork/dupe. Wyss 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Chrissy Moran[edit]

If this is all there is to say about her/him, let's not bother wikifying. Deb 15:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - we could at least have some pictures before we delete! Brookie 17:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Bloody heck, just Google-search for "Chrissy Moran". You'll be hard-pressed to avoid pictures of her. 85.76.152.179 17:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Point taken - but this is the Wiki not a porn mag! Brookie
Keep, rewrite and expand. Megan1967 00:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ and write her bio, this individual is obviously far more encyclopedic than the average analysis textbook writer. Wyss 01:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Slightly but not extremely notable as a porn star, including being featured repeatedly with the most prestigious magazine, Penthouse. Unless the community feels the use of her image in a comic or her work to save exotic animals were noteworthy enough, then I have a difficult time justifying her encyclopedic-ness. For porn stars I think we need a high criterion. Apologies for being knowledgable on this topic. Barno 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm for these type of articles found amongst the various teen-age boys that we apparently have editing the Wikipedia and voting on VfD, posing for nude photos in a magazine or being cast in a porn film is not inherently notable. The notability bar in Wikipedia is inconsistent, and is high for some occupations and professions and lower for others. Porn star/model is one of the occupations where the bar for encyclopedic notability should be pretty high. --BM 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure there's a story there somewhere, but this ain't it. And I doubt that anyone will be bothered to write one -- not when there are 269,000 Google hits to wade through.... HowardB 09:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unremarkable porn star. — Gwalla | Talk 01:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why do you jerks want to delete this article? What do you have against pornstars!? personal attack from 24.238.162.225

Absolutely nothing actually. At last look, there were 174 articles in the Category:Porn stars, and you don't see them all here on VfD. That's because (although I must say I haven't looked at them all) they have something of uniqueness, or have won multiple awards, or murdered their co-star, or whatever. At least there is a bit more to say than "a porn star who lives in Florida". If it said "she is a non-porn star who lives in Florida" we'd still be voting to delete. If you have something to add to the article to make it of encyclopedic interest, please feel free to add it, and I for one would happily reconsider my vote. Otherwise, you might want to save your breath, and think about your tone of writing, which is utterly unproductive and might even be considered mildly abusive by the more sensitive of Wikipedians. HowardB 16:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 16:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Architectural Firms In India[edit]

Article has wrong title (capitalization) and contains a list of postal addresses of firms that train architecture students. Seems more appropriate for architecture student message board than encyclopedia. Brona 16:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - this is a real missed opportunity for an article on such things as the Indian work of Lutyens & Baker. Brookie 17:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This can be mentioned in Indian architecture. Brona 20:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP not a directory, wait until someone writes a real article on this topic. Wyss 01:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Wyss, Delete Radiant! 11:59, Feb 15, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diosynth[edit]

The reasons were given on the talk page. From Talk:Diosynth:

This appears to be an advert. See also Organon International.

Ferdinand Pienaar 00:40, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

While this page was blank, an anon made this comment:

Deletion was possibly requested because the company merges into Organon (see entry). Nevertheless, the name will exist as a brand, so deletion would not be appropriate.

Unsigned, page history says: 05:29, 2004 Dec 28 195.169.224.219

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 16:17 Z

Delete Brookie 17:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite and expand. Diosynth gets 15,000 Google hits. Megan1967 00:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it . Wyss 01:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lean toward keep. I'm utterly ignorant about the company, but the fact that it may no longer exist in this form is not a reason for deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, looks notable. JamesBurns 07:53, 26 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

60th Division[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 16:02 Z

Delete: There is nothing else that this page will link to. Cataclysm12 00:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- There does appear (Google) to be at least one other 60th Division (involved with the Korean War in this case), so at some point disambiguation may be required. HyperZonk 16:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There was also a 60th Division of the German army during WWII. Appears to have fought at Stalingrad. [20]. -- Jniemenmaa 21:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Megan1967 06:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. JamesBurns 07:56, 26 Feb 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. 6 Delete / 3 Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silvia Treves[edit]

The reason was given in the edit summary when the vfd tag was added. From the page history:

00:15, 2004 Dec 20 User:RC T. (This is obviously someone's inside joke -- REMOVE)

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 16:06 Z

Delete -- appears to be a vanity page, the few Google results are mostly identical vanity listings in other open access encyclopediae and dictionaries. HyperZonk 16:38, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Vain nonsense - do we really need to know about her cooking? Brookie 17:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — the two publications she's said to edit/manage seem genuine (one has a Wikipedia article created by the same person who created this one, but mention of the other was added to the Fata Morgana page by Wetman). It needs thorough rewriting, though, both in terms of its English and its style. (Incidentally, I got 506 hits on Google, including a publisher's page for a book to which she wrote the introduction, fiction magazines in which her stories have appeared, an academic journal of Chemistry of which she's an editor, etc.) The fact that the article contains irrelevancies is a reason for editing it, not for deleting it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is self-promotion. Wyss 01:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If notable, this article fails to demonstrate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, looks non-notable and almost vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with rewrite. JamesBurns 07:59, 26 Feb 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of cities in Lebanon[edit]

