Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17[edit]

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Salvi[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. If anything, belongs on list of ethnic slurs. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it exists, it should be on the list of ethnic slurs, but I suspect its made up. either way the page is useless --Cynical 13:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sure smells made up to me... or, if not, then VERY obscure, as the Google results are rather vague. Master Thief Garrett 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stancel 17:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dabur[edit]

Looks like advertising spam. None of the information is particularly encyclopedic. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:18, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The fourth largest FMCG company in India. I have wikified a bit, and article no longer looks like advertising spam. utcursch | talk 05:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and thank Utcursch for the cleanup. Kappa 06:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable company, now a good stub. --the wub (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not a advertising spam . One should go to the Middle East and India to see the market span of the company .
  • Keep Original article warranted removing, but now revised and worth keeping. Sgkay 10:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it is such a massive, notable company it should be worth more than two sentences. The fact that it isn't proves its non-notable status. --Cynical 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just go to www.dabur.com and see wether its a notable company or not .
Last entry by Guptadeepak at 16:25, 17 May 2005
  • Keep, notable. Eixo 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, and at its current state after cleanup, certainly it can be kept. Should be expanded though. --Ragib 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. There are many articles on here about companies, so why delete this article and keep the others? The content needs to be improved, but I think the topic belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, companies with a turnover of $300M are notable. Googling on "Dabur India" returns 35k pages, of which the first 20 refer to this company. -- Jitse Niesen 22:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep big company. needs to be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, I've never heard of them, but is that really a surprise? Kelly Martin 00:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and to be developed suitably by persons who may be aware of such things. As regards the size of the article - several articles were stubs - A P J Abdul Kalam, the present president of India was hardly 40 words, Dhirubhai Ambani who laid foundation for the largest industrial house in India (when he died 2 years before it was worth 12 bn US$) was less than 60 words, and the last week's WP:COTW, Culture of Ancient Rome was less than 100 words. As such, size of Dabur in words should not determine one's vote to keep or delete. As regards "not notable" and "advert" - after a level, a corporate house rises above these levels and sets its own standard, and is not dependent on wikepedia for notability and advertisement: do anyone feels that an article on Bill Gates and Microsoft would be vanity / advertisement and so on. Dabur is a corporate house, which does not require an article on wikepedia to promote itself - it is in existence for about 100 years and the medicines it produces and sells have been in India for several thousand years. Before any vote for deletion, one should please understand wikepedia's guideleins in this respect and not vote for deletion without any familiarity with the topic. We all are here to make wikepedia "sum total of human knowledge" and not to reduce it. I am sorry for the lecture. --Bhadani 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think people marked it for vfd not for any prejudice, because it sounded just like an advert in its first draft. The edits following that have improved it to its current state, which is good, but in its first few drafts, it really looked like an ad. --Ragib 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In view of your comments, I have removed certain portions of my earlier comments. Thanks.--Bhadani 03:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I don't know what do people mean to say by calling the first few articles on Dabur an Ad . Even the present revised article looks like an AD in that case ,just that it is a bit more informative . Think people love to argue on this site . --IncMan 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look, sometimes, my strong reactions to some issues upset the puople around, they upset me equally - today, I was feeling bad for a greater part of the day. I promise to be more careful in my comments and reactions. Now, coming to the present issue, yes, Dabur may be a good topic for an article, but the present contents do require modifications: actually, I am not able to plan on this topic otherwise I would have attempted to do this myself, as earlier, I had done with a few articles under VfD like Awasthi, RURAL MARKETS and Family traditions. In any case, I am sorry for my strong reactions. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Greenhaven Drive[edit]

  • Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers?? I say this article should be deleted if no one can prove that this road merits an article. Georgia guy 00:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete' Utterly non-notable and completely unencyclopedic as written, and doesn't even make sense as we are told that "Greenhaven Drive" ends at "Greenhaven Drive", which seems at best solipsistic and at worst just plain wrong. Apparently from just someone who wants their street to have an encyclopedia article. Rlquall 02:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most local roads are not encyclopedically notable. Quale 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. JeremyA 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers??" Yes. But this is just a suburban arterial, one of thousands of boring roads. Delete unless expanded to include historic details, or merged into an article about the suburb (as it is a road of decent importance in the context of the suburb). --SPUI (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable road. utcursch | talk 06:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article gives no impression that this road is of any notability whatsoever. Average Earthman 09:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and the article is so poor it would qualify anyway --Cynical 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steamroll all non-notable roads. Master Thief Garrett 15:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with jackhammer. Most local roads are not encyclopedically notable, and the article gives no impression that this road is of any notability whatsoever. Probably road-vanity. (Otherwise why is the substub present?) Perhaps the road ends at itself because it has a P shape? If it's just a cul-de-sac then the article sounds bot-like. 205.247.102.130 18:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's been a lot of debate on roads of late, but I think even the hardliners for keeping roads would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep this one. -R. fiend 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live in the Sacramento area, and although I know of this road, it isn't even notable around here. But where are all of the "keep it because it's verifiable" crowd? RickK 22:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Real road, information is verifiable. (You rang?) Klonimus 02:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it notable? THAT is the key. This isn't exactly the Appian Way, which I would *still* consider deleting if it wasn't comprised of material that is--verifiability be damned--USEFUL. Master Thief Garrett 03:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd normally say to merge with Sacramento but there really isn't any content here to merge, so delete. Kelly Martin 00:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and mention in Sacramento. From the map it does appear to be part of a long corridor, possibly a historically significant road, but the article doesn't have any details. Gazpacho 02:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Saddleback_High[edit]

Vanity page

  • Weak keep. Could be expanded into viable article, given time and interest, although certainly somewhat unencyclopedic as currently written. Rlquall 02:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three-day-old high school stub. Reasonable for now. Give it time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the article were expanded, the subject would still be non-notable. I'm sure you could write a very long article on Greenhaven Drive, but it wouldn't be notable either. Notability flows from the unique and important details of the subject, not the logorrhea used to describe mundane trivia. Quale 04:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. --Unfocused 05:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Agree with Quale. --bainer 05:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Kappa 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Santa Ana, California and delete - Skysmith 08:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as recommended by Skysmith. Too granular a level of detail for a separate article. Average Earthman 09:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A phonebook entry, oh how useful indeed. The pinnacle of Schoolwatch usefulness [sic]. Merge and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 11:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- doesn't give any facts that are wikipedia-worthy --Cynical 13:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Neutralitytalk 13:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - has potential. Lupin 14:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a school, it's a phonebook listing. I could search-n-replace it with McDonald's and it would look exactly the same. Master Thief Garrett 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your point of view here is real shallow. Sure, at this moment, this article is not up to the best of standards, but does that really qualify it to be deleted? Instead of giving up on all these school articles, they should at least be available to be improved in the future. --Howrealisreal 15:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably it *is* broad and shallow at this time of night, but the problem is it will sit as a stub for the rest of eternity. And, if someone *did* come to add it, doubtless they'd say "oh, my school won't be here at all, so I'll start Saddleback High School" and no-one will ever deal with *this* stub. If someone wants to recreate it with valid content that's another story. If you see what I mean... hmmm, at this time of night I don't even know if *I* see what I mean... Master Thief Garrett 16:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no potential for growth into noteworthyness. --InShaneee 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 14:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as stub. High school articles can be very successful (like this one). It should be judged by its potential, not by its current standard. Eixo 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district, or else *keep. — RJH 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Saddleback High School and expand. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:41, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with Santa Ana, California; does not meet my standalone school article criterion. Kelly Martin 00:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make room for extra servings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Santa Ana, or an article on the relevant school district, unless it can be expanded beyond the one sentence substub that it is (the contact info doesn't count as true content). Stop the dogma, people. Whether or not schools are or can be notable has nothing to do with what the insubstantial content of this article is. I challenge anyone voting an unqualified keep to put your money where your mouth is and expand the damn thing. Postdlf 01:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What ever happened to "Don't bite the newcomers"? This was the first new article of a new user who has made a number of decent edits and we are VfD'ing his first article before it has been a stub for four days. What a friendly bunch we are! DS1953 03:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than saying anything in my own words, I will instead quote from the great Shigeru Miyamoto: "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." The same could easily be applied to Wikipedia articles. If an article up for Vfd has potential for expansion and/or is expanded during the course of the Vfd, people vote to keep it. If it can never ever ever be improved in the eyes of the Vfders, it should go. Leaving it to stagnate just to cushion newcomers isn't going to help anyone. And, as an aside, a large percentage of Vfd articles are put up the second they are created, and in this case they are almost always by anon IPs and new users. Master Thief Garrett 05:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. If the article is kept, the name needs to be changed to the formal name of the school. Vegaswikian 05:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable phonebook entry of a school. Should I make phonebook entries at Wikipedia of the 4 schools near where I live? Sarg 14:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC). Changing vote to Keep after recent changes. But still needs some more work. I don't believe in "organic growth". Perhaps we should create "inorganic growth". Sarg 06:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, all stubs on valid topics are useful contributions. CalJW 18:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I won't do it, that is quite absurd, since I don't think they would be "valid". Sarg 22:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. - SimonP 02:38, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a high-school directory. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want to write a school article, write some useful content! Harro5 10:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless article. Grue 16:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Time wasting nomination. CalJW 18:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and note that needs to be improved--AYArktos 21:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:15, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow it to expand for this has the potential to be encyclopedic. -dozenist 05:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per all schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is important and encyclopedic Yuckfoo 18:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In its current form, this article has a BEEFSTEW score of 7. By allowing the natural organic growth process to take its course, there is no doubt in my mind this school can achieve a perfect 10. --Bahn Mi 20:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep for now as it is evidence in an arbitration, should probably be dumped when that process is finished. - SimonP 02:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty[edit]

Utter, utter bullshit. Neutralitytalk 01:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted 'delete', but I'd like it kept around for the duration of the ArbCom case. If it gets "delete", please don't delete straight away but mark it as to be deleted at the end of the case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An archive, meaning "a preserved page that is impossible to edit" and with a notice saying that this policy is just a "bill" and is not official. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this particular page worthy of such protection and preservation? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to edit it? Gamaliel 03:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it a "bill"? How come all stupid policies are always male? - Tεxτurε 14:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bill is a proposal that has not yet (or ever will be, as is the case here) been turned into a policy or law. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying hard to ignore sexist and idiotic comment.... → JarlaxleArtemis 01:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • As someone who has informally been the victim of the Wikipedia death penalty, I say keep it, for no other reason than as a useful insight into community behavior/mentality. Everyking 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not comprehensive enough policy proposal. El_C 03:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Heathcliff 03:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to meta where humor pages have a place. Snowspinner 03:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say keep and mark as deprecated, as is usual for rejected policy proposals...but the evidence of bad faith gives me pause. I vote meh, for now. It certainly won't be missed if deleted. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only after applying it to the originator. --Carnildo 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created to prove a point - disruption. Megan1967 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Please see Netoholic's vote above, and follow his links. The page is a personal attack on Netoholic—the surrounding circumstances make it equivalent to a kick in the teeth. Everyking, do you really not see it? --Bishonen | talk 05:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Protect as evidence in arbcom Delete and Speedily this is the opposite of the inclusive spirit we should have - no contributor - no matter how much we disagree should be devalued as this proposal suggests, unless properly banned through arb policy. Trödel|talk 05:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • execute dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Bishonen. --bainer 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. utcursch | talk 06:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More LevelCheck nonsense. What a surprise. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, WP:POINT. Radiant_* 07:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as bad policy. Martg76 08:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely ridiculous. --Zero 08:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bad whining joke, personal attack, rubbish "policy" - Skysmith 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page says utilized in cases in which a user's behavior is not egregious enough to warrant an official block or ban by administrators, but is strongly opposed by the Wikipedia community as a whole. I am reminded of the tale that in one US state the first person to be executed by electrocution had installed the electric chair for the state government a few months earlier. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is what the arbitration committee is for. Dunc|☺ 12:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, biggest load of complete crap I have read in my life --Cynical 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the user proposing this has given it a ridiculous name does not provide a reason to delete it. It provides a reason to edit and rename it. It is (or at least appears to be) a rational and reasonable proposal for dealing with a serious problem. I do not support the proposed policy, and object to the stupid name suggested for it, but I fully support the right of uses to put forward policy ideas without censorship. Rename the article and let the proposal die a ... er ... natural death. Tannin 13:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) PS: Having examined the user's edit history, I now understand the rush to delete this entry, and am tempted to change my vote. But emotion is not logic and the reasons I just provided remain good. BTW, there is a very strong case for sanctioning this user for past behaviour (I myself will certainly block him if he repeats it), but this is an entirely seperate matter. Tannin 13:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very, very odd idea for policy, and if ever implemented would go against just abouut every Wikipedia policy there is. On the other hand I don't like to delete failed policy proposals. Keep for the history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proteus (Talk) 14:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Kbdank71 14:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I normally think it's wrong to delete a failed proposal, not only is this 180 degrees of basic wikipedia policy, but it seems to be a blatant attack against Netoholic. --InShaneee 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what IS this crap?!? It could be taken very, very wrongly. And, yes, seems to be made with a specific agenda in mind... Master Thief Garrett 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't use, or further edit into silliness (I like the suggestion about silly hats). As I noted on the talk page, this is very close to the old method for dealing with troublesome logged-in users: see m:Bans and blocks/old#Soft bans aka Rainclouds. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Policy proposals made in good faith but rejected should be kept. This is not one, and I see no good to come of even letting this stick around in record. We have enough ways of alienating community members already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then at least keep until the current arbitration on LevelCheck is over. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's acceptable, but can it then be moved to some evidence subpage or something so no one is under the impression that this is being considered as Wikipedia policy? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no need, the Arbitrators will have access to the deleted page. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • Good point, but arbcom evidence should be transparent--that is, it should be visible to everyone. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riddle. I'm smelly, hide under a bridge and dislike goats especially. What am I? JRM · Talk 15:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Well you ain't the ruddy icecream man! (and anyone who can't give the real answer to this question is either very foreign or failed Childhood Reading 100). Master Thief Garrett 15:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only possible justification is humor and this is nonfunny. --Michael Snow 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More disruption from a disruptive source. Postdlf 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete with a silly hat. Probably should move to a publicly transparent evidence page during the arbitration. Barno 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Neutrality said it best: Utter, utter bullshit. With silly hats. Delete with extreme prejudice. But I must say, I am deriving a particular bit of entertainment watching the community eviscerate this guy. His "death penalty" of netoholic is hilarious. What a buffoon. Golbez 20:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it a lot ➥the Epopt 20:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The author's initiative is something to be encouraged, but this is not a very constructive proposal. – ClockworkSoul 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has to be the most beautiful piece of understatement I've ever read in Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 05:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is fairly obvious that is meant to be disruptive. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - David Gerard 22:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not BJAODN. Obvious attempt at disruption. --cesarb 00:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter garbage. --Canderson7 01:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is evidence of trolling by LevelCheck, but it has already been submitted for his arbitration case, I gather, so we can just kill it. Don't get me wrong: I do think that Netoholic did some instant reversions and the like and disenguously called it "Be Bold," but he was never as mindlessly petty as this is. It's not a joke, not funny, not just, and not tolerable. Geogre 02:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd like to keep it around for the AC case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If it is the same as a hard ban, why this new policy? Seems redundant with a silly name. I think a hard ban would do the same with less effort. Comatose51 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by hanging, drawing and quartering. Actually, banned by community consensus is already policy. Sjakkalle 08:48, 18 May 2005 UTC)
  • Strong keep and mark notpolicy. Don't destroy arbcom evidence please. Also agree with Tony Sidaway to keep rejected policies as history. Finally, VFD is not a policy vote page. :-) Kim Bruning 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- when finished with it. - Longhair | Talk 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. This is not a policy and therefore belongs at Wikipedia Death Penalty. This is really the way that some people view process here and is a valid article on social perception of the Wikipedia. The fact that not everyone agrees such a phenomenon is "real" is not relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC) 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean that this is not a Wikipedia project and that it applies to the "real world." → JarlaxleArtemis 02:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Do not move - That would make this "real world" article an original research and not regarding an existing concept such as Usenet Death Penalty since it (a Wikipedia version) does not exist. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pefect reason for moving it. Since it's not a WP policy, it can go into the article space. Then we can bring it up for vfd again as original research. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew you had such a diabolical streak in you... but yes that would get rid of it. hehehe... Master Thief GarrettTalk 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If you don't like Wikipedia, go back to your goatse. That's my two cents. Harro5 10:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either pityful attempt at humour (not even remotely funny), or just plainly neurotic. Utterly useless in any case. Rama 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Carson nimmo[edit]

vfd added by User: Samw, who did not create a subpage or give any explanation. Doesn't look notable though - possibly a vanity. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He hopes to run "2 flat." He's a HS runner. He is not yet a notable figure. Plus, there's Geogre's Rule ("If the last name starts in lower case, the article's bound to have problems"). Geogre 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speculative. Gazpacho 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculative vanity. Kelly Martin 00:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed above, unless something comes forward that is this individual's unique and interesting claim to fame. Which is unlikely. Mr Bound 01:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus, unquestionably should be confined to only "notable" victims. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Holocaust victims[edit]

