Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 26
May 26[edit]
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Death-grind[edit]
Another imaginary music genre, a combination of Grindcore and Death metal. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fictional subgenres are a horror, but why are so many of them attaching themselves to heavy metal and rap? You don't see that many articles with proposed genres like Progfolk or Art No Depression or something. Geogre 03:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm by no means a metal-head, but I've deffinately heard people talking about "death-grind." Google comes back with over 78,000 hits. [1] It looks to me like a stub that could be expanded with a lot more stuff. --Blackcats 06:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable genre. Megan1967 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Google it and see that there are several bands in the first few pages of results that describe themselves as death grind. At the very least, death grind deserves its own section in Grindcore. But since it's a musical style on its own, and as in rap, metalheads can be very supportive of one subgenre and very opposed to a very similar one (I am that way with several genres of metal myself) I don't think I or my fellow metalheads would take too kindly to combining the articles. --Idont Havaname 07:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I saw that, but I didn't get the impression that there was any specific meaning to the phrase. When you saw the Google hits, did you get the idea that this was a stable, critical genre, or just a couple of words combined by fans who were being informal in their use and therefore reflecting not an actual genre but merely a slang word? I thought it was the latter case. Geogre 13:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's valid. It's similar to how metalcore is a combination of metal and hardcore. Originally only a few bands billed themselves that way, and now the metal scene can't get away from it. The metal scene invents quite a few terms to describe mixed styles, but when (invariably) other bands come along and play the same genre of music, then it goes into more common use, as was the case here. Also compare cybergrind, gothcore (mentioned in metalcore), and their Google results; the terms are used sometimes in the scene, but with death-grind, bands are willing to describe themselves that way (this is not the case with cybergrind or gothcore, which appear to be terms made up by fans/reviewers/etc. ... gothcore was itself on VfD in April though, and kept). --Idont Havaname 03:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I saw that, but I didn't get the impression that there was any specific meaning to the phrase. When you saw the Google hits, did you get the idea that this was a stable, critical genre, or just a couple of words combined by fans who were being informal in their use and therefore reflecting not an actual genre but merely a slang word? I thought it was the latter case. Geogre 13:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if someone can expand and actually give some examples of bands described as death-grind. the wub (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added some bands and a bit mroe info. Check out the article for Suffocation for some more info that could be added to this genre. This is quite a major genre in the American underground (Someone with more knowledge of it should add more bands to the list actually, from Google if nothing else). Besides, this is an Encyclopeadia with nigh on infinite space. We've got any number of other tidbits of obscure info on here, why on earth disregard something like this? --KharBevNor 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The three bands you added say that their genre is something else on their own WP pages. What's the point? Even Suffocation, who you claim developed the genre, is listed as Death metal. Might as well list Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as an example of Death-grind, too. This only reinforces my opinion that this is a fictional genre. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable --MarSch 14:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable enough. JamesBurns 11:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find Suffocation explicitly mentions Death-grind. This isn't a fictional genre, but I will admit I'm not a DM expert, more of a BM man. I only made it as a stub to fill out red links on Extreme music. If you want to delete it, fine, but it seems rather pointless, as it is an actual genre, and we have all sorts of far more tenuous genres listed here. Vampyric black metal for example, that seem to have escaped editation through being expanded beyond stub. I could almost certainly find printed references to it if I went through my magazine collection. --KharBevNor 14:11, 27 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 result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. Too many deletes to say there's a consensus to userfy. Too many userfies to say there's a consensus to delete. Clearly it should be kept in some form so I am being bold and userfying. But hey, that's just me, not a binding decision. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Free knowledge[edit]
While I support the idea (and wouldn't mind seeing something like this in the WP namespace), this is self-promotional (site name and user name of author match) and non-encyclopedic. MikeJ9919 00:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Ad coupled with original research/essay. I think all of us wish him success, but delete. Geogre 03:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Personal essay. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. the wub (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original reseach/ad. - Etacar11 16:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. Great ideas... q;-) Beta m (talk)
- Userfy as previous voters. Thryduulf 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - self promotion, original research/essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyvio from [2] drini ☎ 02:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by closer: On inspection, this proved to be a correctly labelled mirror of the Wikipedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy. JamesBurns 11:34, 27 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 merge with List of minor Star Wars characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mia Celchu[edit]
This is a fictional character in Star Wars, whose is only notable for being related to Tycho Celchu, a major character. I got around 3 Google hits searching for "Mia Celchu", one from Wikipedia and the other from Wikipedia mirrors. When I removed the quotes, I got about 216, many of which were probably false. Delete. It might be good for transfering to Wookiepedia, but they might prefer a "Celchu family" page.-LtNOWIS 00:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters--M412k 01:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with merge: you can't put this on "Minor SW Characters" because this is not a character. If one of Padme Amidala's family members came up on VfD, they'd be deleted, because (aside from her children) they have collectively less than 5 seconds of screen time. Well, THIS person has NEVER been on screen and never WILL be--by the time anyone cared about Tycho Celchu, she was long dead. Let Alderaan's victims rest. Delete.