Delete There's a category Category:Cities in Lebanon, so why a list? 500LL 16:06, 13 Feb 2005
Keep. There seems to me to be a community preference for retaining separate lists and categories. JuntungWu 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are similar articles for most of the countries. Grue 19:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, list duplicates categories without adding anything significant, pointless. Megan1967 00:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
KeepCategories don't replace lists. Wincoote 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No but this list says nothing. More than half of the listed cities dont exist as articles. A good example of a list that says something is eg. List of assassinated people - annotated entries. Encyclopaedias are meant to be useful. Megan1967 06:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grouping related things that don't have articles is probably the main merit of lists now that there is also a category system. Wincoote 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, some on the list may not have their own articles. Wyss 01:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Does not duplicate the category: some cities in Lebanon don't have articles yet. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Categories are not lists. Rick K 06:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The apocalypse is near; I agree with RickK. —RaD Man (talk) 02:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there is already a category for this. JamesBurns 08:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

High Game[edit]

Breaks the "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." rule. Could also be considered to be a vanity page.

--Defragged 16:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - no content of note Brookie 17:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing notable or useful Zzyzx11 19:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. RJFJR 22:02, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, platform for a link. Wyss 01:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 17:54, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Afghan-American[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 16:42 Z

Delete - if there is anything to say about Afghan-Americans it should be said, but at the moment this page is pointless--XmarkX 05:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Delete the inappropriate link, it could probably use something about the Afghan-American community in Fremont, California. Rick K 22:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 00:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, let's wait until someone has something more encyclopedic to say about this topic, ok? Wyss 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perfectly welcome topic, but delete useless substub. (Comment left unsigned by User:Jmabel.)
- True, but there is no clear policy on deleting substubs. We have seen several "useless" bontany-related substubs of 6-8 words be kept because the subject was notable. Perhaps this needs to be clarified and documented? GRider\^talk 00:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. Google finds over EIGHTEEN-THOUSAND hits for this term. [21] GRider\^talk 00:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pointless sub-stub. JamesBurns 07:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Philippa Locke[edit]

This looks like a straightforward undergraduate prank. The clues are too numerous to mention; apart from the last paragraph, I'd point to her supposed book, purportedly published when she was eighteen, no details given. Needless to say, Google brings up six hits, none of which supports anything in the article; two are related to a petition she signed, two are about a marathon, one is some photos she took of a dinner, and one actually relates to "Foot, Philippa: Locke...".

Delete (and the redirect page Philippa locke) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agree - looks like a prank - Eric Wittgenstein. Brookie 17:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this amusing and well-written prank, I can't wait to read her first book on the cell membranes of ducks. Wyss 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As per Mel Etitis, the clues are all there. Delete. Uncle G 08:50, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

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

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

F.U.C.K.[edit]

Not notable and vanity entry Brookie 17:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wincoote 21:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Spinboy 23:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 00:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, forget their name, it's a cover band. Wyss 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless page. Oleg Alexandrov 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
D.E.L.E.T.E. —RaD Man (talk) 02:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DELETE band vanity. Simon 18:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn, vanity. GRider\^talk 00:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lotion (song)[edit]

This was improperly and not completely posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 17:18 Z

Delete The author obviously knows that this song is not notable and (s)he tries to argue that it is, simply because it refers to one scene in a film. I'm a real inclusionist but this is just silly.Zantastik 08:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -what rubbish - what a waste of 30 seconds reading it. Time for a beer! Brookie 19:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. Wyss 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The song would have been notable had The Silence of the Lambs paid homage to it, not the other way around. Delete. Uncle G 08:46, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
I have heard this song on Triple J where it made the Hottest 100 for 2004 - no record of it charting. Our article on The Greenskeepers needs attention so merge and redirect to the Greenskeepers. The album was Pleetch but we don't have an article for that yet. Capitalistroadster 11:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete very not notable. Simon 18:19, Feb 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. Joyous 19:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gateef[edit]

The vfd tag wasn't posted by me, and no reason was ever given (that I can find), but I'll finish this. Very few, if any Google results at all, for 'Gateef' and 'Ali Gateefi'. Probably a joke. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 17:21 Z

Delete - hopelesly inept - even the poster says its not notable! Brookie 19:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 9 googles for Gateef, none of them for a town. If it is a town then we don't know where it is. Delete as nonsense. RJFJR 21:57, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some sort of joke, could be a speedy 'cause it's patently nonsense and sarcastic. Wyss 01:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Unsure. Possibly a joke by an anon, or possibly just a newbie's first efforts. Humour doesn't necessarily mean bad faith. No vote as yet. Andrewa 01:24, 14 Feb 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glory Hole Theme Park[edit]

Fancruft. Should be merged into the main article on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. jdb ❋ 03:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge as above. — Brim 09:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge RJFJR 21:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Megan1967 06:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge, preferably into Cruft of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas rather than the main article. Kappa 11:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge --MSTCrow 20:05, Feb 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. Joyous 19:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arthur the Geniuses[edit]