This would seem to be a rather ambitious list. - BanyanTree 02:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Six million people? Yeah, that list is gonna be complete. Delete. Mike H 02:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • There were definitely more than six million people killed in the Holocaust..try 16 million Stancel 01:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." No kidding. Delete. Eric119 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I'd like to see this.... this article would be finished sometime in the next century. Delete. --Chanting Fox 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it is never complete, it will still be a list of Holocaust victims. And who knows perhaps it will be completed eventually. If there were only ten victims wouldn't we keep it? Does the fact that there are millions make it less worthy of keeping or more?--Heathcliff 03:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose changing the title of this article to List of famous Holocaust victims because then we'd have fights over who was famous enough to be listed among the Holocaust victims and that would just be sad. If the name is changed, change my vote to delete.--Heathcliff 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably strike out your vote above, then. In any case, if you apply the simple criterion of only listing those people with Wikipedia articles, then you've got a simple yardstick right there. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote is still keep (as it is). My vote only changes to delete if the title is changed to List of notable Holocaust victims. However, I don't mind changing the title to List of Holocaust victims with articles on Wikipedia which is why I suggested it as a compromise further down. I don't think that we should call it list of List of notable Holocaust victims and say that inclusion in Wikipedia is the test for inclusion because without it clearly spelled out in the articles title it will be imposible to enforce the standard.--Heathcliff 12:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a tad ambitious. Seems to me this would be better off in m:Wikimorial, if it ever starts, or its own Wiki. android↔talk 03:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that the list (like many others on Wikipedia) will be limited to notable cases. -- BD2412 thimkact 03:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a good alternative to deletion, though a rename would be in order to reflect the fact that it isn't a complete list. android↔talk 03:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily, if the condition is spelled out atop the page. See List of slave owners. -- BD2412 thimkact 04:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • The criteria on that page is "This list includes notable individuals for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership." The first part of which "This list includes notable individuals" merely restates what the title of article already says, and the second of which "for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership" results as a natural consequence of the Wikipedia process (in there's no conscenss it's probally going to be edited out.) If the standard "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia" was put at the top of the page it would likely be ignored or even more likely edited out by those who did not like the standard. That is, the question of what the standard is will be left to future editors if it is not in the title. Which is no different than changing the name to "List of Holocaust victims" and not adding a standard to the top of the page.--Heathcliff 12:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifying every entry on a list this large would be an endless task, and it would never be accurate. I'm not even talking about completeness. I mean the list would contain entries that are wrong, and WP would not be able fix them. False information that can't be fixed is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If this information is desired, create a category for it and use it on the bio pages of notable victims. Quale 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Well thought out and well said. I was going to vote keep until I read this, but this is the way to go. Andrewa 06:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather have the link changed to List of famous Holocaust victimsSYSS Mouse 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons listed by Quale. JeremyA 04:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be list of notable Holocaust victims.Keep and rename. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer doing this, and keeping. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless all the Holocaust Victims are mentioned .
an attempt at a complete list of holocaust victims and survivors, rather than simply the notable individuals amongst them, sounds like it belongs in wikisource. Nateji77 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but ONLY if changed to "List of notable Holocaust victims". Wikipedia is not paper, but attempting to list 60 million people simply is unattainable. However a list of famous people who died in the Holocaust would be of interest. Perhaps this might work better as a category. Question: assuming that Holocaust victims were primarily Jewish, what's a Catholic saint doing listed here? I think an introduction needs to be added to explain this for those who think only Jews died in the Holocaust. 23skidoo 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
either you're off by an order of magnitude, or the article at The Holocaust is. it says 6 million (admittedly, still a lot, but look at pi entries in wikisource). Nateji77 13:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- no way to ensure that it is accurate (exact number of Holocaust victims is not known, and varies wildly between sources). Creating a list of 'notable' Holocaust victims would be abhorrent- it would imply that some victims were more important (ie others deserved to die more) just because of their 'celebrity' status--Cynical 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with above that a article named "notable Holocaust victims" is a bad idea. However, a category for Holocaust Victims would serve the same purpouse and not have any ugly connotations (if a bio exists, it's pretty obvious and verifiable if it belongs) same logic should probably apply to other possible "lists" (9/11 victims, WWII Veterans, etc.) 66.94.94.154 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, then we need a Cat Holocaust victems. Klonimus 02:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Radiant_* 14:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete When Stalin said a million deaths is a statistic, I don't think this is what he meant. Extremely difficult to verify, problematic notability (the event was notable, does that mean every person involved was?) --InShaneee 14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noble as the idea is, I think we'd be stepping on a landmine on this one. I don't see a problem with a list of notable victims, but an outright list is best left to other organizations that can do a better job of it. --Mitsukai 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, on of the things that Wikipedia Is Not is a memorial site. We have Wikimemorial for lists of this nature (all the 9/11 victims, e.g.), and we must reject, out of hand and a priori, any eulogy/elegy. Secondly, because the list is impossible to verify, the list fails on that score. Third, because the list cannot be completed, any inclusion is inherently POV (e.g. the list may bias toward ethnic victims as opposed to political ones, or sexual ones opposed to nationalist ones). The main reason, however, is simply that we are not a memorial. Geogre 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. I think the word 'notable' is unfortunate - weren't they all? 'Famous' is much more neutral. The criterion for inclusion is simple: if someone has a Wikipedia entry (or should have one), they ought to be included, otherwise not. Eixo 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial; the existing Category:Holocaust victims and subcategories should suffice for those victims that otherwise merit an article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stancel 19:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. -R. fiend 20:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list of famous holocaust victims in conjunction with the above-mentioned categories. Only mention people who'd be famous/notable enough for an article of their own. Mgm|(talk) 21:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate into smaller lists: Dutch Holocaust victims, German Holocaust victims, French, Danish, Polish, etc. One massive list of all Holocaust victims would be impossible and unworkable. Aecis 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Attempting to determine who "deserves" to be on this list is POV. RickK 22:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it POV trying to determine who deserves to be on Wikipedia? Eixo 23:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is POV if you deem some Holocaust victims notable and therefore Wikipediable and others unnotable and therefore not Wikipediable. There should be no distinguishing between notable Holocaust victims and unnotable Holocaust victims. If you make a list of Holocaust victims, you should include all Holocaust victims. And if some Holocaust victims are indeed notable, they should be on Wikipedia because they're notable, not because they're notable Holocaust victims. Aecis 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly why I made the point that the word 'notable' should be avoided in the namespace; because it might seem offensive. However, there are already criteria in Wikipedia on who are notable and who are not, and there are innumerable lists based on these criteria. There is no reason why information on well-known people who were killed by the Nazis during the war should be suppressed. Eixo 03:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, if a person has -- and deserves -- an article on Wikipedia then they're a priori notable --Calton | Talk 04:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly. Eixo 05:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not maintainable; Wikipedia is not a memorial --Carnildo 23:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am tired of seeing lists which cover such large scopes of mostly uninteresting things or people that will almost certainly never been completed. Kelly Martin 00:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yad Vashem is compliling such a list. We should have one also. Klonimus 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maintainable as long as we limit it to victims notable for other reasons than being murder victims. I don't think the creators intended this to be a list of 6 million + names. Perhaps a retitling, per MacGyverMagic, is in order. Sjakkalle 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as list of notable victims, i.e. only include those who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Darksun 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another un-maintainable list. If you want to group all people who were Holocaust victims and have a Wikipedia page about them, that's what Categories are for. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose having an aticle called "List of notable Holocaust victims". As someone else said they are all notable. I also think it would lead to very sensitive disputes over who was notable and who was not. So I propose that if the list is kept but the name is changed that it should be change to "List of Holocaust victims with articles in Wikipedia", and that it should provide links to all of those articles.--Heathcliff 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With all due respect, I think this discussion is getting silly. There's a page called List of Norwegians. This is not a list of all 4,5 million of them. This was never meant to be a list of all 4,5 million of them! It's implicit in the title that the list only covers notable individuals. As I said, the word 'notable' ought to be avoided, but apart from that the list is completely viable. Eixo 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With its current title, it's by definition a list that is impractical to the extreme. Change to List of notable Holocaust victims -- and no, I don't buy for one second the claim that attaching a notability limitation would give rise to unresolvable disputes, because the criterion should be simple - whether the person has an article on Wikipedia. What WOULD give rise to disputes would be restricting entry to those who have articles on Wikipedia BUT leaving the title alone, since that would likely confuse new editors trying to add names and leave others with the unpleasant chore of deleting the names of some user's grandmother or great-uncle who fail to met the non-explicit criterion. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep if limited to notable figures. Delete otherwise. Gamaliel 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Sholtar 04:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A noble aim, but this would be a project that would be impossible to verify and maintain. Harro5 10:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't belong here even if it was possible to Complete. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:45, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not viable. I have bad experience with such open-ended lists - they grow and grow and grow until they get unusable. Pavel Vozenilek 01:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but confine it to victims with and deserving of articles. - SimonP 02:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Colonization of Europa[edit]

Not encyclopedic. According to official policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not). "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Unless someone can provide a valid reason why this article merits inclusion, I think it should be deleted.--DannyZ

  • Delete. Agree. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Future history--Heathcliff 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation. Gazpacho 03:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic speculation. JeremyA 04:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Colonization of the outer solar system already covers this subject. No need to merge because there is no content on it yet. —Tokek 05:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic- if there was an actual plan for something like this (like NASA's plan to go to Mars eventually) then it would be worthwhile, but it isn't so it goes --Cynical 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokek. — RJH 16:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI completely agree with Tokek, user Drepanopulos, 17 May 2005
  • Redirect to something like Future colonization of space and expand, with discussion of the problems involved and potential solutions. RickK 22:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - " is something that might happen " ??? Yopohari 08:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no content to merge. I don't think a redirect is needed, but if one is created, it should point to the correct parent cited by Tokek. Barno 14:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In a few decades (would have been sooner if Nixon hadn't cut funding), we might conceivably need to split an article with a title such as RickK suggested (with most of the current content) from (Actual) Colonization of the outer solar system. In practice, I suspect the closest we'll come to "colonization" for centuries is the equivalent of workers on offshore oil-drilling rigs. I'm a science fiction fan, and realize that Interstellar colonization is a quite different and longer-term matter than Colonization of the outer solar system, so they probably shouldn't be combined into one "... of space" page. Barno 00:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, article substantially rewritten and deletion request withdrawn by nominator. - SimonP 02:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

D-Company[edit]

  • Delete: Baseless fictional company. Dawood Ibrahim is real, D-company is not a real company. Dawood's mob group is not a corporate entity for real. --Ragib 02:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this is true, by its very nature it is not verifiable. ESkog 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it is not a corporate entity, the gang is popularly known. However the article should say it is not a corporate entity. AnkA 03:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's true that D-Company is not a real company. But, the term is used by many Indian newspapers to describe Dawood and associates. Maybe redirect to Dawood Ibrahim. utcursch | talk 05:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usage of the term is verifiable on Google. —Tokek 05:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notorious Gang. Well known for terrorist activities in India 24.126.17.155
  • Keep I think the article shouldn't state D-Company as a corporate enterprise .Otherwise the facts given about D-Company and Dawood Ibrahim's operations seem to be true .
  • Delete it makes $50billion in one city? I smell **** --Cynical 13:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Dawood Ibrahim -- 152.78.254.131 13:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is worth some edition but must be kept . I know that the Hawala Buisness run by Dawood in Mumbai runs into billions of dollars and his buisness is often calledby the name D-Company . Dont know how true the article is though.User:Grubb
  • Delete, not verifiable. Radiant_* 14:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dawood's D-Company is verifiable. One can read several articles on it on doing a google search . Grubb
  • Keep The term is widely used in the media to refer to the terrorist Gang. King1 17:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - in this part of the world (India), this phrase is well known, but not all the related information about the activities.--Bhadani 18:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN, per AnkA. 203.198.237.30 07:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article, at least the version that I see now, does not say anything that is not well-known. Gangsters do not operate like legal businesses, so it is unreasonable to expect to see the same kind of documentary evidence for the existence of Dawood Ibrahim and his gang, as is available for the existence of, say, General Electric or IBM.
    • Note: Above vote left by Gandolf (talk • contribs) 17:34 20 May 2005 (UTC) --Ragib 18:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT — Whether or not content is perceived to be "well-known" adds little if anything to the merits of this discussion; in any event, organised crime commonly and increasingly does involve itself in legal business activity. 203.198.237.30 02:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Michael Spencer Medley[edit]

Vanity bio; not notable. Samw 03:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Horse paradox[edit]

The Horse Paradox page does not explain a real paradox, but rather lays out a smattering of word plays and jokes. However, if that assessment is wrong and it does have value in its discussion of logic, it might stay with a little cleanup help. Thus, I put it to a vote.

  • The first part was described to me in a discrete math course as the car paradox; it's a useful illustration of a logic "hole" in induction. The rest are just jokes and are not encyclopedic. Merge the first section into Mathematical induction or a related math page on common logic errors or suchlike. Keep and cleanup per Gazpacho and ESkog; that sounds like a better plan. android↔talk 03:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the first section, drop the rest. It's widely taught. Keeping it as a separate article allows it to be added to Category:Logical fallacies Gazpacho 03:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first section and remove the rest. Checking out the history, the original author only included that first part and others have added other random jokes involving horses. Just needs some cleanup - I was taught this very same analogy in a discrete math course. ESkog 03:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can show that this is a famous historical paradox in which case expand it to explain that.--Heathcliff 04:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is commonly told in math courses as a way of explaining need for care while applying induction. AnkA 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure whether "horse paradox" is the best name, but this is certainly a commonly used example. Isomorphic 04:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 04:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Common in mathematical community. Does not need any cleanup. Keep the entire article. 24.126.17.155 08:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--JiFish 10:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for an article of its own. perhaps it could be merged into an article about the mathematical theory, and used as an 'example' section. doesn't deserve an article to itself --Cynical 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. Radiant_* 15:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and cleanup per Gazpacho. If the same paradox is also known as the car paradox, create a redirect. Eixo 16:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Common enough example, but this shouldn't be its title (has anyone here ever heard it called this?). —msh210 18:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's equivocation, really. But I doubt anyone would look for it there. Gazpacho 20:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into mathematical induction. I agree that one paragraph is enough for this, in which case it shouldn't be a separate article. We can always spin it off later if it suddenly grows. Jitse Niesen 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jitse Niesen. --Unfocused 14:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the whole article, interesting and encyclopedic. Grue 16:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I already saw this somewhere. In any case this is a commonly taught example and is a very illustrative example of mathematical induction. I like all the variations, but I'm not sure how notable they are. I'm voting Keep anyway. Deco 00:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hydrophonica[edit]

Band with no recordings: does not meet the significance test for musical groups. Kelly Martin 03:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: 29 Google hits. A band they are, famous they are not. --Durin 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity. --bainer 12:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Cynical 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and to those people who think they can vote without signing, well, read the rules again. -- AlexR 22:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Struggling artists may wish to consider reading Wikipedia:Vanity page. — Dan Johnson 22:36, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


  • Keep, they are a struggling pair of young artists and need all the help that they can get

I have no real opinion on whether or not this page is deleted, even though I am one of the said members of this band. However, I want to say something to Kelly Martin, who started the deletion of this page. I read your definition of "Band", but I think you have band confused with "Notable Music Group". The difference is, a band is a group of performers that play music, no matter how many people know about them. I think that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for the deletion of band pages, because, obviously, if they aren't big (which we won't get, and are not hoping to) they don't matter, and, in response to you other comment on your profile, I think that you are the one being a dick.

The abovegoing anonymous editor has engaged in an extensive discussion of this article and my deletion policy for bands on my user talk page. It is perhaps vaguely relevant. Kelly Martin 22:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this band now has a garage band site and i would bet that they have mp3s on the way
The second Keep vote is from the same anonymous user, 159.191.12.26, as the first Keep vote. — Dan Johnson
      In a small comuinity news travels fast it probably was two difrent people in a library
  • No Opinion I have to say that me and my friends retract any previous insulting comments about kelly martin or any other wiki editor. I apoligize for any harm we may have done, and will post no further. However, I would like to ask one question, is the only acceptable music group to have a page on wikipedia a "notable" one under Kelly's definition?
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nadir[edit]

This is a dictionary definition only, and I don't see how it can be expanded to a proper encyclopedia article. Wikitionary already has an entry for this.--DannyZ 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep so astronomy articles can link to it. Gazpacho 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Has both astronomy and astrological articles linking to it so should be expanded to explain its significance in a science and longstanding body of belief respectively. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Valid topic. Megan1967 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but if there isn't much more to add, move content to Wiktionary, leaving only {{wi}} on the Wikipedia page. AFAIK that is the closest available approximation to a cross-wiki redirect. (If I'm wrong I'd love to hear it.) DanielCristofani 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong inasmuch as Wiktionary already has nadir, which has no need of this content, which answers the question posed on Talk:Nadir, which covers the word in three languages, and which also includes its use as a proper noun. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • When I said "move content to Wiktionary", I meant to add it to the Wiktionary article, not to replace what was already there. When I wrote my comment, the Wiktionary article looked like this and certainly could have used such an addition, which I notice you have performed since my comment. Anyway, when I said I would love to hear I was wrong, I meant I would love to hear that there was a smooth way to turn Wikipedia entries into redirects to Wiktionary entries. DanielCristofani 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that version of the page answered the question posed on Talk:Nadir and covered the word in three languages, as I said. I didn't "move content to Wiktionary". This article (until I rewrote it) didn't cover people named with the proper noun "Nadir" (a point that I obviously made too subtly) and didn't include any etymological information, so my additions of etymologies and proper noun senses to Wiktionary (with my hat on as a Wiktionarian whose attention was drawn to the article by this discussion) could not possibly have been moved content. As my edit history comment tells you, I added content from Webster 1913, not from Wikipedia. It has been my experiences that:
          • moving individual meanings from Wikipedia to Wiktionary is largely pointless — Wiktionary usually improves when Wiktionarians notice that an article needs cleanup or expansion. This very case is an example. I, with my Wiktionarian hat on, was prodded, by this debate, into looking at nadir, and noticed that it needed expansion, so I added some Webster 1913 content into it.
          • Wikipedia is generally bad at writing dictionary content — I've seen Wiktionary come up with better dictionary articles on words in a handful of days than Wikipedia was able to grow organically in years. Quite a lot of those turned up when we were cleaning out the 1200-or-so article backlog in the transwiki queue.
        • This was yet another case of Wikipedians saying "move to Wiktionary" meaning moving an individual meaning of a word into an existing Wiktionary article. (It has been said before.) And as I said, Wiktionary is simply not in need of such content. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
          • I am not concerned to deny most of this. When I said "such an addition", I did not mean necessarily an addition of content transferred from Wikipedia, but an addition that would convey the same information the Wikipedia article conveyed. My point has been that:
            • If a Wikipedia article can never be more than a dictionary definition, in some cases the best move is to turn it into a cross-reference to Wiktionary, rather than a redirect to some vaguely related Wikipedia article; and
            • before doing this, it would be wise to make sure the relevant Wiktionary article has all the information the Wikipedia article did.
          • Maybe I was not clear enough about this. In any case I seem to have elicited responses appropriate to something I was not trying to say. DanielCristofani 22:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there would be plenty of ways to expand this, such as how it is used in astronomy for starters. --bainer 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a dictionary definition of a term therefore it belongs on Wiktionary, not WP --Cynical 13:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable astronomy term, can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with zenith. One can't discuss one without mentioning the other. Radiant_* 15:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be nice if we had a horizontal coordinate system article that could discuss both the zenith and the nadir without having to pick either as the primary title? ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Rewritten article as disambiguation. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Comment. Well done Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I agree that rewriting as disambiguation was a good idea. Now the page has a purpose beyond a simple dictionary definition.--DannyZ 00:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disambiguation pages a great help in WP, especially in sorting out common words with various uses, such as this one. -Acjelen 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aurelanii Wars[edit]

Completely historically inacurate and totally unverifiable. Appears to be either original research or fan fiction. Zero Google hits, the title of the article itself appears to be completely made up. When ask to explain the article its author provided no sources nor explination and defended the artcile merely by challenging anyone to prove it was false.--Heathcliff 03:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 04:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete nonsense with not a shred of accuracy, even for the parts that are verifiable.Kuralyov 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete says it 'brought devastation to the Scots and the Picts' which I know to be complete garbage- the area that became Scotland was never successfully attacked during that era, either before or after the Romans left --Cynical 13:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax Stancel 19:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, the author, with a PHD in History have asked in my last comment for you to delete the article and yet you still rail on and on and on and on. Have any of you ever been to these places? Read first hand accounts on the pages they first were written? As i've said before, i saw a void in your little web page and tried to fill it. As i see now, this is not a place for knowledge, but for the same old Roman record keeping garbage that has stifled our knowledge of history for centuries. I suppose i could wait until the book is released and then cite it as "proof". Would that make you morons feel better? While i was in the second world war, there was no proof of genocide taking place. For years afterward, there was no proof that FDR suppressed this proof. Now there is no proof that the Jews have any historical claim to Israel. Have fun on your flat-empirical world, young fellows. I will soon be in Switzerland beginning my next book (of lies i suppose) on the Gallic War. Keep in mind that they pay me to research and write this stuff. How much do you earn to blindly dispute it? unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    Well, color me Nazi. I hope that isn't how you defended your dissertation. Gazpacho
  • Delete. Nothing wrong with a new idea, but it doesn't belong here unless it's got proper support, which this doesn't. If it gains traction after publication, feel free to resubmit. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete due to lack of references and rudeness of the author. Gamaliel 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody with a PhD should know to give references. Jitse Niesen 22:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No original research ought to say it all, but the anonymous & alleged author's comments above & below call for a something. If someone claims to have a Ph.D. in history can't remember that "A.D." properly goes before the date -- or check his spelling -- just how likely are we to trust the material in the article? -- llywrch 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi. I'm a long time user and a first time poster. Maybe i'm a little "green", but didn't the author request that his post be deleted? Do you guys just like to run things into the ground? I'm not trying to be snotty or rude but haven't you got better things to do than wave your intellectual cocks in the air? I was writing a paper on Britain during the dark ages and wound up side tracked by this stupid argument. True: a few things in the article aren't credible, but this is far from the first page i've seen here that ignore facts or create new theories. Also i have read many books on the subject of King Arthur that support the idea that Magnus was the father of Constantine III. I cannot cite the sources-don't have time-and don't really care. Whenever i look something up on Wikidpedia, i always double check it. Maybe you guys should do your own homework or take the advice of the old guy who wrote this entry and delete it without further discussion. Surely you all have something better to do. Or maybe not. unsigned comment by 68.59.230.134
    • Nice try, but did you notice the article history preserves the IP address of everyone who edits an article? Surely you have better things to do than attempt to fake messages to Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess that the article isn't gone yet because some of us are still hoping for you-know-what. Because we can be patient like that. Gazpacho 01:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is fiction, it needs deleting. On the other hand, if it is verifiable original research (ie a proper radical redaction of established sources) then surely it deserves a place, albeit marked in some way as theory-not-absolute-fact. Otherwise, havign read the article, I am moved to take issue with Kuralyov's comment about "Not a shred of accuracy" since quite an amount of this is generally-accepted fact in England, and much of the rest accords with one among a number of radical re-readings of Dark Age history which relocate Arthur to Scotland and make the people in the northern part of ther island substantially more civilized than Caesar and his kith were willing to give credit for. Sorry for rant. --Simon Cursitor 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)--[reply]
    • Any attempts to relocate Arthur to the north of England/Scotland is merely an attempt at aggrandizement for the people of those areas. There is simply too much evidence putting him in the south, and not enough for him to be in the north. An Arthur-like person, or one of the bases for Arthur, maybe, but not the Arthur, if he existed.

And as for the Picts being more civilized than was thought: they did not have centralized government, standardized religion or language, or codified law; they did not scult, paint murals, write down their legends; they did not try to build lasting cities on purpose. I think the Romans had them beat.

"Radical re-readings" are interesting, but there is a reason they're called "radical."Kuralyov 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I haven't the time to check every point here, as far as I can judge this is not a complete invention by the author, it appears to be an uncritical regurgitation of some accounts of the time of King Arthur written centuries after the event, mainly by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but regarded by historians as extremely unreliable. (I know this because among other things I read a couple of 20th century historical novels about Merlin by Mary Stewart loosely based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the recent film Merlin with Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan Le Fay also incorporates elements from Geoffrey.) However the article is not salvagable, so delete, and anything useful should be put in the articles on Geoffrey of Monmouth or some of the characters mentioned in the article. PatGallacher 11:32, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Worse Invention Convention[edit]

{{{text}}} Suggest deletion as non-notable, if even real. Denni☯ 03:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • My middle school had an annual invention convention and the phrase gets 39800 Yahoo! hits. Since we don't have invention convention, move this article there to start it. Gazpacho 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't give any WP-worthy information, even if the convention does exist --Cynical 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified as a national or beyond-local event. That's the problem, to me: we're dealing with multiple individual acts, rather than one, and each independently is not notable. A new article on HS or PS invention contests (that remains general) might be ok, if it were to discuss when these things began happening and differentiated them from the extant Science fair. Geogre 15:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per Vfd). Master Thief Garrett 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aneska (band)[edit]

Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC criteria. Made a CD, with a circulation of 300, and existed for about a year. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity. --bainer 12:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the way, I think WP:MUSIC is a load of rubbish, and is too heavily biased towards the major label cartel, but this article deserves deletion even discounting that non-policy --Cynical 13:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More to Burn[edit]

Only album by Aneska (band), now on VfD as well. 300 copies, nn. Golbez 04:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity. --bainer 12:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unheard-of -- 152.78.254.131 13:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the band page wasn't heading for deletion, I'd suggest merging the album info into that --Cynical 13:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cypress Falls High School[edit]

Content is "Cypress Falls High School is a high school located in the suburbs of Houston, Texas. About 3,000 students attend this school, which was created in 1990. It handles grades nine through twelve. It is part of the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District. Its current principal is Dr. Robert Worthy, Ph.D." In other words, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it from the tens of thousands of other high schools. Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. High schools should not have to pass a notability test. It needs more verifiable information, yes. This will be provided soon enough, provided 15 more schools aren't added in the next two days. --BaronLarf 04:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concur with BaronLarf. Good stub, shows clear signs of organic growth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to imagine what you would consider a "bad stub" to be. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
    • There is no reason for Wikipedia to NOT want a boring, pointless article for every average school in the country. Those boring pointless articles will be more neutral than whatever else Google gives a curious person and they can be stubs for as long as it takes for more detailed information to emerge. Dystopos 01:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's stopping you? What gun is being held to your head? --Calton | Talk 04:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 05:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity, wikipedia is not triviapedia.Gmaxwell 06:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please only vote once. Wikipedia is the perfect place for trivia, as long as it's neutral and verifiable. Dystopos 01:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing of note. Jonathunder 06:43, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here that jumps out at me as being interesting or noteworthy... Master Thief Garrett 07:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Merge where (if anywhere) appropriate, and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 07:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Houston, Texas and delete - Skysmith 09:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I just wasted 15 seconds, again. Lotsofissues 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like obese people suing McDonald's for making them fat. Just out of interest, who is it that's *forcing* you to vote on all of these? Master Thief Garrett 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete die die die. Dunc|☺ 12:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notability standard is inherently POV. - SimonP 13:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards--Cynical 13:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article. Lupin 14:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:09, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsy 20:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school articles. Christopher Parham 21:04, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The article is 5 months old and it's all of 3 sentences long. Quale 23:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Vegaswikian 05:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and useless vanity. Yawn. Sarg 14:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notability is not an official criteron for deletion. Additionally, why is this school not notable, even though it has affected thousands of lives, whereas some pokemon fan-fiction site doubtlessly has its own article? --Zantastik 02:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point me to one and I'll Vfd it for you. I doubt any exist here, but if they do they must BURN! Master Thief Garrett 03:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this hoarding instinct among the inclusioniststrivialists? Are pointless articles about Yet Another Indistinguishable Local School some kind of endangered species? --Calton | Talk 04:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delist. Bad faith nominat(or|ion). —RaD Man (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article sucks. Grue 16:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator should be banned. CalJW 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:17, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cy-Fair High School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. High schools should not have to pass a notability test. I apologize for the almost cut-and-paste vote, but the large number of schools being added to the list cuts down on originality. --BaronLarf 04:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another perfectly good stub. Encyclopedic, will grow in time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete ditto CDThieme. Gazpacho 05:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Future scholars will no doubt thank you for preserving such unique content for study. Oh, and what's keeping you from adding content elsewhere? Has the Draft been reinstated? --Calton | Talk 04:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing to see here, move along. Jonathunder 06:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here that jumps out at me as being interesting or noteworthy... yet again... Master Thief Garrett 07:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article about Cypress, Texas and merge into it - Skysmith 09:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I just wasted 15 seconds, again. Lotsofissues 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop wasting your time and everyone else's, then. Don't vote. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notability standard is inherently POV. - SimonP 13:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since someone seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article. Wikipedia does want an article for every school in the universe. They may start out boring and pointless, and many may remain that way for some time. But articles have to start somewhere, and they may well develop into interesting articles. Lupin 14:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EVERYTHING should have to pass the notability test. --InShaneee 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:10, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsy 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be notable, but this article doesn't establish it. If something actually notable shows up in the article I'll change my vote. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school articles. Christopher Parham 21:10, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. A 3-month old article that is exactly 2 sentences long. How much time will it take for it to grow to 3 sentences? Quale 23:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, have no fear, if it was in danger of deletion a number of sentences describing the school mascot, and the arrangement of tables in the cafeteria, and other highly notable and encyclopedic information would soon appear. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 120+ year old high schools are inherently notable. -- BD2412 talk 00:04, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand this perfectly good stub. It's not impressive now, but tons of great articles started out as little stubs. Some people here would crush an acorn because it's not an oak yet. --Zantastik 02:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continuing with the imagery talk, how long do you wait for germination to occur before you decide it's stagnated and gone rotten and should be dug up and thrown into the fire? Master Thief Garrett 03:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the point of articles about Yet Another Indistinguishable Local School? What possible value is there except in stroking local vanity and inflating Wikipedia's article count? --Calton | Talk 04:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, we gotta hit that millionth article! The day we hit a million, I'm going on a spring-cleaning rampage. Probably, especially with the "keep all schools" idea, 200,000+ of that would be useless. If we're gonna have an article count to display proudly in Time magazine, it might as well be honest. Master Thief Garrett 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's going to become something interesting and notable anytime in the meaningful future, let it carry an "under construction" tag. Until then, non-notable. (Sairen42 forgot to sign off)
  • Delete.-- Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator appears to be willing to waste any amount of other users time, and may well have prevented improvements to hundreds of articles which would otherwise have been made in this time. CalJW 18:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Per all Schools, I vote to keep - --Irishpunktom\talk 14:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable school. Klonimus 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cupertino High School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. High schools should not have to pass a notability test. I apologize for the virtually cut-and-paste vote, but the large number of schools being added to the list cuts down on originality. --BaronLarf 04:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bloody good stub! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this different from any other high school in the United States? Does there need to be an article for every single one? CDThieme
    • Because it's one of the best. Don't have stats off the top of my head, but schools in the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District are known to provide very good education. The other four high schools in the district have articles, and they aren't on VfD (knock on wood). Having said that, this definitely needs to be expanded. Marblespire 07:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (and yes, I am a native, why do you ask?)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cupertino is pretty notable as one of the best high schools in Silicon Valley, although the article doesn't establish notability. PlatypeanArchcow 06:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity of vanities. Jonathunder 06:47, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Delete, vain, does not establish its notability to me the unknowing reader. I'm beginning to wonder if Neutrality is some sort of notability bot in disguise as a user... 20+ listings all at once... Master Thief Garrett 07:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cupertino, California and delete - Skysmith 09:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the best high schools in California based on state wide testing. keep Lotsofissues 12:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notability standard is inherently POV. - SimonP 13:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since someone seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article. Lupin 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub. R Calvete 19:12, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school articles. Christopher Parham 21:11, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Fremont Union High School District per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:47, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Vegaswikian 05:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge as above if delete fails. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A nice little stub, and notabilit is still not an official criterion for deletion/retention! Visit Schoolwatch and vote on the school articles subject to Neutrality's wrongheaded school vfd campaign. --Zantastik 02:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't word your opinion like it's right or the only or correct one. Thank you. Master Thief Garrett 03:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is self-indulgent and is harming Wikipedia by wasting time which should be spent on articles. CalJW 18:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:17, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per all schools, I vote to keep.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:53, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator after notability was established. Neutralitytalk 02:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Compton High School[edit]

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Withdrawn. Neutralitytalk 04:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. The sheer volume of schools being added to the VfD will test my ability to expand them all, but I have a feeling that that might be the point. High schools should not have to pass a notability test. --BaronLarf 04:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • ALL articles should have a "notability test"; that's the entire point of having an encyclopedia and not a general knowledge base of trivia and facts that have no particular significant or importance or even relevance ascribed to them. Neutralitytalk 05:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough of these ultimatums, it will expand in its own good time. And stop this alphabetty-spaghetti VfDing while you're at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am systemically nominating non-notable articles for deletion. And I will continue doing so until I reach the end of the alphabet. Furthermore, it's not an "ultimatum" to demand that an article in an encylopedia meet an encylopediac standard. Neutralitytalk 05:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Firstly, you know and I know that there is no consensus of non-notability as a deletion criterion. Secondly your campaign is verging on disruption. Thirdly you demand that something be done within five days. You may deny that this is an ultimatum, but a demand with a deadline is an ultimatum. Finally, these are all perfectly good stubs you're listing. Every single one that I've seen so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
        • Ultimatum? Hardly, to me it appeared that he was qualifying his delete vote/nomination... A pretty reasonable thing to do. You might think that they are good stubs, but you do not speak for the rest of the community. Quite a few disagree. .. But I understand why you are complaining, consider how often you close VFDs on these issues...Gmaxwell 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well obviously I won't be closing any schools listings--I'm voting on them instead. I do think his listing is unreasonable in the context of the forty of fifty-odd others he's done in the past three days. Adding a demand that the article should "establish notability" within five days, when there are fifty other articles around, is extremely unreasonable. I question Neutrality's reasoning here--it isn't feasible that all the stubs on Wikipedia should be turned into full articles within five days or so. Moreover there is *no* consensus on non-notability as a deletion criterion. Schools that are used by thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of students over their lifetimes, and employ scores and sometimes hundreds of teachers over that time, and play a significant part in local, region and often national life, are inherently notable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Adding a demand that the article should "establish notability" within five days, when there are fifty other articles around, is extremely unreasonable. Goodness me, aren't we a little slow today? What was the reason suggested for deletion? And what's the VfD lag time? Think about it. Chris talk back 08:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete, tell me something that's not obvious. Gazpacho 05:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until there is much more information, any notes about Compton High school can simple go as a section in Compton, California. Luke Stodola 06:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: school vanity. Jonathunder 06:50, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it proves itself notable. Master Thief Garrett 07:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Compton, California and delete - Skysmith 09:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a sentence, and two notable alumni. keep Lotsofissues 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notability standard is inherently POV. - SimonP 13:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You don't have to be 'straight outta compton' to see this will never be notable. --InShaneee 15:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inherently notable, good stub. R Calvete 19:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:44, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I might note that Compton High School figures prominently in Gangsta rap. Klonimus 19:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivia, no apparent possibility of becoming noteworthy. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I object to Neutrality's mass school vfd campaign, while policy is being worked out. I must say that this beheviour is not at all typical of administrators -- if it were, Wikipedia would be the poorer for it. Again, if there are articles for individual South Park episodes -- and there should be -- then proposing to delete articles about high schools which are important locally, if not nationally, is utterly absurd. Compton especially is important, for cultural and socio-economic reasons. Let's let this stub grow! --Zantastik 02:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FAITH tells you to alway assume a generous margin of misunderstanding and good intentions. And please voice your (plural, if only English was like Latin...) concerns at Wikipedia:Schools instead of on every ****ing Vfd page. Master Thief Garrett 03:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ? It's rather obvious this is a campaign of bad faith nominations by Neutrality, he's hardly a newcomer. —RaD Man (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete nominator. CalJW 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attitude keep and delist. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hedley 20:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article as it stands has a BEEFSTEW score of 8 with an enormous growth potential. Notable alumni include Duke Snider, Ken Carpenter, Kenny Howard, Jayceon "The Game" Taylor, Ulis Williams, and Woody Sauldsberry, amongst many others. Bahn Mi 01:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - historic notability. -- BD2412 talk 02:20, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Collingwood School[edit]