Someone wrote this about me as a joke of sorts, and someone else copied and pasted it here. It's neither informative nor very accurate. If I'd written it, it would be shamelessly self-promotional; since I didn't, it's just embarrassing. Queixa 22:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - since Quiexa doesn't support let's bin it.Brookie 19:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete subject's request and as written nn. RJFJR 21:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given by others. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First: The subjects of articles don't have an automatic final say over whether articles about them are included or excluded. That road leads to all sorts of problems. Second: There is no evidence, apart from the say-so of a user with only two edits, that Queixa is in fact the subject of this article. Apply the same Wikipedia:verifiability criteria here as elsewhere. So: Treat the article on its merits. Does Arthur the Geniuses meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines? A quick Amazon and Google search on that name indicates to me that the answer is very probably "No.". Delete. Uncle G 08:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Yep... the article's still snickering self-promotion and there's no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 19:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh - did you see how bad it was before I trimmed it down to its current form? Delete. DS 21:42, 17 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy boulevard and Secaucus Road[edit]

Delete - Completely non-notable intersection. --Polynova 00:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Decumanus 00:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Keep -- Notable -- Latitude0116 00:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Delete: trivial, not encyclopedic. —tregoweth 00:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I live by this intersection, and believe me, it is far from being notable. Darkcore 05:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move-- merge to an article listing many intersections like this one, or move to Wiktionary or Wikibooks. Plateau99 09:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - hopless and non notable Brookie 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if it was a loosy substub I'd say it should go ,but at this point there is no need to delete it. Grue 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable. RJFJR 21:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I was about to vote weak keep, until I read Darkcore's comment. Rick K 22:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable roadcruft. Megan1967 00:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not roadcruft, town line cruft. --SPUI (talk) 23:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a bit crufty. Wyss 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete into Hudson County, New Jersey after trimming down to about 1/3 its present size. Not needed as redirect because nobody is going to find it by typing in "John F. Kennedy boulevard and Secaucus Road" Factoid of some interest to anyone interested in Hudson County, Jersey City, etc. and the work done on the image is nice. No way does this need an article of its own, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with merge per Dpbsmith, indifferent between delete and redirect. Kappa 06:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Hudson County, New Jersey in a section about the towns. If there was something about the intersection I'd say to merge into an article on Hudson County Boulevard (the original name for JFK, which is an early attempt at making a high-speed road, and is certainly notable) but it's just a standard four-way intersection with a traffic light. --SPUI (talk) 23:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, town cruft. JamesBurns 08:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gamyar[edit]

Hoax, or not notable. Fredrik | talk 19:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. non-notable. Apparently someone is trying to invent a language (a conlang) see langmaker. Until people to start speaking it (and it will need a lot more vocabulary first) it is non-notable. RJFJR 21:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 01:15, 14 Feb 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. It's currently protected with the message that it doesn't exist. dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism[edit]

The previous article and title were deleted according to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous, appended below, for easy reference.

New content:

Jewish etnhocentrism is a particular case of ethnocentrism. Some authors, notably Kevin B. MacDonald in his Culture of critique, claim that Jewish ethnocentrism played a significant role in survival of Jews as distinct people.

--- See also ---

I am posting the new version here, because a number of guys are speedily deleting the new version ignoring the policies and not responding to my concerns in this respect. I am not at all for this version. I am simply baffled with twisting my arms. See Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism Mikkalai 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abstain. Mikkalai 22:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aww! This page is HUGE. Anyway, keep the new content. Grue 17:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need to vote again to delete Trödel|talk 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It has no content that isn't part of other articles, and the existence of this as a separate article is in itself (unpleasantly) PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
VfD succeeded, VfU failed, all this month. There is no new vote. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

The previous VfD resulted in a clear vote for deletion (explicitly discussed and rejected was the suggestion that the page be kept and turned into a redirect). A motion for undeletion was almost unanimously rejected. Mikkalai has twice recreated the page, making it a redirect, and most recently gave it its own content, with links to other pages. What he refers to as speedy deletion is in fact the deletion of his redirect code, and later of his content, and the placing of a message explaining the situation. All of this has been explained to him at length at Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