Still non-notable despite attempts to disguise its non-notability through an uninformative infobox. Wikipedia is not a school guide, and there is absolutely nothing to distinguish this school from thousands of others like it. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all schools are notable -- didn't this already survive one VfD? Chiacomo 04:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This high school was put through VfD once; respectfully, why waste everyone's time by doing it again? High schools should not have to meet notability requirements. --BaronLarf 04:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I profess myself utterly baffled by this obsessive campaign to try to delete perfectly good school stubs from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing special. CDThieme
  • Keep. Good Stub. Capitalistroadster 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub. Kappa 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good stub DS1953 06:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: still nothing showing particular notability. Jonathunder 06:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Mergeinto West Vancouver, British Columbia and delete - Skysmith 09:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools, inherently notable, vfd already kept before. R Calvete 19:23, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox is cute! =D Keep. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:45, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with West Vancouver per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia, no apparent possibility of becoming noteworthy. If delete fails, merge as above. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why waste all this time voting on vfd for this school again, when we could be improving stubs? Visit Schoolwatch and vote on the school articles subject to Neutrality's wrongheaded school vfd campaign. --Zantastik 02:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how long has this so-called Schoolwatch program been in effect? And how much actual improvement can be attributed to it? It's not a school improvement project, it's a Save the Trivial School Stubs rallying point. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's Yellow Pages listing. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion (this article has already passed a VfD). -- Lochaber 17:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ban nominator. CalJW 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and do not list a school for deletion more than once Yuckfoo 18:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Claude Watson School for the Arts[edit]

Magnet elementary/middle school. Can't we merge this into education in Toronto or something? In any case delete the article/redirect. Neutralitytalk 04:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme
  • Keep. Nice little stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, specialized curriculum makes it notable. Gazpacho 05:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into applicable school district. Would do more research, but there's already 24 other schools up for deletion today. Am tempted to vote keep out of spite, but controlling myself. --BaronLarf 05:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge. Kappa 06:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable as a specialized school DS1953 06:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if I came across this via Special:Randompage I wouldn't say "hmmmm!" I'd say "boring!". It has to win the casual reader over, to prove it is interesting and notable. Master Thief Garrett 07:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate education district in Toronto and delete - Skysmith 09:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:47, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with Willowdale per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a nice little stub -- let it grow. Visit Schoolwatch for a list of vfds for high school articles. --Zantastik 02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Every time that I plant a seed // He said, "kill it before it grows."" Is this article going to grow at all? Hmmm... no. *pours weedkiller on it* Master Thief Garrett 03:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless institutional vanity. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete nominator's account instead. CalJW 18:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/cleanup/improve. Magnet schools are extremely rare in Canada compared to the United States. (With no forced bussing issues to navigate, we missed that silver lining...) Samaritan 01:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clairemont High School[edit]

Non-notable, no context. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • "It hasn't won any major academic awards. The last time the football team won CIF was in 1981." In other words, nothing special. Unless WP wants a pointless stub for every run of the mill school on the planet, delete. CDThieme
  • Delete for now. Substub, school not adequately identified. Keep if this is remedied. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article establishes non-notability. Gazpacho 05:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Will do this myself, as soon as time permits. Posting scores of schools up for deletion on the same day does nothing to help Wikipedia. The baby is likely to go out with the dishwater in this fashion. --BaronLarf 05:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep awaiting expansion/context from BaronLarf. Kappa 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means, don't wait for me; feel free to add something yourself.  :^) --BaronLarf 06:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if I came across this via Special:Randompage I wouldn't say "hmmmm!" I'd say "boring!". It has to win the casual reader over, to prove it is interesting and notable. Master Thief Garrett 11:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Merge anything salvagable into Schools in (regionhere), and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 00:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article being interesting has nothing to do with it being encyclopedic. Articles on towns aren't particularly interesting but are encyclopedic and there's a lot of interesting stuff with no business in an encyclopedia R Calvete 19:27, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • I've gotta say it's depressing that practically all deletionism seems to be driven by the desire to impress/entertain random page users. Kappa 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into San Diego, California and delete - Skysmith 09:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are perfect for involving new Wikipedians. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 12:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is ranked #848 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) 14:00 UTC, 17 May 2005.
    • D'oh!!! (smacks own forehead for forgetting to sign). -- BD2412 talk 00:12, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As CDThieme says, Delete unless Wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet.--Mitsukai 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school district. — RJH 15:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those looking for notability, this is the school that Cameron Crowe went to undercover in the early 1980s before he wrote Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a blockbuster movie. [1] --BaronLarf 16:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fascinating, but, um, yeah, still doesn't sway me, one man can't hold the notability of a school he attended alongside thousands of others over the decades. If he *wrote* or *filmed* it there, now we're talkin'! Master Thief Garrett 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think going undercover to research it is more notable and interesting that writing it there. Kappa 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially notable. R Calvete 19:25, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are so many schools in Wikipedia already, it's pointless to exclude some of them when we obviously aren't going to exclude all of them. I wish people would stop posting these to VFD. Right are wrong, schools are clearly a part of Wikipedia. Posting long list of schools to VFD is just cluttering up the page uselessly.--Heathcliff 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:47, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia, no apparent possibility of becoming noteworthy. If delete fails, merge as above. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clairemont High School but delete this ridiculious campaign against school articles! This was ranked as one of the U.S.' best schools, and even if it weren't, schools are notable. If that weren't enough, notability isn't even a criterion for deletion! Visit Schoolwatch for a list of all the school vfd votes currently in progress. --Zantastik 03:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and expand. Bad faith nominat(or|ion). —RaD Man (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This campaign is spitting in the face of Wikipedians. We should be writing articles, not making dozens of edits to deal with one point. Selfish, selfish nominator. CalJW 18:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chung Ling High School, Butterworth[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Delete. Substub. Keep if this school is adequately identified ("is a school in Malaysia" doesn't do that). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not identified. Gazpacho 05:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I've added links to information on the school's interesting history; will incorporate when I have a chance. (Again – why 24 schools in one day?) Suffice it to say that the information is out there, and can be identified. --BaronLarf 05:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "things that make you go '-cruft'!" Master Thief Garrett 07:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate location and delete - Skysmith 09:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire text is Chung Ling High School Butterworth or CLB, also known as [SMJK]] (C) Chung Ling, Butterworth is a school in Butterworth, Malaysia. This is a "fine little article"? --Calton | Talk 04:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a paste-in. Generic, and probably not thought out too much due to "ALL schools are always notable!!!" mentality. Master Thief Garrett 05:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district. — RJH 15:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Chung Ling High School. NatusRoma 15:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:28, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many people have such polarized views on school articles that they never even seem to consider the lack or presence of content in the article and its potential for expansion. Unless more can be said about this individual school to merit an individual article than its name and where it is, merge into a list of schools in the location, or if Malaysia has something comparable, an article about the school district. Don't get so distracted by the fact it's about a school—that doesn't tell you anything about what to do with this particular article. Postdlf 21:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but it arguably falls under Speedy Deletion criteria ("Very short articles with little or no context") --Calton | Talk 04:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with Butterworth, Malaysia per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Wikipedia's notability policies. If delete fails, merge as above. Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little or no useful or encyclopedic content. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Expand. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete this unreasonable campaign. Ban nominator. CalJW 18:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:22, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this sub-stub, or merge somewhere appropriate if delete fails. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Liberty Academy[edit]

Non-notable school, less than 1000 students. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep. I'd hardly call their Varsity cheeeleader team "boring". Not a patch on the Powder Puffs, but much prettier (sorry boys!) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "serves 69 surrounding cities." Gazpacho 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There should be no notability requirements for high schools, and a notability requirement of 1000 students seems rather pointless and arbitrary to me. --BaronLarf 05:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DS1953 06:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity and vexation of spirit. Jonathunder 06:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, "things that make you go '-cruft'!" Being fellow Christians won't save you either. Master Thief Garrett 07:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wheeling, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 09:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nice article. Lupin 14:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools. — RJH 15:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:34, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with either Wheeling Township, Cook County, Illinois or Church of Christian Liberty per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If delete fails, merge as above. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs, and this one is far better than many stubs already! Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable history. -- BD2412 talk 02:24, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is very well written and npov Yuckfoo 18:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable christian school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Centennial High School[edit]

Non-notable high school substub, and most likely one of five dozen schools with the same name. Neutralitytalk 04:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks emphatically stubbish to me. Uniquely identifies the school. We can move it when necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uninformative. Gazpacho 05:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to make it informative, long and with a point. Although having 23 (wait... now 24) other schools all submitted to VfD on the same day makes this a bit harder on editors and, I would imagine, on the moderators of this page. --BaronLarf 05:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DS1953 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Triviapedia. Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "things that make you go '-cruft'!" Master Thief Garrett 07:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Compton, California and delete - Skysmith 09:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district. — RJH 15:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:35, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:52, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep disambiguation page. Kelly Martin 01:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambig page. Maybe a little cleanup to reduce the size of each entry and research other schools with the same name. Vegaswikian 06:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all information from sub-pages into this, and delete individual school articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. And stop the huge vfd purges while we don't have a policy for schools! Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThese tactics are outragous. There should be a daily nomination limit. CalJW 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:34, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Samaritan 07:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable schools worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charleston County School of the Arts[edit]

Non-notable magnet school, like thousands of others. Establish notability or delete. Neutralitytalk 04:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Good stub. Yet another sally from the robodeletion campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good stub. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, specialized curriculum. Gazpacho 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. No notability requirements for high schools. Etc., etc., see above articles for argument. --BaronLarf 05:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Unfocused. Kappa 06:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established, instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DS1953 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Magnet schools as a whole is a fascinating article, and I'm glad this Vfd introduced that concept to me, but individual special-interest schools are utterly unnotable--unless we're talking Digipen!!! Now THAT is notable (appeared in Smithsonian and Reader's Digest!) but they've got a crappier article than most of the Vfd'd schools... hmmm *adds to watchlist planning to expand it* Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into North Charleston, South Carolina and delete - Skysmith 09:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district. — RJH 15:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just for laughs, here's a little story: there was once a wikipedian who saw a whole flood of nominations for deletion. Despite the fact they were probably in bad faith, he decided to go ahead and do something revolutionary: read each article and write a unique response for each. Some say he even visited this article and found it non-notable with no potential for significant expansion. --InShaneee 15:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, and here I thought that person was me! Just because he's mass-marked these doesn't mean I'm cut-n-pasting my "thoughts" on the matter like some others here are... *cough*inclusionists*cough* I thought them all through... *goes back to learning about magnet schools* Master Thief Garrett 16:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with North Charleston, South Carolina per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs, and so long as we have an article for individual South Park episodes -- and we should -- then we shouldn't delete school articles. Please visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These tactics are outrageous. CalJW 18:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Magnet schools are more notable than most. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but expand it seems interesting

Yuckfoo 18:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cathedral High School[edit]

Notability not established. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 04:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep. There you go with the ultimatum again. Give it a rest. The school website is brimming with good stuff that can be used to produce a good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not indicate notability. Gazpacho 05:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with verifiable information. Notability should not be a requirement for high schools; it isn't for railway stations, why should these have a higher standard? --BaronLarf 05:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DS1953 06:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "things that make you go '-cruft'!" Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Springfield, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because you can fill a page with verifiable info does NOT a notable page make. --InShaneee 15:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools. — RJH 15:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Springfield, Massachusetts per my school article policy (or else replace with dab for all the other Cathedral High Schools that are necessarily out there). Kelly Martin 01:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist. This school is over 100+ years old. WP:POINT. —RaD Man (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Let them grow; don't kill them. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These tactics are outrageous. CalJW 18:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Old enough to be notable. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable catholic school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Carmel High School (Carmel, California)[edit]

Non-notable high school of 750 people and no special significance. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep. Dunno how you can says a school with such a massive number of pupils is of no special significance. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. High schools are notable. Could we limit the number of schools nominated per day to a nice 10 or 15 or so? Thanks. --BaronLarf 05:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional vanity Gmaxwell 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until they show me why they are important. Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Merge into an article about schools in the region. Master Thief Garrett 07:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Carmel, California and delete - Skysmith 09:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district. — RJH 15:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable. By the way, what does the size of a school have to do with whether it belongs in an encyclopedia? R Calvete 19:42, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Carmel, California per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 01:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and admonish Neutrality for engaging in WP:POINT by doing mass VfD of schools, when ho knows that all this does is waste time on VfD since there is no extant concencus on schools. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 02:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't post out of order, it can get confusing. It should be noted that he openly said (on another Vfd) that he was crawling through the alphabet looking for Vfd-worthy material. Now why is it mostly schools? Because ALL other types of crufty articles are caught soon after creation, but many if not most users have become scared--yes, scared--of nominating schools because of the "All schools are auto-notable! How dare you call them otherwise?!?" crusade. You know full well how biased you are on this issue, and I am unsure as to whether you are seeing him in the best light. Master Thief Garrett 03:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone is going through all articles, then they need to stop the VfD for schools while the criteria is being discussed (again). Adding more VfDs right now may not be the best thing to do. Vegaswikian 06:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Vegaswikian 06:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. High schools are notable, and this article is far better than most stubs we allow, and less obscure than many of them. --Zantastik 02:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delist. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia runs out of space. -- BD2412 talk 02:38, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Delete until Wikipedia becomes a general information repository, not an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please it seems encyclopedic Yuckfoo 18:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Canyon Crest Academy 2[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep. Looks like a nice school. No cheerleaders but I suppose you can't have everything. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, specialized. Gazpacho 05:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are notable. This school has survived one VfD, why nominated it again? Is there a better chance that the consensus will be to delete this time around? --BaronLarf 05:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. Kappa 06:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and see if it stays dead this time. And I hope "Envision" is deliberately spelled like that. Master Thief Garrett 07:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into San Diego, California and delete - Skysmith 09:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with San Diego, California per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And cool it with the rounds of school vfds. This article was already the subject of a vfd and it survived. --Zantastik 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep again please it already survived Yuckfoo 13:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails to establish encyclopedic worthiness. If Delete fails, then Merge. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calvin Christian School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia, instutional vanity Gmaxwell 05:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Unfocused Kappa 05:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft--UNLESS merged into Christian Schools of Tasmania network, then you might have something interesting. It only alludes to this network in passing! Master Thief Garrett 07:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support this merge - Skysmith 09:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly verifiable, good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools. — RJH 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watching our collaborative community vote on these school nominations, I'm inclined to think we're at the Calvin and Hobbes School. Barno 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:47, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Christian Schools of Tasmania or Kingston, Tasmania per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Instead of wasting our time on Neutrality's terrible vfd school campaign, let's work to improve these articles. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of three nonimations per day. CalJW 18:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. If delete fails, Merge into some appropriate article (e.g. Boring trivia about schools). Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please no need to merge Yuckfoo 18:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Dutch Reformed school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cairns Christian College[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep and expand all secondary schools. Etc. etc. --BaronLarf 05:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not triviapedia. Gmaxwell 05:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because you're Christian doesn't mean you're not cruft as well. Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Jonathunder 09:14, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Merge into Cairns, Queensland and delete - Skysmith 09:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. Good stub. Just over a month old, so it's far too early to see if it'll grow or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. K-12's are inherently notable because the entire maturation experience occurs there for some. -- BD2412 thimkact 14:04, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools. — RJH 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:48, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there still isn't an exclusive list of deletion criteria, making this particularly beaten dead horse. Ambi 04:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See What to do with a problem page on the official policy page on deletion. This is a stub with potential for expansion. According to our official policy it should be sent to cleanup, not listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cairns, Queensland per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - stub only created 13 April 2005, and needs time to develop. Another school in Cairns with similar amount of detail survived a VfD in 2004. Noteability is inherently POV and should not be used as the only criteria for deletion.--Takver 03:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid stub, invalid and premature nomination for deletion by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. AGree with Radman1. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Introduce a limit on school articles shorter than 3 sentences. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and introduce a limit on nominators with less than 3 brain cells. Yuckfoo 18:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school made of stardust that is worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Davenies School, Beaconsfield moved to Davenies (its common name)[edit]

Single-sentence substub. Establish notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't you Speedy things like this based on the no-content clause? I mean, this isn't exactly "he was a funny man" stuff, but it's no article. Even a For Sale ad in the freebies of your local paper would be longer than this. Master Thief Garrett 07:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Beaconsfield and delete - Skysmith 09:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Efficient little crammer, very English. You can practically smell the boiled cabbage and gym shorts. Very pretty. Obvious scope for growth here. I'll add a link to its 2004 Independent Schools Inspectorate report. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools, or else keep. — RJH 15:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Inherently notable (expect to be seeing this posted quite a few times). R Calvete 19:49, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Beaconsfield per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT gone awry. —RaD Man (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs! Let them grow! Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Introduce a limit on school articles shorter than 3 sentences, or in this case, shorter than 2 sentences. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

De Shalit high school[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. How many articles on Israeli high schools do we see around here? All secondary schools are notable. Etc etc. --BaronLarf 05:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we launch Wikischools. Master Thief Garrett 07:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were an effective Wikischools project, I would be inclined to merge schools on Wikipedia into articles reflecting their type/geography (e.g. high schools in California) - but I fear that such a project would be an excuse to shunt them away, not an engine to grow knowledge on them. -- BD2412 thimkact 14:08, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
      • The flip side is that, if you just happened upon Wikipedia for the first time, would you be more impressed if you found a dozen pages of the type "[school] is a [type] school in [city], [country]. It goes from grades [x] to [y] and has [z] students", or if you saw a 12-paragraph-long article about all of the high schools in a city? My guess would be the latter. Personally, I think that consolidating articles would encourage expansion more than a bunch of individual substubs, and if the article gets too big the individual schools can always be spun out. While I'm dreaming, it would be nice if people took a top-down approach to creating school articles, by first creating articles on the city and/or schools in the district, and once those are comprehensive, moving on to individual schools. Anyway, merge and redirect to Rehovot. JYolkowski // talk 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, that's the sort of crap I saw here when I first visited WP back in... 2002? 2003? Somewhere round there. It was mostly crappy and I was unimpressed. As it is we now have thousands of pages' worth of stunning information, but we've still got some crappy hangons. Yes a Wikischools project would seem to be getting rid of them, but then this whole "schools are auto-notable!!!" problem would be gone--it would be THEIR problem to fix and Vfd the schools. Every single one of these school-deletion pages is being made to sound like it's a heartfelt "ethical" debate about things that are essential to the forwarding of mankind's collective consciousness, and that's just bull. Complete and utter bull. Either you vote or you don't, you don't try to make others' votes sound invalid based on their own perverted POV, which is the whole thing the Vfd rests upon for its conclusions. Master Thief Garrett 03:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rehovot and delete - Skysmith 09:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is there a Hebrew-speaker in the house? Seriously though there is plenty on this school in English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per BaronLarf. -- BD2412 thimkact 14:06, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district, or else keep. Report to deleteaholics anonymous. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. ;-) — RJH 15:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You know the drill. R Calvete 19:50, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rehovot per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep each and every israeli school is notable. Klonimus 03:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominatiions per dayCalJW 18:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please Yuckfoo 18:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deerfield Beach High School[edit]

One sentence substub on non-notable high school. Delete. Neutralitytalk 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand all secondary schools. This is getting ridiculous. --BaronLarf 05:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until... um... yeah... I'm getting tired of thinking up new things for each one. Single sentence that can never be expanded without waffle and cruft... mmmm, waffle-cruft(TM)... Master Thief Garrett 07:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Deerfield Beach, Florida and delete - Skysmith 09:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mass listing perfectly good stubs while repeating the mantra "non-notable" is not an excuse for not having a reason for deletion that is actually derived from Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • added two lines keep Lotsofissues 13:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV. Meets all agreed-upon Wikipedia standards. Like some others, I will be copy-pasting this to all the high school votes since Neutrality seems to have mass-suggested articles for VfD simply because of a POV judgment of their subject--Cynical 13:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is ranked #381 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 thimkact 14:10, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into article on Broward School District, or else keep. — RJH 15:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usual reasons R Calvete 19:51, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Broward School District per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a top ranked school in the United States according to Newsweek. —RaD Man (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Radman1. And lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Detroit Catholic Central High School[edit]

One notable alumnus and that's it as far as notability. Delete. Neutralitytalk 05:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, establishes notability. Gazpacho 05:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand all secondary schools. All secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 05:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Every one of them? Really? Should there be a little stub for every school on the planet, then?
Why yes, apparently, excuse me while I go write about Cabri primary school with its total roll of 50 and declining... Master Thief Garrett 07:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I said "secondary" school. --BaronLarf 11:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note that Cabri has a secondary school too, with a roll of ~60 and declining. Master Thief Garrett 12:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please create one for both, I would be interested in seeing these articles. Part of the most fascinating thing about culture is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. --Unfocused 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A fascinating thing about Wikipedia deletion voting policy is how it decays, and what springs up to replace it. (Not any one editor's, just the crowd's.) Barno 19:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see nothing noteworthy here. Give a blurb on Thaddy's page though. Master Thief Garrett 07:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Redford Township, Michigan and delete - Skysmith 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable due to size of school and notable alumnus. This deserves a Stub tag, not a VfD --Cynical 13:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concur with SimonP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine little article Lupin 14:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools, or else keep. — RJH 16:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools and all that jazz R Calvete 19:56, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ketsy 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good little article. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per dayCalJW 18:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dwight-Englewood School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 05:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this excellent high school article. If the other articles being nominated were like it we wouldn't be having this argument. Gazpacho 05:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The article needs work, but the school is over 100 years old and there's apparently a good deal of verifiable information in here, though it needs revision. Not a good candidate for VfD. (All secondary schools are notable, of course.) --BaronLarf 05:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schools, instutional vanity. Gmaxwell 05:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 06:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do I really have to keep giving a reason? Apparently yes. Fascinating page--no, wait, it isn't, but, yeah, nothing noteworthy that's the problem. Master Thief Garrett 07:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Merge with schools in (region here) or similar, and Delete, NO redirect. Master Thief Garrett 02:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prekindergarten? Who was the guy who wanted to include every kindergarten in the world? Merge into New Jersey and delete - Skysmith 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good school articles are worthy of retention and this is one of those. Capitalistroadster 10:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is going nowhere. Please stop. Lotsofissues 13:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find this listing, like so many recent school listings, utterly baffling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Neutrality's crusade is getting a bit boring. Lupin 14:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because they use instant-runoff voting. :) -- BD2412 thimkact 14:12, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 16:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep R Calvete 20:04, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is an example of an excellent school article, it's hard to understand why WP would want to list any secondary schools at all. Quale 23:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is tough. I don't see it as meeting my school article policy for a keep, merging it with New Jersey seems inappropriate, and deleting it seems inappropriate as well. So, weak keep for now. Kelly Martin 02:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable, and this is a well-written article. Delete it when entire articles about South Park episodes are deleted (which should be never). --Zantastik 00:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep and delist. Bad faith nominat(or|ion). Tons of notability, too, even though it is not an established requirement for inclusion, stated or implied. —RaD Man (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day CalJW 18:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools (even more so for this very well written one) in wikipedia. -dozenist 05:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is an excellent school article Yuckfoo 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Duveneck School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school, delete. Neutralitytalk 05:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are perfect for involving new Wikipedians. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another good way of preserving knowledge is by merging and redirecting (to Palo Alto, California in this case), it's better to have a long, comprehensive article than an array of substubs. JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vaincruft. Master Thief Garrett 07:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 09:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outright delete: Elementary school (the bad "peace of the schools" from a year ago had elementary schools on the "never notable" side), and the article simply does not provide any rationale for this being an encyclopedic topic. Geogre 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good stub. Of recent schools listings, I've found 2 that were deletable because they were substubs, not identifying their subjects adequately. But the rest have all been verifiable. Please exercise more discrimination in listing schools for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has potential Lupin 14:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep Lotsofissues 14:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not neccisarily nominated in good faith, but there's still a good point here. Notability not established. --InShaneee 15:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that his user page says "I consider myself a school inclusionist. ... I object to three-line articles that have no content at all ... how is the subject of this article different from others?" Therefore I don't think that this mass-nomination is done in bad faith... Master Thief Garrett 15:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC) And I should add that according to the guidelines of WP:FAITH you should be assuming a generous margin of good faith. It's not like he wanted to delete Columbine... Master Thief Garrett 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district. — RJH 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I agree that this this mass-VfDing is probably not the best way to go about things. Couldn't we find some sort of (possibly BEEFSTEW-based, though with a little more emphasis on the school instead of the article) compromise that will at least get a reasonably large majority of support? (I'm not going to vote on all of these school VfDs that are never going to get consensus to delete anyway, there are better uses of my time). --W(t) 19:13, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable primary school. Quale 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Palo Alto, California per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, schoolcruft. —RaD Man (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of articles start out as mere stubs. Visit Schoolwatch to vote on other schools up for vfd. --Zantastik 18:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per dayCalJW 18:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable elementary school worthy of inclusion. All Palo Alto school's are notable. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Challoner's High School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 05:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Dr Challoner's Grammar School has a good deal of information; undoubtedly some of that would also apply here. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 05:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are perfect for involving new Wikipedians. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Institutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey G, here's a tip. If you're going to cut and paste text, spellcheck it first innit. Grace Note 11:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schoolcruft, schoolcruft, schoolcruft... I'm thinking we need to give Neutrality an award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Schoolcruft. Master Thief Garrett 07:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Buckinghamshire and delete - Skysmith 09:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could this subsist in a larger article, such as those that Nightowlneils was writing? Yes. However, a pellet per school is not useful, and the article provides no grounds for notability. Geogre 11:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub. Link to story about the recent use of the school grounds for the 137-minute TV thriller "Like Father, Like Son". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this informative article Lupin 14:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so students there can point to Wikipedia and say authoritatively, "my school was used in a movie!" -- BD2412 thimkact 14:14, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • keep Lotsofissues 14:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing is exempt from the rules of wikipedia, including schools as it relates to notability. --InShaneee 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia does not have rules relating to notability, only opinions. --Unfocused 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, not exactly. We constantly and consistently vote on bands and people and places and franchises and whatnot and call them "non-notable" and seem to have a fixed agreement about them... so surely using such terms in the sense of a school is just as "lawful"? Or is a school suddenly exempt from the evil "nn" reason being a valid comment alongside a vote? Please explain. Master Thief Garrett 15:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Scratch that, DON'T explain, these Vfds are crammed enough with "ethical" debates as it is. Just think about what I just said, and about what the answer, if any, is. Master Thief Garrett 15:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On some of those, we have consensus and general agreement. On this we don't. --Unfocused 20:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district, or else keep. — RJH 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep R Calvete 20:10, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the deletion policy and general consensus on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per dayCalJW 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet -- hold off on the deletions. Visit Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Durham Academy[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a short, pointless article for every run of the mill school on the planet. CDThieme 05:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't ind notab Gazpacho 05:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Just because an article is currently a stub doesn't mean it cannot be improved. Let's stop throwing away articles and start working on improving them. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 05:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are perfect for involving new Wikipedians. First, preserve knowledge, then expand knowledge. Thanks to Neutrality, I've had no time for adding content today. --Unfocused 05:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Instutional Vanity. Wikipedia isn't a triviabase Gmaxwell 06:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless merged with Schools in (townnamehere). Master Thief Garrett 07:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Durham, North Carolina and delete - Skysmith 09:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and encourage authors to merge to the Durham article. Durham Academy is closer to Chapel Hill (and more a part of Chapel Hill) than the rest of Durham, and its students are (or were, when I lived in CH) children of Duke/UNC faculty. Just another prep, though. No real distinguishing marks. Geogre 11:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.JuntungWu 12:42, 17 M2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject should be verifiable. - SimonP 13:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub. We're not running out of paper, etc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nice article. Lupin 14:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. K-12's are inherently notable because the entire maturation experience occurs there for some. -- BD2412 thimkact 14:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools, or else keep. — RJH 16:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep R Calvete 20:14, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WINP. Bbpen 21:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Durham, North Carolina per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator fails to establish non-notability. —RaD Man (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per dayCalJW 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet -- hold off on the deletions. Visit Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Evergreen High School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. And, incidently, probably one of dozens of schools with the same name. Neutralitytalk 13:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - you've heard of disambiguation pages, right? Lupin 14:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh come on! They've got a great marching band! 2000 students for people who think 500 is too piddling! Lovely stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with all the others. - SimonP 15:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid stub. Kappa 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the Evergreen school administrative district, or else keep. — RJH 16:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and echo Radiant. This is too many at once. How can we be expected to expand this many articles at once? It's nuts. Secondary schools are notable. Move to Evergreen High School (Vancouver, Washington) if necessary, but don't delete.--BaronLarf 20:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with all the others R Calvete 20:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Gmaxwell 05:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything salvagable into Schools in (region name) and/or Delete. Master Thief Garrett 03:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. *yawn* —RaD Man (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Failure to anticipate future disambiguation requirements is not a valid reason for deletion. CalJW 18:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet -- hold off on the deletions. Visit Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Essex High School[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - looks like a nice article to me Lupin 14:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with all the others. - SimonP 15:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not establish itself to me in any certain way. WP:POINT may not necessarily indicate the problem, if any, that is being faced. hm, hm, hm. Master Thief Garrett 15:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Merge with Schools in (region here) and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 02:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — RJH 16:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a school. People go there. Teachers teach there. How is this any different than any other school? No more noteable than List of cars by licence plate number. --InShaneee 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--JiFish 18:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and echo Radiant. Too many nominated at once to expand all at once. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 20:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the usual reasons. R Calvete 20:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep, inds notab Gazpacho 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WINP Bbpen 21:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Essex Junction, Vermont per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:19, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Gmaxwell 05:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good save by User:Brownsteve. JYolkowski // talk 02:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet, schools are important, and this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Elk Grove High School[edit]

Content is: "Elk Grove High School is a public, four-year high school serving students in grades 9-12 in Elk Grove and Des Plaines, Illinois. Its colors are green and gold. The school mascot is the Grenadier." Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - has potential. Lupin 14:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. That's actually a good stub, Neutrality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with all the others. - SimonP 15:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete! I'm tired of saying why. Master Thief Garrett 15:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 16:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The funny thing is I actually know this school. Trust me, it's no more notable than the people in it. --InShaneee 16:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district, or else keep. — RJH 16:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and echo Radiant. Too many nominated at once to expand all at once. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 20:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep R Calvete 20:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesnt ind notab Gazpacho 20:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Illinois High School District 214 per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Substub with no content. A fact is not an article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. This particular piece of mud has been on the site for about a year now. It inspired a vaccuous yelling match last time, and the usual suspects showed up, without reading it, voting automatcally, "Keep: All School Articles Must Be Kept No Matter What." It got kept. Well, it hasn't been improved in all that time. So what, exactly, is the eventualist and schoolfanboi position again? Schools should be kept because they're inherently significant (but the articles that show no significance must not be judged) and eventually someone will make it full? N.b. none of the "keep all schools" people seem to actually want to improve any of the articles, and the eventualists defer the obligation eternally onto the imagined Other. Meanwhile, we have pollution. Geogre 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Wikipedia is not a triviabase Gmaxwell 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (or Merge, depending on whether the following exists by the end of VfD) to Illinois High School District 214. JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Valid and informative stub. —RaD Man (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet, schools are important, and this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Episcopal School of Dallas[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 13:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - has potential. Lupin 14:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Damn, more cute cheerleaders. Love those costumes with the gladiator hems! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with all the others. - SimonP 15:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not establish itself to me the novice reader. Master Thief Garrett 15:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Still doesn't establish itself, but Merge into applicable area. Master Thief Garrett 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete horny wikipedians aside, this is nonnotable, and probable vanity. --InShaneee 15:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 16:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools, or else keep. — RJH 16:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and echo Radiant. Too many nominated at once to expand all at once. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 20:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep R Calvete 20:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school articles. Christopher Parham 21:15, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The text, "current headmaster is xxxxx" is an all too common failing of these articles on insignificant schools. Without providing a date, it's useless. Quale 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dallas or with the appropriate (arch)diocese per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Gmaxwell 05:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't even have a policy about schools yet, schools are important, and this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel christian academy[edit]

Non-notable school of 500 students. Delete. Neutralitytalk 13:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Beats me how people can refer to a school that size as "non-notable". In any case it's verifiable, which is the criterion we use on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 14:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutrality should perhaps read WP:POINT - this flood of VfDs is a somewhat unreasonable. Lupin 14:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity - but nominator should be warned for WP:POINT. Radiant_* 15:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with all the others. - SimonP 15:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • No Vote, I am uncertain. Hm. Delete, not really anything too... um... nothing that really jumps out at me. Master Thief Garrett 15:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (see vote below)[reply]
  • Delete The movie theater down the street sees more patrons than this per day. That doesn't make it notable. --InShaneee 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway. Kappa 16:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into article on area private schools, or else keep. This school thing could go on for years... — RJH 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and echo Radiant & Lupin. Too many nominated at once to expand all at once. Secondary schools are notable. --BaronLarf 20:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt ind notab Gazpacho 20:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 20:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the schoolcruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion. Move to proper title that includes location - David Gerard 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:33, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge with Springfield, Ohio per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Kelly Martin. Master Thief Garrett 03:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to wikischools then delete. Gmaxwell 05:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. Further, VfD spamming must have NO reward. --Unfocused 14:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Similar number of pupils to the 3rd most famous school in England. CalJW 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, pointless. CDThieme 01:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable Yuckfoo 22:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Francis Tuttle[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 21:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others, possibly at Francis Tuttle (school). Christopher Parham 00:31, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Let's talk this over on Wikipedia:Schools. --BaronLarf 01:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge with Oklahoma City, OK; borderline case) per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good stub, important topic. Kappa 07:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Master Thief Garrett 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Education facilities and encyclopedias go together better than coffee and a donut.--Unfocused 04:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:DICK. —RaD Man (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. --Zantastik 22:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This respsonse is a disruptive comment on the level of User:Iasson. Refrain from attempting to make policy on VfD pages. RickK 23:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Neutrality nominates several dozen school articles for deletion within a 48 hour period, and you find the reaction to be disruptive? Alrighty then. —RaD Man (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school worthy of inclusion. Klonimus 23:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Fox Lane High School 2[edit]

Non-notable; delete. Neutralitytalk 21:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This school is ranked #274 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 talk 23:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable even if only 273 U.S. high schools are better. I question the value of Newsweek's list anyway. A Florida school on VfD was also ranked, but the WP article notes that the school has below average graduation rate and SAT scores. What the heck is Newsweek scoring the schools on? Quale 00:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the article - some formula based on the number of AP/IB credits earned per graduate, and taking into account the poverty level as determined by the number of students who qualify for free lunches. Anyway, this site says that there are "22,000 plus high schools in the United States", so this one is in the top 1.5%. Unlike some of my colleagues here, I do not believe that every high school is notable - but I think the ones on the Newsweek list - which covers about the top 5% ranked by some empirical method - certainly are. -- BD2412 talk 02:50, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
      • Clearly I disagree about the value of the Newsweek list, which is just a point in time measure in any case. It certainly provides no historical perspective on a school. Anyway, if you don't think that every high school is notable, have you voted delete on any of them? Just wondering. Quale 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub, verifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand when we get through we the other 50 schools on VfD. This survived a VfD once before. Why go through this all over again? Let's work for a compromise on Wikipedia:Schools. --BaronLarf 01:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bedford (town), New York per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree that not every high school in America should have an article. However, being one of the top schools in the country in a ranking by a national newsmagazine is notable. Hopefully people will start expanding these stubs. DS1953 03:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important topic. Kappa 07:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lupin 13:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. VfD spamming must have NO reward. --Unfocused 14:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless vain zombie article IMHO. Master Thief Garrett 03:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ranking as one of the top 1.3% of all high schools in the United States surely establishes notability. Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to the President of the United States is an alumnus. Bahn Mi 18:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fairmeadow School[edit]

Tiny, non-notable elementary school of 379 students. Delete. Neutralitytalk

  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion - David Gerard 23:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. One has to exercise some act of the imagination to describe a school with 379 students as "tiny". Tiny as a school out in the Hebrides with three students? My primary school had 500 students in the middle of the Baby Boom, the first class once had a roll of 62 students, and this was reckoned to be absolutely huge. This is a good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Palo Alto Unified School District per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the hearing center. Gazpacho 04:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub, verifiable, nontrivial, topic is notable enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 07:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Lupin 13:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page after looking at the Palo Alto page and seeing a link but no page for this school. This was my elementary school and I feel the page can provide information for others. It was one of my first pages and as previously mentioned this is a great example of an entry point for myself. I am doing my best to continue to add information and others have already started to help. I would appreciate it if this article was not deleted so I can continue to expand it and work my way through the wiki process. A look should be taken at the three other elementary schools in Palo Alto with pages. Two are also up for deletion and have similiar disscussions taking place. They serve as good examples of ways to improve this article as well which I will try to add. ( Addison School, Duveneck School, Walter Hays School ) Dapoloplayer 07:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability not established by the nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, not notable. Grue 16:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, pointless. CDThieme 01:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 03:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is NoAccount's 4th day of having an account.
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Forcey Christian Middle School[edit]