False. I did not recreate the page. Please vote against the new article, rather than twist the policy towards your wants. Mikkalai 19:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai is simply trying to engineer a third vote here. The title and contents were deleted according to the vote at VfD, where only two users voted to redirect, and the decision was upheld at VfU. Mikkalai is making a mockery of that entire process. SlimVirgin 19:40, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- There cannot be such a thing as deletion of article title Or can? If yes, please quote the policy. Mikkalai 19:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC).
- I am trying to engineer following the policy. If you don't like my article, please vote against it. I swear, I will not attempt to "rectreate" my version (or any other). Mikkalai 19:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's a policy. I know only that the vote was clear. People were at liberty to vote to redirect, as this was presented as an option, but only two voted in favor. You should quote the policy that allows you to distinguish between votes regarding content and votes regarding the title. Perhaps you'd do better explaining why you feel strongly about retaining it, because it seems to me that you're engaging in sophistry and acting like a vandal. SlimVirgin 19:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Ignorance is not argument. What baffles me, is a series of violations of multiple policies in fighting me, see Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism. At the very beginning I stated that I was against the original artice. So I am not defending my POV. I am against doublespeak, in particular, against pretending that some words do not exist. Mikkalai 19:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When people vote for deletion on VfD, they are voting on whether an article of that title should exist. In most cases, they are not voting about the current content of the article. If the content of the article is the issue, then they will typically vote Keep and Cleanup. (I admit sometimes when Cleanup would make the article a stub or sub-stub, people will vote to Delete without prejudice to the title because they believe a redlink is preferable to a sub-stub; however that was not the case in these votes.). If people want the title to exist, but think the title does not merit independent content, they will call for a Redirect, or a Merge/Redirect. Delete means "there should be no article of this title". That the article should be deleted was the overwhelming consensus of the VfD vote: that the article should be not be undeleted was the overwhelming consensus of the VfU vote The recreation of VfD-deleted article is one of the grounds for speedy deletion, by that policy. . Reinstating the article as a redirect flies in the face of this consensus and renders the votes meaningless, and those reinstatements are properly speedily-deleted. --BM 20:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete means "there should be no article of this title": This is your interpretation. If you believe it is correct, please suggest the policy update. "No article with this title" is way too strong, like capital punishment. Forbidding any words smacks really bad. Sorry for yuor democracy, guys. I am abandoning the issue; no more pissing against the wind. Good bye. Mikkalai 20:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the VfD process. It's not simply a question of 50 for, 10 against. The admin reads the comments and tries to determine from those what the community consensus is. For example, there's a vote going on regarding Conscious Evolution, which was a pile of garbage. Most people have voted to delete, but many made the comment that

Conscious Evolution was a pile of garbage, and I voted against as well. But it does not preclude writing an article that in a NPOV way explains this kind of stuff. We have plenty of articles about various kinds of snake oil and kookery. Mikkalai 20:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with having an article with that title, just not this article. Therefore, an editor decided to rewrite it to make the content acceptable. But with Jewish ethnocentrism, people did not comment that rewriting or redirecting was appropriate. They voted, with no hesitation or ambiguity, to delete the whole thing. Can't you see the difference? You are splitting hairs by demanding that there be an explicit policy (i.e. instruction creep) for every single decision the community makes and that's why I'm calling you a sophist. Also, I have a question for you. Did you use your admin powers to unprotect the article even though you're involved in editing it? SlimVirgin 20:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the "whole thing" which exists in cicrulation is Nineteen Eighty Four.

Yes, I did. The article was protected with violation: by an article's editor. All my actions are explained at the talk page. You will say that I am splitting hairs again, b ut the protection policy speaks about protection, not unprotection. Why is it always allowable to split hairs only in one direction? Mikkalai 20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're not allowed to protect articles you're involved in editing. Also, is this a real VfD. Mel has said it isn't and that you just pasted the notice onto the page, whch is no longer there. Could you explain please? SlimVirgin 20:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shortly after I pointed that out, he put the VfD through properly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- "When people vote for deletion on VfD, they are voting on whether an article of that title should exist." Absolutely false. Votes are made for the article as it exists at the time. To claim otherwise is to allow for articles to be deleted according the results of VfDs for completely unrelated articles. The only votes for deletion that should be counted against articles of that name are votes that specifically vote for deletion based on the name and only on the name. (FTR, if there's actually going to be a vote for the new version, my vote is still delete.) -Sean Curtin 02:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

STOP deleting my comments! Have you done absolutely mad today? I am no longer going to debate this with you, as you are behaving like a vandal, wilfully refusing to understand what anyone says to you, deleting my comments, pasting pretend delete notices on articles, abusing your admin powers to unprotect articles, and creating material that's on the list not to be recreated. Enough already. Goodbye. SlimVirgin 21:01, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cool down. I am NOT deleting your comments. I was never put on record as vandal. If this happens, then this is a problem of wikipedia software. Mikkalai 21:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is, and was, already resolved. Although racist ideas and racist individuals are freely discussed in an open society, neither this idea nor this crackpot are worthy of anything close to an encyclopedia article - and certainly not one with this title. Delete Again. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After compiling together the logs, it appears that there has been some disagreement over Mikkalai's decision to make the article a redirect, his decision to create new content, and administrators deleting said redirects and new content without a VFD process or a RFD process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/Logs Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/Feb 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of dog names[edit]

An utterly pointless list, with no standards whatsoever for entry on it. As far as I can tell, pretty much every word in every language has been used at some point as a dog name. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Agree. Elf | Talk 20:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless, unencyclopedic. But BJAODN that lead. :-) JoaoRicardo 21:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Radiant! 22:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, useless trivial list. Megan1967 00:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, next'll be the list of pet python names. Wyss 01:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article created by 64.123.150.90, whose contributions to this point verge on vandalism. This article is a very incomplete list of seemingly random (and definitely non-dog) names. Example:
Flute
Flutey
Foley
Foli
Fonzi
Foo
Foo-Foo
Foot
Footfoot
Footfootfoot
Forth.