Tiny, non-notable middle school. Delete. Neutralitytalk 21:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as with all the others. Christopher Parham 21:34, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've seen far worse articles kept on here, why not keep this one, jguk 21:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion. And, you know, there are lots of people following after your mass-nominations trying to expand the stubs - have you considered it may be a more helpful move that doesn't piss people off to list these somewhere other than VFD first, so that those people actually have a chance to expand them? Surely the integrity of Wikipedia doesn't need you to swoop in there before they possibly can - David Gerard 23:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The article helpfully lists the faculty, but without dates the information will go stale and is useless. Quale 00:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. David puts it well. The generally massive keep responses to nearly all listings in the current campaign show that it goes utterly contrary to what Wikipedians will wear. This is a perfectly good stub and it's absolutely baffling that it can be seriously listed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Silver Spring, Maryland per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesnt ind notab. and its goal is the same as any other US Christian school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazpacho (talk • contribs) 04:00 UTC, 18 May 2005
  • Keep, good article, important topic. Kappa 07:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lupin 13:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kelly Brown--er Martin. Master Thief Garrett 03:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make room for extra servings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please stop wasting other users' time which should be spent writing articles. CalJW 18:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we want a stub for every small school everywhere. CDThieme 01:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible, and against the spirit of wikipedia. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school worthy of inclusion. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 23:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

George S. Parker High School[edit]

Non-notable high school of either 1600 or 2000 students—depending on which of the conflicting figures in the article you believe. Delete. Neutralitytalk 21:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion. And, you know, there are lots of people following after your mass-nominations trying to expand the stubs - have you considered it may be a more helpful move that doesn't piss people off to list these somewhere other than VFD first, so that those people actually have a chance to expand them? Surely the integrity of Wikipedia doesn't need you to swoop in there before they possibly can - David Gerard 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tend to concur with David Gerard. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand when I have time to stop voting. Agree with David Gerard. This is ridiculous. I expected more from a moderator; perhaps a reply to questions on his talk page requesting a compromise rather than 15 more schools thrown on the VfD page. --BaronLarf 00:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Merge into Janesville, Wisconsin per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - its a start DS1953 03:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important, verifiable, well-written. Kappa 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and echo irritated comments above. Lupin 13:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with David Gerard. WP has articles on hydro dams, electric power stations, and entire category of 20 or 30 articles on electric power cables going underneath rivers. Never mind articles on every album issued by 3rd rate rock-n-roll bands and crappy television series. Why single out grade schools and high schools for deletion? These are the pillars of our society, these are the institutions raising our young, these are things we should hold up and be proud of and celebrate, far beyond any crap TV show and first-person-shooter computer game.linas 14:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Janesville, Wisconsin per Kelly Martin's excellent school article policy. Master Thief Garrett 03:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with David Gerard. —RaD Man (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator seems confused as to whether schools should be deleted for having few pupils or many. CalJW 18:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Christian Academy[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 21:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Bogus (non-policy) mass nomination, clogging the VFD system - notability is still not a listed deletion criterion. And, you know, there are lots of people following after your mass-nominations trying to expand the stubs - have you considered it may be a more helpful move that doesn't piss people off to list these somewhere other than VFD first, so that those people actually have a chance to expand them? Surely the integrity of Wikipedia doesn't need you to swoop in there before they possibly can. Inaddition, there's Wikipedia:Schools, so you can state your point instead of appearing to make it and possibly being misconstrued, as you said you were on IRC - David Gerard 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a school affiliated with a US Baptist organization called ABWE. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Quezon City or perhaps ABWE per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, necessary to coverage of education and religion in Quezon City. Kappa 07:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this fledgling article Lupin 13:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Secondary schools are inherently notable. This school passes my verifiability test. It could use some NPOV'ing, but that's fixable.--BaronLarf 04:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make room for extra servings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete nominator's account. CalJW 18:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, pointless. CDThieme 01:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: NoAccount's only had an account for 4 days.
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grosse Pointe North High School[edit]

Orphaned, unlinked, non-notable. Delete. Neutralitytalk 21:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • wikified, keep - Dude, this is very tiresome for many of us. I find this the equivalent of a tantrum. Please stop and talk. If you still don't win - well that's how the community decides. You can't just hammer through your way. Lotsofissues 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is ranked #828 on Newsweek's list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 talk 23:11, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable even if there are only 827 better high schools in the U.S. It is cool that they built a radio telescope. Quale 00:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with others. Christopher Parham 00:29, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember Kettering Grammar School tracking space flights in the 1960s, but even they didn't get around to building their own radio telescope. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 02:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 04:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, important, well-written, interesting. Kappa 07:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as before Lupin 13:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - David Gerard 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JYolkowski // talk 02:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real info (lists of sports played? please) and rather hard to differentiate from innumerable identical schools. Master Thief Garrett 03:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to expand. Verifiable. Secondary schools are inherently notable. --BaronLarf 03:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blatant keep. —RaD Man (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Introduce a limit of 3 nominations per day. CalJW 18:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, pointless. CDThieme 01:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Gamaliel 01:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please Yuckfoo 04:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guilford Young College[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 21:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atlas ensemble[edit]

Non-notable Austalian band. Google search for "atlas ensemble" Australian yields 9 hits, mostly WP mirrors. Bad website.—Wahoofive (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -SimonP 03:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Necro music[edit]

Another imaginary music genre, this one is "post-Black metal". Nothing links here; let's kill it before anything does —Wahoofive (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's like Vegetarian Literary Theory: folks'll do most anything to invent importance for themselves and say, "We're not like all the rest." Yes, well, they are. Fictitious music genre. Geogre 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Geogre. Bratschetalk random 03:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Necro is a notable sub-genre in black metal, for those who are into that sort of music. Harp Heaven 12:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that Techno and Metal seem to both be experts at developing phantom genres of music? This article doesn't even distinguish it from the collected works of a garage band of twelve-year-olds, never mind establish notability. Delete unless someone can expand the article in such a way as to show what makes this particular "genre" special. Haikupoet 04:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cora-bora[edit]

NN neologism invented by some college students. Rl 06:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity neologism Gazpacho 06:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?"neologism"? {and ?originality in the original creation]-- is this not Corroboree under a modernised name ? ?Merge'? --Simon Cursitor 07:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, in that case Redirect. I thought it was some sort of play on Tora Bora. What language do Australians speak again? Gazpacho 10:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • English, but I have never heard Corroboree being referred to as Cora-bora. Megan1967 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 09:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. utcursch | talk 11:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a lot: Middlebury College super vanity idiolect. Not a neologism as much as it is a prank on Wikipedia. Geogre 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polite Query :: for how many centuries, and in how many cultures, does a word have to be used before it is accepted (by Wikipaedians) as no longer a neologism ?--Simon Cursitor 06:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria is rather how wide-spread the use of such a term is. But even if this term was notable, it would be hardly worth an entry in WP and would likely be merged or tagged for a move to the wiktionary. Rl 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is usage. If a word is used only in a small area (Rochester, MN), it is a regionalism when it has been in use for a while. If a word is used only in a class/profession, it is jargon or slang, but it has to live for a while, and it has to have quite a few speakers. The reason it has to live for a while is that lexicons are always behind the usage (even Wiktionary). Linguistic atlases try to explain and catalog what's happening now, but all lexicons are attempting to explain to someone else what a word means; they are all translations. There can be no someone else if the word is used for a season or a month. However, all of this is kind of irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Geogre 11:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Cora-bora is definitely not a "modernised" name for a corroboree, the word corroboree is still in use. --bainer 13:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Barstooling[edit]

Non-notable drinking game. Google gives 51 hits for "barstooling" and most are not in reference to this game. SWAdair | Talk 10:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nateji77 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 11:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Private pastime. (Perhaps people should read a few articles before they write any.) Geogre 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. . . or rename "Who can hold their pee-pee the longest game" --Fazdeconta 12:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This will be updated shortly." Unless it can be updated with newspaper reports on how it is becoming a significant trend, it is not encyclopaedic. --bainer 13:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd write my opinion, but I gotta go. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:17, 2005 May 17 (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 - all deleted - SimonP 03:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

James Lockwood, King's College Conservatives, 2001club[edit]

According to personal bio - a local student association organizer. This does not meet notability criteria. Vote for delete

Lotsofissues 10:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

additional notes, user has also created King's College Conservatives 2001club mentioning vfd candidate and email so these entries are likely vanity/self promotion. What does everyone want to do with those two contributions? Lotsofissues 11:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is there a way to modify the vfd template so we could put it on multiple pages (eg, a vanity page about a band, then the vanity pages about its members and albums) but have them all link to the same discussion? so we dont have to vote three (or more) times. Nateji77 11:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lost in the depths of time ... in 1998"? delete. Nateji77 11:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy has a less impressive resume than the average Wikipedian. --Fazdeconta 12:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just added the other two articles to this vote. Votes above were cast in relation to only the first article (James Lockwood). My vote for all three is delete, vanity. --bainer 12:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all three (or perhaps merge with Tory boy? :) ) Dunc|☺ 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Gazpacho 20:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Karuna Institute[edit]

No potential to become encyopedic appears to be an add anywayGeni 12:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think you've misread this. This institute offers professional qualifications in psychotherapy accredited by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (which is one of two independent national accreditation bodies recognised for psychotherapists used by the UK National Health Service) and masters degrees accredited by Middlesex University. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article. While I am an ex Karuna student (91-95), it can in no way be considered an ad as I have completely lost connection with them, and they are, anyway, a charitable institute, which is one of the reasons I had no hesitation in starting the article. The Institute is clearly notable, it is a nationally recognised training institute for psychotherapy (one of only 2 for transpersonal psychology) and craniosacral therapy as well. Both Maura Sills and Franklyn Sills clearly each deserve an article (perhaps now is the time to start). While I have felt it is a shame that no-one else (ex students etc) has added to this article it clearly has a vast potential as an article. The buddhist psychotherapy work they are doing is certainly unique in the UK and possibly the world. Why would anyone think this article is not encyclopedic. There must be thousands of articles more deserving of a Vfd than this one, --SqueakBox 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tertiary institutions. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edumacation. -- BD2412 talk 22:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep all tertiary educational institutions. Kelly Martin 02:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable institute. Megan1967 06:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Darththeo and KazII[edit]

Chat-room-cruft, not notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Martg76 14:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forum/rpgcruft Gazpacho 20:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, forumcruft. Would there be any objections if I added the similar article KazII to this nomination? Articles are by the same original author. android↔talk 21:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since no one objected, I pointed the VfD notice for KazII here. android↔talk 15:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as previously stated. Mr Bound 21:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 03:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fred Piper[edit]

A Ctrl+v CV. not notable. Nateji77 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh O'Connor[edit]

Seems to be a somewhat pointless page Barneyboo 14:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't do anything to establish notability. If no one addresses that, redirect to Hugh O'Conor. Nateji77 15:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect only. Extant article on the child of Carrol O'Conor (and this appears to be him). The crush-gush is unneeded, but this is a common misspelling. Geogre 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is correctly titled. It's Carroll O'Connor and, similarly, Hugh O'Connor. --FCYTravis 21:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not salvageable. Gazpacho 20:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, salvaged. Gazpacho 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I just edited out the POV. It's still a stub, but it's a stub about a notable actor (and is spelled correctly). EvilPhoenix 00:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Actor who spent 7 years on a well known t.v. show.Also his life story became quite well known after his death.There was much media coverage when his father was sued for slander by the drug dealer he blamed for his son's death.The case resulted in the state of Florida passing the Hugh O'Connor Memorial Act in which drug dealers may be held responsible for the deaths of those they sell drugs to.Have tried to Wikify and expand article. California12 2:16, May 18, 2005
  • keep, very notable. Thanks for the rewrite. Kappa 21:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gazpacho. Haikupoet 04:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep revised version. --Unfocused 05:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re: revised version. Thanks for making the changes Barneyboo 00:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digital Mars[edit]

Wikispam. All this page does is tell you that they give out the software for free, and a link to their page. No reason for notability or impact on computing. Alexa rates them at 121,554, so they do get some traffic. However, if this were more than just an add, it would have been stubbed (which it's not), there would have been some information on the founder people, and stuff like that. This page, as it exists, is nothing more than an ad. Delete. --Mitsukai 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Legitimate NPOV listing for a legitimate company. Kelly Martin 02:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Appears to be a company of some note. Megan1967 06:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known company among programmers: they created Zortech C++ compiler and (I think) Symantec as well. Pavel Vozenilek 01:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article messages[edit]

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. --Ciaran H 14:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete as fork. Radiant_* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not the best title, either). - dcljr (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia messages[edit]

This page was created as part of a non-discussed change to Wikipedia:Template messages (see the talk page). The change has been reverted, so this page no longer serves a purpose. Delete. --Ciaran H 15:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete. Radiant_* 08:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not against the splitting idea per se, as long as it's properly transcluded so as not to break anything or cause unnecessary redundancy. This was just not the way to do it (and not a good title, either). - dcljr (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Data drawing[edit]

Something between a joke and original research. Maybe appropriate for BJAODN. Sietse 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Just appears to be general sillyness. No matches in google. — RJH 15:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and stay away from alcohol --Doc Glasgow 15:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite worthy of BJAODN. --Carnildo 23:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strikes me as the half-baked musings of a total stoner. Either that or something written at 4am by someone who isn't getting enough sleep and thought it was a good idea at the time. Haikupoet 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Renegades[edit]

This is an article by an anonymous user. It is a concoction of part "original research" part selective biographies, and part deceptive "self-adulation" (then again, maybe "self-hate"), about some personalities that will surely be offensive to people of all stripes. Religious Jews will wonder how their VIPs get lumped with secular ones and secular people will wonder why their VIPs are the same as ancient rabbis. Then everyone else is bound to wonder what's next? Christian Renegades? Islamic Renegades? etc, etc, Since when is "renegades" an acceptable title for an encyclopedia article? This is too contentious and hopelessly POV. This article should be deleted ASAP. IZAK 15:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, see above. IZAK 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm missing something - but I don't get this article. Define 'renegade'? No vote for now, but strongly tending towards delete. --Doc Glasgow 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC) OK, delete--Doc Glasgow 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV, and duplicative of biographies found in other articles. In the unlikely event that there's anything on this page not found on the individual pages, merge. RussBlau 15:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inflammatory at worst, silly at best. --Leifern 16:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unbelievably POV. The term "renegade" is loaded in itself, unless the person has declared "I am a Jewish renegade and proud of it". This cannot be said about Maimonides; like with any visionary there were initial difficulties with the acceptance of his views, but today you will not find a serious Jew who is anti-Maimonides; quite the opposite - every group has tried to colonise Maimonides to gain legitimacy (yes that is POV as well). The article is also selective - there are plenty of Jews who have had profound influence on Jewish religion, people and history. What about the Maharal, the Baal Shem Tov, the Vilna Gaon and Samson Raphael Hirsch? JFW | T@lk 16:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly opening can of forks--uh, worms. Master Thief Garrett 16:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (?!? link doesn't work?!?)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the author of this article knows what the definition of "renegade" is; I suspect he thinks it means "hero," but it actually means "deserter" (among other meanings). I don't think an NPOV article under this title is possible anyway. --Metropolitan90 16:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless. -- BD2412 thimkact 16:46, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. I laughed, but then again, it's kinda hard to actually offend me. The article is badly named, and it does nothing whatsoever to enhance WP. Plus, the name is just wrong.  :-p Tomer TALK 19:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why don't we all just write wikipedia articles lumping together all our favorite people (especially if they already all have individual articles)? (I think my new article will feature: Batman, Superman, Fulgencio Batista, Brian "Kato" Kaelin...) :-) HKT 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done, inherently POV. Delete, but if there is anything useful in the article it could be merged with the individual biographies first. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say Merge, but most of the text appears to have been copied wholesale from other articles. Also, The Jewish Renegades would be a kickass name for a neo-klezmer band. Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete. "No clear criteria for membership, so the collection is useless." El_C 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Heathcliff 23:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Eliezer 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Confuseable[edit]

This seems to be original research, a neologism, and hopelessly POV about the use of English to describe the computer industry. Best to delete it. AlexTiefling 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete neologistic rant --Doc Glasgow 15:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity neologism, article content begins "Confuseable is a word that I created to fill a semantic void." No indication of widespread use to merit transwikification to Wiktionary. However, it's a good word in a non-lexical usage: I have often admitted to being confuseable in the early morning. Barno 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best bit is where the author (writing in the first person, by the way) mis-spells xyr own protologism and accidentally uses the word confusable. The irony is that "confuseable" has been a mis-spelling of confusable for a long while before this author "invented" it. The word that the author is groping for is ambiguous. Adjective→noun Redirect to ambiguity. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete admitted vanity neologism. Gazpacho 20:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Golbez 17:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

insidious[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Insidious/2005 May 8.

This three-word article about a word was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-08. SimonP closed the discussion as Wiktionary without checking Wiktionary first, where he would have seen that as the Wikipedia discussion had trundled along, completely independently a Wiktionarian had created a proper Wiktionary article at insidious. Much as I dislike immediate re-nominations, this discussion needs to be re-opened because the choice made at closure had actually disappeared as a valid option almost a week earlier (a day before Texture said "if it isn't already there", moreover). Wiktionary has no need of this three word article. No adjective→noun redirects come to mind. And there's no concept/place/person/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. If it already exists at Wiktionary, then I believe this is CSD, and not even VfD. If it cannot stand as an encyclopedia article (and it sure as shootin' can't), then there isn't any debate. 162.39.237.201 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Redstar 2000[edit]

Vanity, thy name is Redstar (2000, that is). RussBlau 15:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

CodingIRC[edit]

As the network has only 10 to 14 users, there aren't many people interested in it. Besides, there have not been any links to CodingIRC since the link from Internet Relay Chat was removed. Delete. --Betterworld 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: Ahh, I know what you mean now.)

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

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

Autopsychognosia[edit]

Apparently has had copyright issues, with no text it is entirely useles. I doubt it could be expanded.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was- kept - SimonP 03:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Juliet (artist)[edit]

vanity. If she's a one-hit wonder, would she rate a page in a regular encyclopedia; if she was an up and coming artist, there would be more about her here in which case the page would still be vanity. Delete. --Mitsukai 16:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from being non-notable it is questionable if she is an "artist" or only a "vocalist". Its also a bad stub. --Modi 16:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being a bad stub does not prevent notability. Hedley 16:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ridiculous VfD for a released artist. Amongst the 43,500 results on Google for "Juliet - Avalon" ([2]) are the page on HMV.co.uk: [3], the page on CDUniverse [4] and a lot of lyrics sites, reviews and forums mentioning the song. If required I have the music video as featured on First Play in the UK a couple of months ago. I think that a simple visit to Google would have prevented this - Also, how is it vanity unless I am connected to the artist? Hedley 16:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.I restate my last: "If she's a one-hit wonder, would she rate a page in a regular encyclopedia"? We kill pages off here all the time for minor artist and people who reached number one in Sheboygan. While I will admit that she hit it big in Europe (no small feat that), the fact is, she's a minor artist at the moment and not worth, IMHO, an encyclopedia entry. I wouldn't expect Sonoko Kawaii (a Japanese one-hit wonder from the 80s) to have a page here, either, would I for American, Canadian, Australian, or wherever. --Mitsukai 17:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would vote keep on an article for Sonoko Kawaii too. As Kappa states below she has had a minor hit - Infact, it wasn't minor, it was a top 5 hit on the Eurodance Chart and made the European Charts. See the Eurodance chart there: [5], the song is currently #9 on the chart. As for the one-hit wonder query - Well, a lot of one-hit wonders have articles - See New Radicals for a perfect example. Hedley 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Europe is a rather larger place than Sheboygan. AlexTiefling 19:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having a minor hit across Europe indicates a certain amount of fame and/or notoriety, and passes the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Kappa 17:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Avalon" is Juliet Richardson's second song to chart (and not only in Europe—she's from Philly), the first was the cover of "Cherry Bomb" with 1 plus 1. The upcoming album is very strong too, generating a hell of a buzz. --iMb~Meow 17:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There we have it. Notability ensured. Hedley 17:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes the WP:MUSIC guidelines--JiFish 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename either to her full name or something like Juliet (musician) if that's all she normally goes by. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Juliet Richardson as per Hedley. Meets Wikimusic project criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my musical group article policy. Kelly Martin 02:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please note Hedley, IMeowbot, Epoynmous Coward and myself have all expanded and improved this article. It is now a good article if I say so myself. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 11:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digg[edit]

Promotional. Delete unless rewritten. Previously, the article received 6:3 vote in favour of deletion (discounting sockpuppets and anonymous votes). Could be marked for speedy deletion, but I prefered to err on the side of caution. - Mike Rosoft 16:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. --Carnildo 23:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is the third incarnation of Digg that I have seen. Once when it was up for vfd and deleted, once when I put it up for speedy delete due to it's recreation, and now we have it again in it's third incarnation. --Randolph 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect the article page. Vegaswikian 06:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason you want it deleted it what? -Danzik

  • Delete, redirect to Dig as possible misspelling, protect. Radiant_* 08:56, May 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 - kept - SimonP 03:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cabrini College[edit]

While we're at it, can we see the pictures from the brochure, too? This reads so much like advertising copy, it's not even funny. Delete. --Mitsukai 16:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, cleanup. Institutions of higher education = inherently notable. -- BD2412 thimkact 16:30, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there is sales droid language in the article, just rewrite it in English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are such things as the NPOV and Cleanup tags. Hedley 16:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 18:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Tertiary institutions have a general concensus in favour of notability. Capitalistroadster 20:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bogus nomination - VFD is not Cleanup - David Gerard 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tertiary schools are generally notable. Quale 00:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all tertiary educational institutions. Kelly Martin 02:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is rediculous. Klonimus 03:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Radnor Township, Pennsylvania and delete - Skysmith 08:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412 et al. — RJH 15:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all colleges and universities. If you don't like the content of the article, be bold and change it, don't delete it. --BaronLarf 16:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. CalJW 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I Like Pumpkins[edit]

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

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

Ate my balls[edit]

  • Delete Non-notable neologism Stancel 17:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia ate your balls. Nestea 19:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RexNL 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've seen enough. -- BD2412 thimkact 19:29, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Does that mean "delete" or "keep"? Stancel 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep old-school (by internet standards) meme / joke type. Thoroughly stupid and not particularly funny, but probably worth an entry. Evidence: 11,100 Google hits and a Yahoo directory with 45 different Ate My Balls sites listed. Another source lists 320 different Ate My Balls sites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Magic Ate-Ball says... weak keep, dozens or hundreds of XXX Ate My Balls sites since 1998. Not clever enough or funny enough to be labelled "sophomoric", but widespread. Barno 20:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, slang neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, much like the Prime Number Shitting Bear, this was big in its day, and has since become old meme. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Internet meme that is barely notable enough to keep. Quale 20:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly part of the sum of human knowledge I was unaware of. Kappa 21:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for roughly the same reason that the OED included "bootylicious" -- someone, somewhere, is going to want to look it up to figure out what the hell it was all about. Haikupoet 04:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Haikupoet. --Unfocused 04:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any harm in this article being there, although it does bring back some painful memories- let's just say I no longer have a remis --dmj27 1800, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of your take on the humor, it is a part of US culture. MSTCrow 23:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stupid, pointless, and culturally reprehensible, but that's the stuff of revolutions - that, and this is the first 'net meme I ever 'got'. Tiny bit sentimental. Elemental Knight 03:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thompson (cartoonist)[edit]

Unverifiable. A Google search on "Zen of Smurf" returns zero hits. A Google search on the name (which is common) doesn't return anything apparently related to cartooning or children's shows. An IMDB search on the name returns several individuals, but none who appear to have been writers on children's shows. Most likely a hoax. RussBlau 17:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Addendum -- before others jump on this:) There apparently is a Robert Thompson who is an editorial cartoonist for the Observer, a British newspaper. This article, however, clearly is not about him! RussBlau 17:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Never heard of him, agree it's a hoax. Hiding 20:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged. Copyirght status still unresolved - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No useful content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've never seen a dictionary that looks like that. RJII 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: it explicitly states that a list of dictionary definitions is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Mike Rosoft 17:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a list of dictionary definitions. It's a list of definitions that includes dictionary definitions and definitions from noteable thinkers. RJII 18:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other words, it IS a list of dictionary definitions with a few quotes added. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, either. - Mike Rosoft 19:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per nomination —msh210 18:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete definitions of socialism as re-creation of material deleted for copyright violation (deletion log) of thirteen paper dictionaries. Delete definitions of capitalism for copyright violation of twenty-six commercial dictionaries and three commercial encyclopaedias. Caution authors that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that, moreover, if an article is to be written on how people have differed in their definitions of capitalism and socialism, that article must not be a raw dump of the source materials, even when those materials are GFDL-compatible. Uncle G 19:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Since when is it a copyright violation to quote a definition from a dictionary? RJII 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since 1710 in some countries. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
        • This is 2005 and it's not Britain. RJII 14:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. The definitions by theorists shed light on how various schools of thought regard the topics and thus belong right here. Also there is no question of copyvio for them. Kappa 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, see WP:NOT. An article consisting of nothing but a list of quotes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; rather, it would belong to Wikiquote. Wikiquote:Capitalism already exists, a similar listing can be made for socialism. - Mike Rosoft 22:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to capitalism and socialism, respectively. RickK 23:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant content (if any) into capitalism and socialism, then redirect. Kelly Martin 03:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly concur with Uncle G. this poorly-conceived page doesn't actually help anyone, least of all Wikipedia. Merge only as a last resort. Slac speak up! 03:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you're dead wrong about the page not being helpful. Being a participant in a now-resolved lengthy edit war over getting a definition of capitalism in the capitalism article, I know that the creation and editing of the definitions of capitalism article was essential and instrumental. If it's deleted, I predict more unnecessary edit-warring from people who have no clue how capitalism is commonly defined and who are unwilling to go research tons of dictionaries, encyclopedia, and works of thinkers to find out. The article serves to consolidate all of that research in one place to avoid unnecessary battling in the capitalism article. The claim that's it's not useful is definitely wrong. RJII 04:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge respectively into capitalism and socialism. Forks. Megan1967 06:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - merge - Skysmith 08:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge sounds good. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The content or even parts of it cannot be moved to the alreday much too long capitalism article. Deleting the page will only start the very intense and long-lasting previous edit war about the correct definition of capitalism again. This article was cited in a case before the arbcom as part of the resolution to this previous edit war, so it should be kept. Ultramarine 09:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One possiblity would be to move the material to Wikiquote. Ultramarine 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikiquote has the same copyright policy as Wikipedia, and the same command not to submit copyrighted work beneath every edit box. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
        • It is certainly Fair use to quote one paragraph from a dictionary. Please give source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 12:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your argument is a false characterization. This article is exactly copying entries from twenty-six dictionaries (and three encyclopaedias), rather than "quoting one paragraph from a dictionary". If you think that copying copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias into WikiMedia project articles is acceptable, then you should discuss this with the WikiMedia Foundation, and on the talk pages of the various copyright policies for all of the WikiMedia projects, which all say otherwise. (You'll have a have a hard time of it. The GFDL is a foundation issue, and non-negotiable.) Why did you think that Wiktionarians and Wikipedians are specifically pointed in the directions of Webster 1913 and Britannica 1911? There's plenty of explanation, of why Wiktionary and Wikipedia must not copy (non-GFDL licenced) copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias, linked to from our copyright policy, a link to which is on this and every page, and no need for us to spoon-feed it to you in this discussion. Please go and read it all. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
            • Your reasoningis strange. So what if it's "twenty-six" dictionaries? If it's not a copyright violation to provide a quote from one dictionary, then it's not a violation to quote a definition from a hundred different dictionaries. RJII 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. There is potential here for good articles illustrating important debates. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Megan1967 — RJH 15:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have written a notification on Wikipedia:Copyvio so that it can be decided if the content is appropriate. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has already been decided. Definitions of socialism was listed there on 2005-05-08 and deleted on 2005-05-16 after the discussion period. As I said, this is simple re-creation of content deleted per the copyright violation deletion process, and qualifies for speedy deletion. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Very useful information, keep and improve. Short sourced quotes within a context are not copyvios.--Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- very useful, in that it allows editors to get beyond unresolvable definitional disputes in the capitalism and socialism article. Also, I'm not buying the copyright claim. These defs are all within the meaning of fair use SFAIK. --Christofurio 03:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- yes, wiktionary is indeed for definitions, but also for pronunciations, etc, as long as it is an aid for use in language. Wiktionary is also for the simple definitions of words. However, these articles address the definitions is the context of the idea or philosophy, which can never be dictionary-like, for it is no longer a guide for language use but rather another body of knowledge. I suggest though, one, to restore the articles but edit it according to the definitions of notable people, rather than dictionaries, and two, to discuss the history of how those definitions began, developed, and evolved. Making the articles like that will resolve all standing issues. --Humble Guy 15:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- integrate content into capitalism and socialism articles, respectively. If a consensus cannot be reached on how to define socialism and capitalism, simple give multiple definitions in the introductions to their two articles and explain which group uses which definition (although I really can't see why it's so hard to reach a consensus, especially on capitalism - in general, both supporters and opponents of capitalism define it in the same way). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I just, a minute ago, had to revert a change in the definition. Somebody tried to assert that it's commonly defined as an economy where "capitalists" dictate prices, etc, rather than the market. This is probably because the definitions of capitalism article is unavailable right now. The definitions article helps prevent useless battles over how capitalism is commonly defined. Apparently a lot of people have no clue. RJII 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)[edit]

Too broad. will become unmaintainable and perhaps too lengthy. -- Longhair | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the moment this list contains only one entry, but it could become a valuable research tool if there were sublists of CEOs by country and by industry. Martg76 17:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How often would the list change? There must be millions of CEO's out there. -- Longhair | Talk 18:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ludicrously broad, completely unmaintainable. Would need constant updating, as CEOs come and go like fireflies. Try a Google News search for "new CEO" to see what I mean: in the past 5 hours alone, at least 6 major companies switched CEOs. Intel's getting a new CEO tomorrow. Keeping this one article updated would be almost a full-time job, and its eventual huge size would render any potential use as a research tool completely moot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no purpose.--Heathcliff 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless, overly broad, unmaintainable. Quale 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am tired of seeing lists which cover such large scopes of mostly uninteresting things or people that will almost certainly never been completed. Kelly Martin 03:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfeasible list. Gazpacho 04:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 06:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially infinite. Use categories instead. Gamaliel 06:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Would be practically endless endeavour and next to impossible to keep up to date, especially if it would include all the former CEO's as well (and I am sure there would be support for that). - Skysmith 08:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — use Category:Chief executives instead — RJH 15:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Channing Jones[edit]

Student vanity -- Longhair | Talk 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shouldn't the box be at the top of the page, though? Mr Bound 21:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; and whatever is easier for the person doing the VfD as far as I'm concerned, I'm just grateful people are taking the effort. You needn't explicitly vote though Longhair, whoever tallies the votes at the end knows you're voting delete from the fact that you're nominating. --W(t) 22:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Fitful 22:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please!!!Rogertudor 23:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Atah[edit]

As it stands, it's a dicdef. See its history, though; and see its talk page. —msh210 18:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Del —msh210 18:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Wiktionary has אתה, which appears to be the actual word here. Uncle G 20:08, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Postmodern Tractor[edit]

One of the many things created by Special:Contributions/207.215.247.1, which all seem to be nonsense...mostly they can be cleaned up, but this doesn't appear on Google, even though it appears to be copied from somewhere. This user is also "Serapion" on IRC and is being pretty nonsensical there too. Adam Bishop 18:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- nonsense - Longhair | Talk 18:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Salvage -- Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia - any ideological opposition to the understanding that the human condition is presently one which persistently references a certain limited degree of _incompletely analyzed_ uncertainty... People who can't explicate an understanding of Quantum Superposition should be barred from this discussion, as should any categorical generalizations which appeal to already understood List of Cognitive Biases (e.g. anthrocentrism, etc...). Every claim in the article can be falsified, so, attack it on its _merits_. Serapion | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2005 (PST)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite patent nonsense for a speedy delete. Policy reasons: Original research, source material from elsewhere, title has no objectively perceptible connection to content. Non-policy reason: Rant from a tripping grad student, apparently. Quotes from article, more telling than the author realizes: "The purpose of this paper is to delve into this uncertainty, examine it, and see if meaningful distinctions can be made between the two categories I have parceled out as segments of the identities cited by the thing which creates meaningfulness for each person who experiences a perception of reality."; "it would be appropriate for us to do without thinking. That is the new writing style people are employing on message boards on the internet, ..." Or at least the one which this person seems to be employing. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Barno 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, almost gibberish. Even if sense could somehow be made of it (and I feel sorry for whoever tries) it would still be original research, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be about using GIT to advocate anti-realism. That is an interesting idea. I notice that Barno makes assumptions to explain the identity of the author, and Starblind cites a feeling as a reason to destroy this creation, which I grok as worthwhile, salvagable art. Reminds me of Sartre's Dirty Hands Play... Mythrandia - 16:17, May 17, 2005 (PST )http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
    • Note that this user has not made any edits in the past year and a half, and was also a nuisance when they were first around. Adam Bishop 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note also that Wikipedia is not a site for salvaging worthwhile art. Barno 13:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Deep Thoughts, and Wikipedia is not your gallery. Geogre 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, and doesn't exaplain what it has to do with the article title anyway. Loganberry 18:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense masquerading as deep thought. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Postmodernism for the Dadaist -- this stuff would give Alan Sokal a headache. Haikupoet 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like some cheese with your whine, Serapion? This is not the place for philosophical writings. If what you've written is so important, then surely there are philosophical journals that would be happy to publish them. Haikupoet 03:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steelcube[edit]

non-notable shopping site. --Sgkay 16:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Site may be useful to some people --jxs97s 19:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above is in reality User:81.1.69.25, the creator of the page RickK 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and was looking for an article to write that hasn't been written yet. With well over half a million articles, that isn't so easy. I'm a customer of this website and think they do a great job, so wanted to write about it. If Wikipedia is to be the sum of human knowledge, why shouldn't my knowledge of this web store be here? Besides, I thought there was a policy of not biting newcomers!! --jxs97s 23:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Site has some great looking products and a cool feel to it --Daveeeeeed 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edits. RickK 23:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Votes once again removed by Jxs97s -- Longhair | Talk 09:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RickK (recreation of Vfd'd article) --cesarb 00:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kernaxion[edit]

A new language spoken by 14 people in Texas! Delete -- Svest 18:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

  • Delete, no sources, low quality. Pavel Vozenilek 18:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had this one before. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kérnaxion. This is the second attempt to use Wikipedia as a hosting service for the creation and publicising of this language. Speedy Delete under criterion G4. I shall watch for the likely attempt to re-add it to Wiktionary in parallel, like last time. Uncle G 20:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Speedied. RickK 23:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Classic Response[edit]

Non-notable one time event. --YUL89YYZ 18:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, extremely notable concert, look at all those blue links. Kappa 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 6,000, pretty good for a classical music gig. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Expand. Hooray! -- BD2412 talk 22:56, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • This is a stub about a single musical performance. 6000 may be "pretty good" but it's hardly Woodstock. A mention in one of the articles about the 2004 tsunami would be sufficient. Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it is kept, it must be renamed. --metta, The Sunborn 06:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 08:55, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

UtDD[edit]

Not notable; see also blatant ad on Flo from the same user.--Tabor 19:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bob and Fred[edit]

Ad for non-notable website. --W(t) 19:05, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Austin Utley[edit]