Denni ☯ 03:05, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I must admit that I added a bunch of "F" names after voting Delete mostly to show how silly the whole thing was. But some of those names are names of actual dogs. Which is why this is a silly list. Elf | Talk 06:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are web sites with much better lists. The local phone book is a list of useful information and doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. Dsurber 03:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear from my comment when adding a hyperlink to this to dog, which might have been too subtle: Delete. Uncle G 09:02, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
Delete though I think the opening line is damn funny, even BJAODN-worthy: "According to the guide of dog names, giving them names is a good idea," Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Ditnity?" "Ebullient?" I tell you, the opening line and "Footfootfoot" about had me on the floor. A dog named "Et cetera?" Delete, BJAODN the opening line and a few well-chosen examples. Here, Footfootfoot! Nice Footfootfoot. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But Foot Foot was a cat! Oh yeah, and delete for being unencyclopedic. And don't forget the redirects, Dog Name and Dog Names. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Oleg Alexandrov 00:38, 16 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Grey Zone[edit]

Original research with a title that bears no resemblance to the content. Uncle G 19:59, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

This is a bio of Janina Zalasinska. It's interesting but of a non-notable person and the information can't be documented for accuracy for inclusion in other articles. No way to tell if it is POV. Created today by new contributor (first article). Original material. Regrettably delete. RJFJR 22:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

We need to offer apologies and explanation to new contributor if we delete this.

Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 00:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, family tribute, original research. Wyss 01:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But encourage author to publish elsewhere - is this suitable for Wikisource? -- RWH 10:22, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Concur with RHaworth - transwiki to Wikisource. This is good information, but not encyclopedic. Also, fix the name.DS 21:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tilly O'shea[edit]

Gets 24 Google hits, very few for something web related. This was created by User:62.254.64.16, who has been vandalizing some pages. [22] [23] [24]. JoaoRicardo 20:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nanocruft. Wyss 01:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, patent nonsense masquerading as a non-notable vanity article. —Korath (Talk) 06:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ron Larson[edit]

The page Ron Larson contains information about the professor with that name, who wrote a textbook, called "Calculus of a Single Variable: Early Transcendental Functions". While that is a good book, and is referred to in Wikipedia, I doubt the article about the author itself has any value.

More, in the derivative article, the citation of that book has the following form:

Larson, Ron, Hostetler, Robert P. and Edwards, Bruce H. (2003). Calculus of a Single Variable: Early Transcendental Functions (3rd Edition). Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 061822307X textbook site online

Those red links seem to be reduntant, and most likely will never be filled. Besides, all this smells of self-promotion to me, because of the link to the place where the book can be bought.

Some of us think the Ron Larson article needs to be deleted. Any opinions? Oleg Alexandrov 20:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete. Authors of bestselling novels probably should get an article. But it seems to me that authors of technical books, textbooks, and other academic treatises should not get an article unless they are otherwise notable. Otherwise everyone who's published a PhD thesis will eventually want his own article. Lethe | Talk 21:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like vanity/self-promotion. --jag123 21:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not sure it qualifies as vanity, but Calculus books are a dime a dozen and writing one surely is not a cause for notability. CSTAR 22:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing encyclopedic about this. On the other hand, WP is replete with gamer cruft and amateurish, meaningless... oh, never mind :) Wyss 01:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not enough material here for an article. -- SGBailey 23:15, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cathy Cheng[edit]

Nonsense, vanity page. Philthecow 21:04, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Phil. --jag123 21:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete also csd. (nn, possible vanity, as written: nonsense). An anon has removed the vfd template, followed by another anon blanking the page completely. Note: this page was proposed for speedy at one point but an anon removed the template (I believe). RJFJR 21:26, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back 2 edits to restore the VFD, unblanking it in the process. RJFJR 21:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no article here (romantic tribute, prank). Wyss 01:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possible vanity page.--Coolcaesar 12:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Will geary[edit]

Well, what can I say? He is the man. JoaoRicardo 20:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. non-notable. Possible vanity. RJFJR 21:20, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #2, user test. Oh. Wait... could there be an encyclopedia article here somewhere? I mean... (tremble)... he is the man. zzz Wyss 00:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to "stick it to the man" with a delete vote Goplat 02:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Al's Breakfast[edit]

non-notable restaurant — J3ff 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, reads like a promo. Megan1967 00:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fun ad, though. Wyss 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's making me hungry! --Brookie 08:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Non notable?" Bah you Philistines. Not an ad, I actually am a customer who is frequently repelled by the 'attitude' but nevertheless drawn there by the darn food. :)

Yes, non-notable, even to the majority of the population of Minneapolis. So there. Also, anonymous comments in the VFDs are disregarded. You have to sign your name for it to count. DS 22:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) (oh, and delete)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Kuwik[edit]

vanity — J3ff 21:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 00:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Userfy or delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. Wyss 00:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. Brookie 08:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 00:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wylie Burp[edit]

Minor character from An American Tail sequel An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and TV series Fievel's American Tails. —tregoweth 21:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

This and the other American Tail characters below - merge all together into a single article about said movie. Radiant! 21:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge prefereably, or keep all of them Kappa 22:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A common approach is to merge minor characters into one article, without any VfD. Be bold. Mikkalai 22:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into single article. Megan1967 06:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur, collective merge of American Tail characters. Alba 13:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chula the Tarantula[edit]

Minor character from An American Tail sequel An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and TV series Fievel's American Tails. —tregoweth 21:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Miss Kitty[edit]

Minor character from An American Tail sequel An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and TV series Fievel's American Tails. —tregoweth 21:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to An American Tail Brookie 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 22:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mama Mousekewitz[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:53, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to An American Tail -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Papa Mousekewitz[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:53, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to An American Tail -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tanya Mousekewitz[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to An American Tail -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yasha Mousekewitz[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:57, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to An American Tail -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tiger (An American Tail character)[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re-direct to An American Tail. Georgia guy 22:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to An American Tail -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 21:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cat R. Waul[edit]

Character from the An American Tail films. —tregoweth 21:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sam Stinson[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 21:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Delete. Mikkalai 22:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete CDC (talk) 00:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #4 and 9, no context, platform for a link plus vanity... what else...? Wyss 00:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Brookie 08:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wkugg[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 21:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Mikkalai 22:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 00:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, campus announcement. Wyss 00:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Obaid[edit]

It is in the Urban Dictionary, but I can't find any other evidence of notability, and... well, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Philthecow 22:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Mikkalai 22:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense until someone puts the term in a cell phone ad or whatever. Wyss 00:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedical. Oleg Alexandrov 00:46, 16 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 21:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pandora Spocks[edit]

"Pandora Spocks" + "Forty Winks" (the comic she appears in) = 25 Google hits. —tregoweth 22:04, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, she's the heroine of the comic. Merge with Forty Winks if such an article is created. Kappa 22:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Wyss 00:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keepthe series has been praised repeatedly by pros in children lit. --AlainV 05:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sanuke okumatzu[edit]

Not notable, a character of an unnamed in the works manga. Thue | talk 22:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comment: if it is in the works, its possible this may become notable--AznEffects HuangDi 1968 23:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Delete. Mikkalai 22:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's like I wrote an article about my amateur-comic called The Jean Genie & Blue Jean (yes, names based on both David Bowie's songs!) --Neigel von Teighen 23:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cruft. Wyss 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Helen keller in jokes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a tasteless joke book. --Henrygb 22:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This could arguably be a speedy deletion candidate. User added similar (well, worse) garbage to Joseph Stalin. Everyking 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And to Jesus. I guess this is what he does when he's not doing stand-up comedy. Everyking 22:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep No, they are different users! --24.93.213.84 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) My vote was changed, this is unfair and I would like an arbitration because of vote-changing to delete this article. I would also like to see Henrygb blocked. This article fits wikipedia because there can be encyclopedic joke knowledge. This knowledge can be thought of in the same way as knowledge about Persia or Abstract Algebra. If this article is deleted then it is showing a sub-legal process to destroy information that might be helpful in thought, but has supposed deviance determined by a non-select group of wikiholics. The changing of votes can be thought of as the same way. There have been two of us who have had votes on us changed. This is unfair, we still have a say. If the opposition did not have a say, we would not have "Votes for Deletion". --24.93.213.84 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (1) Delete this article as completely and utterly unencyclopedic. (2) Nobody has ever been blocked just for nominating an article on VfD. There are no restrictions on what can and cannot be nominated here. (3) Calling people who frequent Wikipedia retards (as in your link) is flaming, which is not tolerated here. (4) A "sub-legal" process? Filtering the information in our articles is perfectly legal; there are no laws prohibiting us from doing with our website what we want, and we choose to include and exclude information based on what we collectively deem worthy to be in an encyclopedia. This process allows us to build an informative resource without being flooded with inane contributions that have no place in a work of reference (like this). — Ливай | ☺ 05:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Upholding Keep

(1) Delete this article as completely and utterly unencyclopedic.

First off, this provides no reason. You are just saying it does not belong on Wikipedia through no argument. It is not a point. Also, encyclopedia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "Embracing many subjects; comprehensive." By embracing many subjects, it means none are excluded. Thus, by this definition, argument (1) is proven false.

(2) Nobody has ever been blocked just for nominating an article on VfD. There are no restrictions on what can and cannot be nominated here.

My votes have been changed, you are assuming things that aren't true. Also, this is completely irrelevant to the arguments and voting

(3) Calling people who frequent Wikipedia retards (as in your link) is flaming, which is not tolerated here.

Aside from being completely irrelevant, you should enjoy some humor in a conflicting situations. Americans make fun of themselves as stereotypes, so do some Wikiholics or Wikipedians. Even Helen Keller did. Also, this is not vandalism or "flaming," as you call it. In here we can make points and the points are even better if they are right or can't be disproven. Also, to use this as an argument is Argumentum ad Hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

(4) A "sub-legal" process? Filtering the information in our articles is perfectly legal; there are no laws prohibiting us from doing with our website what we want, and we choose to include and exclude information based on what we collectively deem worthy to be in an encyclopedia. This process allows us to build an informative resource without being flooded with inane contributions that have no place in a work of reference (like this).