Not notable -- plans for an upcoming album and spamvertisement, see UtDD entry above. --Tabor 19:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wwcarpen and Aghost[edit]

More examples of the "I can't be bothered..." kind of articles. Two articles weighing in at a total of 3 (three) sentences. "See also" indicates that they are related, text doesn't explain how. Neither article makes an attempt to establish notability. FWIW, there used to be a musician from Baltimore who went under the name WWCarpen; according to the article, "In 2005, wwcarpen died as a logical extension of his initial starting conditions.". Whatever that means. Rl 19:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm guessing it was a way of referring to the fact that all which is born is born temporarily. Jeez, I didn't phrase that in a way much less unusual than Rl's way. Barno 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix 00:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wwcarpen per my musical group article policy and delete Aghost as vanity. Kelly Martin 03:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to propose that since wikipedia is defined by reality, wikipedia can also define reality, thus giving an artist a chance to shape their own destiny. perhaps my argument is standard fare here, but i feel that no harm is done by wikipedia growing beyond where people feel it should naturally go. why would you cut all the flowers off a beautiful tree?
    • Above vote was by anonymous editor 66.92.46.119, who has been editing these and a couple of other articles. Barno 13:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No harm, except destroying Wikipedia's very nature. Wikipedia does not exist to serve your promotional desires. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wwcarpen "has released" something, so he's alive. No, wait, he's dead. But how many people would notice the difference? Delete. I'm aghast at the WP activities of our friend aghost. -- Hoary 04:15, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete both and ban the author as a vandal if he tries this sort of thing again. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i plan on making more wiki pages for my other projects. im not interested in the world catching up to my ideas, they deserve to be in the wikipedia, when i feel they are ready. i think some serious consideration needs to be given to whether im a vandal or some kind of creationist before my account is deleted. Aghost 15:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You're already making your mark, Aghost. No need to throw "creationism" into the mix. -- Hoary 15:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
it seems to me that you have thrown creationism into the mix. Aghost 18:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nmac[edit]

Not notable, vanity, see UtDD and Austin Utley entried above. --Tabor 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete All. (you forgot Neil McMahon). Vanity/Spam. Joe D (t) 19:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Browne of Beechworth Castle[edit]

WP is not a genealogical database; Despite the knighthood, this lists his major accomplishment as having married someone. Dunc|☺ 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't underestimate it, it's harder than you think. Delete though. --W(t) 20:01, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Hmm, since he seems not to have attained his knighthood through marriage nor had it awarded for service to the Crown, it was apparently harder to marry his wife (the only accomplishment mentioned in the story) than to inherit his title. Delete unless more indication of notability is provided and verified. Barno 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had four sons and a daughter, which is more than Thomas Fitzalan and Elizabeth le Despenser, apparently. Eleanor Maltravers outdoes all three by inheriting something from her step-grandmother and her sister, though. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. This is not an important historical figure, according to the article. This is a distant relative of an important historical figure. Delete. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete: Bertel the Fecund (or "Bertel the Fertile") in Njal's Saga probably out-produced them all. There are all sorts of neat and significant Thomas Brownes in history. I cannot find this one tying to any of them, alas. Geogre 02:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Geneaology. Gamaliel 02:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good_life[edit]

Article has no encyclopedic potential and cannot be NPOV Eugene Medynskiy 19:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Used-rental-cars[edit]

An ad, though not for a specific company, not sure what its goal is. I doubt an appropriate article can be made of it though. --W(t) 19:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Speedy. Advertising. Rmhermen 20:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would agree with above, although my impression is it's more akin to patent nonsense. Any way, delete, unless article can be improved to anything beyond what will inevitably be advertisement. Mr Bound 21:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article could be made on the comparative benefits of buying used rental cars. This isn't it. -- BD2412 talk 00:25, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, --metta, The Sunborn 06:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for so many reasons. At best Merge into a used car article if there is anything of value here. Vegaswikian 06:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Megan1967 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lombax[edit]

Part fancruft for the Ratchet and Clank game series, but also questionable copyright from [7], a source of information that is entirely of the author's creation. If the article is rewritten for accurate and factual content, it will have virtually no content. Recommend deletion. Mr Bound 20:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with Mr Bound. --Trogga 18:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommendation accepted, Delete. Master Thief Garrett 10:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the deletion request. While the questionable copyright should certainly be investigated and, if necessary, repaired, there are numerous articles on fictitious species (such as "Bugs (Starship Troopers)") which have virtually no information, speculative or otherwise, yet are not under consideration. While this article could be improved with additional links to factual information (perhaps such as marsupial biology/development), but such changes would be better made with small modifications rather than deletion. Mithlas 21 May 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Joseph Howley"[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 20:35, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Steven L. Woyach[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jigyasubalak's Law[edit]

Law-vanity. --W(t) 20:39, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete Messageboardcruft, O Google Hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stancel 21:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought I remembered seeing that name somewhere this morning. Here are the relevant Slashdot posts: [8], [9]. This was a one-off gag term coined by a Slashdot poster deep in comments less than twenty-four hours ago. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it's nice to know that we're only a few decades away from growing a diamond bigger than the earth. -- BD2412 talk 00:26, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
    • Shhhh Keep quiet about that, or else every solar system will want a giant diamond too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. --metta, The Sunborn 06:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nam Fung Sun Chuen[edit]

An apartment block is not encyclopedic even if there is a picture.--metta, The Sunborn 20:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • as notable as several of the schools above. so delete and await the wash of stupid keep votes... Dunc|☺ 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as notable as several of the notable schools above. Kappa 20:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 21:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We're going to start listing apartments now?! Only a matter of time before every garage sale wants an article too... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: These are high rise tower blocks with eight flats on each floor. The twelve blocks together house around 10 000 residents. A district council constituency normally has around 14 000 to 20 000 residents. — Instantnood 21:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable place with community of interest including representation in Hong Kong politics. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If population is the notability measure, lets delete the state of Wyoming. It's notable because someone took the time to write it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a neighborhood, and if all the Chicago neighborhoods can have their own articles, so can this one. Kelly Martin 03:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough, transwiki to wikiapartmentblocks or wikitrivia. Gmaxwell 05:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oh come on... its an apartment block with nothing really notable about it. Megan1967 07:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is now significantly expanded. — Instantnood 13:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kelly Martin. --Unfocused 14:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if expanded, I find it ridiculous to have an article about a collection of apartment buildings. Sarg 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In your opinion in what way will an entry of tower blocks be notable? What about a collection with ~100 blocks and ~50 000 residents? — Instantnood 15:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'll put it this way: I live in a 4 million inhabitants city. Do you realize how many 50.000 resident complexes can be found here? Quite some. Do they need Wikipedia articles? Nope, I don't think so. I'd put an exception if the complex /district / whatever had some historical, political or educational relevance. I don't see that here. It is just 9.000 people living in a zone. Wow, big deal :) But that is just my opinion, of course Sarg 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Sounds logical, but this entry is not the only one of the same kind, and there was little objection towards these similar entries. Somehow I can't really tell where the line of notability should be drawn. :-) — Instantnood 19:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some architecture is notable, but this article doesn't establish that. Quale 20:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real districts. Isn't Nam Fung Sun Chuen the chinese pronunciation of General Gau's Chicken ? Klonimus 03:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, "notable" enough. --SPUI (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as encyclopedic as any other neighbourhood. - SimonP 03:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 03:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Coby Archa[edit]

Vanity. --W(t) 20:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yuriy Hychun[edit]

Non-notable athlete--metta, The Sunborn 20:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Litton, Chris[edit]

Badly written vanity page / joke / test edit with the wrong title. Possible speedy but then the threashold for speedy tends to be different for everybody who cleans out the speedy category ;) Joe D (t) 20:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem to be specially famous or influential. Kappa 21:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. android↔talk 21:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you are the author of the article, please visit the articles discussion page. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. not notable --metta, The Sunborn 06:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

ESH by ESH[edit]

Ad for a comic; it does score a reasonable amount of google hits, but they are all either false positives or promotion of the comic by the author by the looks of it. I can't find any evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete. Self-promotion. Note the name of the article author: ESHbyESH. -Doozer (Talk) 22:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, self promotion. Megan1967 07:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Uroš Eršte[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete 0 Google hits Stancel 21:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete unless can be proven to have european hits.WP:MUSIC --metta, The Sunborn 06:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is evidently a 17-year-old kid, who might in fact be the author. I spotted this when the same name was removed from the list of famous opiate addicts (which was on my watchlist) and the deleter suspected it as a vanity entry. BTW, musicians who have been in only one band and have no solo are inherently less notable than the band itself (and there is no page for this kid's alleged band). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:46, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Yeti[edit]

"Cult phenomenon vanity"? Not notable anyway. --W(t) 21:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Tried to speedy it as entirely not notable (I may have been a little bit off on that one, it seemed like part user test and part incomprehensible gibberish with no clear mention of a band when I first speedied it), repeatedly reinserted the "delete" tag after the user kept removing it. Also dealt with that same user's vandalism of my page. Strong delete. I applaud you, Weyes. Mr Bound 21:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as the vainest of nonencyclopedic vanities. Postdlf 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, possibly redirect to yeti Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. PERIOD. -- Fitful 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete. useless vanity. --metta, The Sunborn 06:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a one-off school band - not notable in the extreme. Megan1967 07:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yeti. There can only be one. Meelar (talk) 20:36, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Multiscale calculus[edit]

Original research. See also Talk:Multiscale calculus and findings at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Evaluation_operator. --Pjacobi 21:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  1. An algebra of A operators on functions defined on R generated by the integral translation operators and a single scaling operator. This group of operators is isomorphic to the group a x+b for a, b rational numbers acting on functions
  2. a linear functional, eg. point evaluation at 0. It follows that evaluation at any point is determined by continuoity and application of a x+b transformations.
However, as noted previously, the commutation relations for the action of the a x+b group are wrong.--CSTAR 00:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Breck Wilmot[edit]

No google hits for "Breck Wilmot" Marlboro, I'm guessing hoax. --W(t) 21:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I dunno, Google has no hits for "Bill Gates" and Microsoft.... oh, wait...

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Finding Really Cheap Airfares"[edit]

Delete. Not encyclopedic; how-to article that links to a blog. android↔talk 21:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this... whatever it is. Gazpacho 22:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not really the place for how-to guides, plus there's the fact that the article name is in quotation marks, plus there's the fact that the whole thing seems to be a setup for the ad link at the bottom of the page. -Doozer (Talk) 22:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't fit in an encyclopedia -- Fitful 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a knowledge base --metta, The Sunborn 05:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how-to, advert for blog, not encylopedic. -- The Anome 07:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with you lot. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Blatant advertisement. -- Krash 19:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

11111[edit]

Delete. An article on an individual integer with no particular significance. The only piece of non-trivial information contained in the article is that 11111 is not prime. android↔talk 21:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete trivia. Gazpacho 22:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic -- 152.78.254.131 22:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's not exactly a boring number (see interesting number paradox), it's hardly very interesting. NatusRoma 22:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unencyclopedic. --Durin 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete votes make no sense — is the article not verifiable and NPOV? It is also capable of infinite expansion. Quale 00:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable. NPOV. Capable of (infinite) organic growth. Entirely composed of padding made up of trivial, contrived, and unedifying data, in a desperate attempt to justify the existence of a separate article on a thing which is just like a huge list of other things, when the encyclopaedic approach would be to have general articles on the aspects of all of the things in the set, presenting knowledge, rather than individual entries for each one, presenting mere data. Hmmm. Where have I seen this before? Delete. Uncle G 03:22, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic material that is not immediately obvious. — JIP | Talk 05:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to not delete. It's really amusing!

  • Delete Trivia. For the anon above; amusing is for WP:-). --metta, The Sunborn 05:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-notable. 10000 (number) has a list of notable numbers in the 5-digit range. — RJH 15:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. RJFJR 02:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete numcruft. Kinitawowi 15:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pwn, not particularly interesting — Rickyrab | Talk 19:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Using up the universe's limited store of 1s and 0s. Anville 12:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Tyler[edit]

Delete. Not notable, potential hoax or joke article. Google for "alex tyler" "blatantly obvious" returns 0 hits. Google for "alex tyler" "video game" returns 6 unique hits, all of which are not relevant. android↔talk 21:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or speedy delete: Pure prank. Geogre 02:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. --metta, The Sunborn 05:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am the real Alex Tyler and This entry about me is a lie written by my friends who should also be considered for deletion AlexTyler 07:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leeroy[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Apparently a WoW player who did something particularly brave/stupid within the game. android↔talk 21:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • lol my charatcr in wow is wawesome and i made veido and catchrphrases tiem to right artical about myslfe. Delete. -Doozer (Talk) 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix 01:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. the subject of the article is of potential interest to only a small number of people--metta, The Sunborn 05:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles on specific RPG/MMORPG player characters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oggum[edit]

Delete. Apparently a record label, but it also appears to be the name of a musical act. I believe WP:MUSIC applies here, and article does not establish that its subject meets any one criterion therein. 117 unique Googles for "oggum music". android↔talk 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Searchius[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable software, possible self-promotion. 52 unique Googles for searchius. android↔talk 21:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure site, probably spam, not encycolpedic --metta, The Sunborn 05:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Searchius[edit]

Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be moved to wiktionary - SimonP 04:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Winter rat[edit]

Delete. Slang dicdef, probably a neologism. android↔talk 21:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • A google search shows that this term is in limited use in the same way described in the article. It is, however, a slang dicdef used only in the area immediately around Syracuse, NY. Delete after transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not sure that a transwiki is warranted, as Wiktionary might not want our cast-offs, nor may they want slang that's merely regional (don't know). Geogre 02:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary doesn't want Wikipedia's cast offs. But it will take articles about words and about idioms that meet the Wiktionary:criteria for inclusion, and as long as it doesn't have articles already. (Wiktionary passed the 70,000 word milestone a short while ago.) Uncle G 11:25, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original author responded on my talk page; I will change my vote to Transwiki. android↔talk 20:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted- SimonP 04:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Theta calculus[edit]

Original research by User:Dirnstorfer alias User:Dadim. The article establishes a notation, which uses function composition in the opposite way, without explaining why it is useful. As far as I can see, nobody but the author uses this notation. Mathematical Reviews has not heard about it. Related articles by the same author are Evaluation operator (now deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evaluation operator) and Multiscale calculus (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Multiscale calculus). Jitse Niesen 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Pjacobi 22:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you click through the first external link and read the paper, it's basically been cut up and pasted in, making the article just a copy of the primary source. Show me someone using this mathematics and I'll show you a keep vote. ESkog 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sholtar 03:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this one. This page is cross-linked in several other notable articles. Are the entries in those articles also by the same author? Or are those researched cross-links by other contributors? Operator calculus is perfectly valid, and this just appears to be a notational form of said calculus. — RJH 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 04:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

May There Always be Sunshine[edit]

Typo in the name. Redirected to May There Always Be Sunshine. Cmapm 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect. No real reason to delete it. -Doozer (Talk) 22:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless we also want pages called May there Always Be Sunshine, May There Always Be sunshine, May There Always Be SunshinE, etc.--Heathcliff 23:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the edit history shows that Cmapm created the article and then immediately tagged it for deletion, I'm guessing that this is a leftover after a page move. If that is the case, there are several reasons to leave it as a redirect. 1) It points the other contributors to the new location. 2) It catches any missed inbound links. (Even if you clean out "What links here", a revert can restore an old link.) 3) Redirects are cheap. We don't go out of our way to create new redirects for every conceivable misspelling but once one exists, we generally keep the redirect. (By the way, this really should have been nominated at Redirects for deletion.) Rossami (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, it was my mistake and I moved it to one with correct name. Your second point is very interesting. I didn't create any links to it myself, but there IS non-zero probability that such link may be found in the history of at least one page in Wikipedia. It seems to me that it is very close to zero, though. Therefore, I don't change my vote delete for it, although I promise to place such things under Redirects for deletion next time :-) Cmapm 16:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless redirect. Megan1967 07:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect. Probably helpful as many people do not upper case small words in titles. NoAccount
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

XAR Salon and Spa[edit]

Vanity advert, along with duplicates XAR and XAR Salon. Delete Gazpacho 23:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all!!! Spamvertisers go to WIKI-HELL!!! (cue sinister laugh) -- BD2412 talk 00:29, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising (not spam) for a business that is not notable enough for an article. Geogre 02:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. --metta, The Sunborn 05:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Megan1967 07:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 04:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cao Yang Middle School[edit]

Non-notable, delete zellin 23:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC) vote changed see below

  • Delete doesnt ind notab Gazpacho 00:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for WP. I should point out that this "middle school" teaches students up to university entrance [10]. Kappa 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put the reference on the article - it's got nothing so far - David Gerard 00:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Kappa can add that reference. Verifiability is necessary - David Gerard 00:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is improving already. Christopher Parham 00:27, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly verifiable stub. Why delete? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was posted on VFD when it just said "one of the best middle schools". The poster of this vfd page changes his vote to Keep zellin 02:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Shanghai, China per my school article policy. Kelly Martin 03:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough, transwiki to wikischools or wikitrivia. Gmaxwell 05:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, schools cruft. Megan1967 07:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a mention in Shanghai and delete - Skysmith 08:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete this crap Dunc|☺ 13:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, Verifiable and NPOV. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. --Unfocused 14:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Consolidate into an article on the local school administrative district, or else keep. — RJH 15:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Master Thief Garrett 03:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make room for extra helpings of BEEFSTEW. Valid stub. —RaD Man (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 09:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless junk. Grue 16:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need expansion. -- Lochaber 17:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, pointless. CDThieme 01:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account is 3 days old, that's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1)We don't even have a policy about schools yet, (2)schools are important and should be included, (3)this massive deletion campaign is terrible. Introduce a limit of 3 vfd nominations per day. Project Schoolwatch. --Zantastik 22:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from poster I personally do think that schools are important. When I posted this for vfd, it pretty much said the name of the school and the "fact" that it was "one of the best middle schools" in the area. Now, the article is looking better and I have changed my vote. So this is not a part of some "massive deletion campaign." I personally lean towards the inclusionist side of things. zellin 14:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17&oldid=1081092801"