Please note that referring to forensic or legal does not imply anything about American law. I was talking about a process, in the place of conflict, which is used to destroy information while upholding certain integrities and rules, which make a legal process. This is a partition in this legal process. Also, by the earlier definition of encyclopedic, this work is encyclopedic. Would you like me to look up informative to give you an idea of what it means? This article gives information, to Wikipedians. By your logic, I chose to include the article because it is based on what some deem to be worthy to be in an encyclopedia. Your logic is faulty, proving me right No hard feelings? --24.93.213.84 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I'm really not going to nit-pick this issue since in the end, all the votes that count (yours doesn't count because you have not registered an account) have been to delete, and there is no way this article is being kept. For the record, no reason has to be given why something is unencyclopedic for a vote to count. It seems pretty obviously not appropriate for a reference work according to everyone else so I don't really feel the need to explain myself. Just because something counts as information doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone on here (I don't remember who exactly) once made the analogy of Wikipedia as an organism: we must take in food (information) and build the useful parts of that food into the bulk of the organism while excreting that which doesn't contribute to the overall health of the organism. In our case, this means deleting that information which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We get a lot of articles which are clearly factual in nature but the subject matter is not notable enough or appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is not just some collection of every piece of information we can possibly find. No hard feelings, but I won't continue to debate this issue any further as VfD is cluttered up as it is and none of this is going to change the fate of the article. — Ливай | ☺ 01:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete WLD 22:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Mikkalai 22:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are we being censored now? This item is very encyclopedic, it embraces a subject usually not embraced. What about taboo articles like condom or Jew, should we delete those? That's very prejudice, Mr. Etitis. --24.93.213.84 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Spinboy 23:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Obvious Delete Lan3y - Talk 23:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What Henrygb said. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Antandrus 23:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just not appropriate Bratsche 23:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 00:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 00:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Article may be useful to youths as an example of uncouth harassment. Note: This is the 3rd time I've had to vote, as my first two were deleted. This is not fair. 20:14, 13 Feb 2005
- Yes, he or she should have a vote, regardless of past vandalism to the page. Everyking 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I disagree. No anonymous user should have a vote. — Ливай | ☺ 05:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Where does it say that? All people that know how to edit and use Wikipedia should be given "voting rights". If not, then it would be considered elitist; and judging from your views on anarcho-communism in your user page, there should be no rigid class structure where it is not needed. Also, he/she isn't really anonymous because everybody who can connect to the internet has an IP address. --24.93.213.84 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment: Because of serious problems in the past with people attempting to use sockpuppets to "stuff the ballot box", we have established a fairly firm rule on this page that the votes of anonymous users and very new users are subject to steep discounting by the admin who finally makes the decision. However, any facts you can add to the discussion are welcome and will be considered by the community. To whoever has been blanking the anonymous votes, PLEASE STOP. Trust that the deciding admin will investigate them and weight them appropriately. Marking suspicious votes is a courtesy but erasing comments just confuses the discussion thread and incites unnecessary confrontation. To the anon who was tampering with other people's votes, stop that too. What you did is immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the edit history. It seriously prejudices the case against you. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Allowing anonymous users to vote would create a few problems: firstly, an IP address does not identify a user uniquely -- some people's ISP does not give them the same IP every time they log onto the Internet, for example. Or a logged-in user could log out and get a second vote signed with their IP. Or somebody could vote five times at five of their friends' houses. Getting an account only takes a minute and is free. You don't even need to give out your name or email or anything, so in theory everybody is equally entitled to a vote, although it helps a lot to have a history of helpful contributions attributed to your account. While not strictly necessary, it lets people know you're not a sock puppet, plus it helps to have experience in Wikipedia community so you get a good feel for what is and isn't encyclopedic before voting on Votes for Deletion. — Ливай | ☺ 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Ливай, please read Rossami's very considered statement (scroll down a bit) of what VfD is about. Anonymous users are explicitly allowed to participate in the discussion, and it is the discussion that is the point, not the votes. If the anonymous votes are suspicious, it is the admin's job to not consider them.

Delete the article. Not notable enough for a whole article. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. However, this was a real category of joke that experienced a vogue circa, um, (counting on figures... age of kids... grade they were in when they came home with these kneeslappers...) the mid-1980s. Or maybe it's long been popular among fifth-graders. When I was in junior high school there was a fad for what were called "sick jokes" of this kind; I don't remember a Helen Keller subcategory but it probably evolved over time. I would love to think that all the delete votes are because these jokes have gone out of style and are no longer familiar. Do we have an article tracing the rise and fall of categories of jokes? We should, and this category should be mentioned. Do people still tell "elephant jokes?" (Q: How do you put six elephants in a Volkswagen? A. Three in front, three in back. Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming over the hill? A: "Here come the elephants over the hill.") Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete as tasteless, unfunny and unencyclopedic. If someone wants to move this to the Jokebook, it'll have its day at the Wikibooks VfD. Szyslak 02:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Brim 05:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - tasteless jokes, probably also meant as derogatory - Skysmith 11:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Shanes 23:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is probably someone just trolling, trying to see if Wikipedia will discredit itself by accepting it. Wikipedia isn't a joke book. Wikipedia is not a primary source for jokes or anything else. But I agree with Dpbsmith that a history of fashions in jokes would be encyclopedic and "sick jokes" would merit some discussion, which might include some examples. --BM 01:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kaldari 01:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 17:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Kjoonlee 03:38, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
Delete - sick nonsense --Brookie 19:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete — no potential to become encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a jokebook. However, as I understand it, anonymous users do have the right to vote; no one should be removing their votes. If the user has done something questionable or not signed the vote, one may add a comment; or, if the user has added irrelevant material, like complex voting schemes, one may ~~strike~~ the extra material—but it should normally not be removed. Administrators traditionally give little importance to anonymous votes due to the problems mentioned above, but anonymous users still have a voice here. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGED. dbenbenn | talk 21:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bun huggers[edit]

Not notable, and unencyclopedic. Spinboy 23:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trivial construction, not encyclopedic, unhelpful. Wyss 00:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there somewhere to redirect this? Specific articles of clothing can be encyclopedic, though this is not. Meelar (talk) 02:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT shorts takes a few seconds. VfD takes five days voting time, plus more processing time for the sysop who handles the results. Be bold. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I strongly oppose redirecting things like that without merging the content. Shorts" doesn't say anything specifically about "bun huggers" so anyone who typed that in will be either confused or disappointed. Kappa 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then why don't you add the specifc part to the article it's re-directed to? Are you not capable? --Spinboy 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Well I've just done that, and expanded with some google results, but if it was redirected without coming to VfD I wouldn't have known about it. Kappa 06:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Shorts. Returns 9,000+ Google hits. Megan1967 06:11, 14 Feb 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 list at WP:CP.

Rock on[edit]

Copyvio. Text copied from everything2. Lan3y - Talk 23:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If it's a copyvio, list it as a copyvio. Spinboy 23:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the listing. Thanks. Lan3y - Talk 23:31, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Listed properly as a copyvio --BesigedB ^(talk) 23:37, 13 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geek Stink Breath[edit]

This is not an encyclopaedia article. --Neigel von Teighen 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Sure it is. Rhobite 23:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Insomniac (album). We don't have stubs on every single song by every single artist. Is this song notable for some other reason? — Asbestos | Talk 23:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We should. Rhobite 23:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  - No reason not to--The_stuart 21:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - ... for singles. As this was successful on the singles chart, it is reasonable to say it has notability separate from the album which it also featured on. Keep. TSP 15:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(note: fixed up a bit since nomination) Keep or merge with Insomniac (album), and it would be great to have articles on every hit single and otherwise popular song Kappa 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable song. Megan1967 00:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. #16 on the British charts scrapes in IMO. Andrewa 00:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the band is encyclopedic, the song is not. Wyss 00:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Question for delete voters: What would be wrong with merging this content with the album page? Kappa 06:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to album page. Nateji77 14:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is enough info here to stand alone. If not kept, should be merged with Insomnia Capitalistroadster 15:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP This is just as article worthy as any other song with an article. The song, while not reaching high on the charts, has become a radio standard on many "alternative" radio stations. --The_stuart 21:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, fits in with all the other song articles. Xezbeth 22:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Methinks this should go under WikiProject Albums if the song was released as a single. Or merge with the album that it was released in. --Andylkl 07:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. From what I understand, if the article is a substub, then it gets redirected to the album, but in this case, it's not. --Viriditas | Talk 21:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:29, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yahf[edit]

WPIN a web guide. Wolfman 23:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete. Mikkalai 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. This would once have been a speedy, but we seem to interpret the rules a bit more strictly these days. Andrewa 00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it could be a speedy, it's a platform for a link. Wyss 00:44, 14 Feb 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 listed on WP:CP. Joyous 18:27, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Stranger in Us All[edit]

I haven't the faintest clue what this article is on about. Possible some of it could be salvaged and merged into Ritchie Blackmore, but I have no idea what. — Asbestos | Talk 23:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have CSD'ed. It's unacceptable. --Neigel von Teighen 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trivial, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 23:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Any album by Blackmore is notable. Andrewa 00:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the tale of ranting geezers. Wyss 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The formatting on this is definitely not wikipedia (I'm not sure it's worth trying ot fix). A lot of it is opinion, making this an essay. I'd say merge to Ritchie Blackmore (which could use the addition) if anyone is willing to do the work of reading this article. RJFJR 01:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Always ... always ... always check for copyright infringement first, before listing on VFD, especially if the article has at the bottom a hyperlink to the web site where the original article was published, as this one did. Listed at WP:CP. Uncle G 08:23, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. To be fair, I had assumed copyright, but copying-and-pasting the text into Google still finds nothing. The epinions text must not be searched, or something. The link at the bottom of the page wasn't the page the review is directly from either. Anyway, should have looked harder. — Asbestos | Talk 17:55, 14 Feb 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.