- Delete I've seen every Star Wars film at least twice and have never heard of this character OR their supposed relative. 2 Google hits for Mia Celchu, 1 is WP and the other a huge list of random names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- If you read List of minor Star Wars characters, not all of those characters actually appear in the movies. The list includes non-canon characters from sources such as the myriad novels and games. --M412k 16:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --MarSch 14:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Both characters come from Michael Stackpole's X-Wing Book series, not the movies themselves. That said, this character isn't notable enough for their own article, and is a better fit on the minor characters page. Scimitar 14:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per M412k — RJH 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT (alternatively merge/redirect with Tycho Celchu). -- Lochaber 18:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per M412k.
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Tycho Celchu Stilgar135 19:59, 28 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.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Anybody who wants to rewrite this should have a go. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Teenybopper music and Teenybopper[edit]
- For the 2005-03-22 VFD discussion of Teenybopper, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teenybopper.
Dicdef, music that teens like to listen to. (Teenybopper is a redirect to the other.) —Wahoofive (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; the supposed definition is nonsensically broad anyway. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:58, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Keep seems to be a legitimate stub and the genre name for a style of music has been around for some time. I can imagine that this would grow to be more than a mere dictionary definition.--AYArktos 02:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure how a patently deceptive definition can be described as a legitimate stub. If the stub become legitimate, it would be worth keeping, but clearly rap artists like NWA, etc. would not typically be described as teenybober music. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:10, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Rewrite. This definition is far too broad, but there should perhaps be a legitimate article to replace it. --M412k 02:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite so that it refers to pop music aimed at teens and preteens. I wouldn't refer to techno as a teenybopper genre. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate: I know that seems like a lot, but I don't want to honor or maintain this junk in the history, and yet the term has a specific historical location and meaning. It's quite important in the rise of rock and roll and the consciousness of a youth culture (which then means marketing and money from that segment, which then affects all media, advertising, etc.). The current pejorative article is less than useless though. Geogre 03:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete concur with George. Better to start the article from scratch. Megan1967 06:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Teenyboppers" and their music can annoy me as much as the next person, but Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy and NPOV, not stereotyping. Plus "teenybopper" is somewhat of a derogitory term for early teens and pre-teens. (Is someone gonna write articles about "nigger music" and "cracker music"?) At any rate, most new musical genres are initially more popular among the younger demographics. The article lists rap as an example of teenybopper music, but that genre first got popular in the '80s, so it'll soon be played on the oldies stations - if it isn't already. So we should write factual info about the actual genres and not arbitary stereotypes of them. --Blackcats 06:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite, for reasons already given. --Idont Havaname 07:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - above I voted for keep as a stub - I fully support editing, as much as a rewrite - be bold and edit. I have a teen and a tween and have to put up with them changing my radio station ... they hate Nikki Webster though who I would have categorised as teeny bopper music and my just turned 14 year old thinks Eminem real cool, which I think means Eminem and Rap fits into teeny bopper category - so even the present stub reads reasonably accurate to me--AYArktos 08:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Teenybopper is a generic term that has been applied and will continue to be applied to past and future teens. As such it is highly subjective, and constantly changing. Thus, teenybopper music will never fit a given definition, and furthermore will vary by region. Inherently POV, inherently inaccurate. Delete. Scimitar 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Scimitar. Quale 20:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 11:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Scimitar. carmeld1 04:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Teenybopper, folding the music article into it. -- BD2412 talk 21:32, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with List of minor Star Wars characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Skoloc Celchu[edit]
Same series as Mia Celchu, above. No possibility for expansion, only 1 Google hit, not a notable character at all. Delete LtNOWIS 00:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters--M412k 01:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ten google hits without quotes, *sigh* --MarSch 14:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters as per WP:FICT (alternatively merge/redirect to Tycho Celchu). -- Lochaber 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per M412k above. Redirects are cheap. Like this character's value. --Unfocused 02:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters. JamesBurns 11:37, 27 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 result of the debate was author requested speedy. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unioctave Divalet[edit]
- Speedy Delete, my apologies, I was merely trying to defend Ashanti and define a term I've held used around in Atlanta. It was better for the Wiktionary anyway. If you all disagree, then feel free to kill it. Antares33712 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism for a singer with a limited range. Google=0. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neologism coined by the author. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unwieldly and illogical neologism. Geogre 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like an unverifiable term. Thus, neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neologistic phrase. Megan1967 06:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero Google hits: [3] --Blackcats 07:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete drini ☎ 02:48, 27 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 result of the debate was no consensus. This was close as the nominator did not favor delete over cleanup, only three editors suggested delete and one thought that cleanup would fix the article. I'm not getting a clear signal, so this one escapes deletion by the skin of its teeth. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
River_City_Theatre_Company[edit]
River_City_Theatre_Company This is a vanity page. I see no significance of it being in Wikipedia. The use of the pronoun "I" worries me. This page needs to be deleted or have the bottom removed from it and expanded. Michael180 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Michael180 00:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- have the bottom removed from it and expanded — That's cleanup. This is VFD. You're in the wrong place. Boldly remove the first-person text, make a note on the talk page if you deem it appropriate, and add the cleanup tag of your choice. Uncle G 01:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete, not cleanup: This is advertising, and therefore a violation of the deletion policy. Further, the theater is a small rep theater, one like the other and the next in an unending line of regional companies. No indication of notability among regional theaters. Geogre 03:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ad. Wikipedia is not What's On. Unless someone can demonstrate notability or influence beyond the norm of regional rep. theatres, this would not warrant a separate article (although if there was a suitable article - say Recreation in Sacramento, California, then it might warrant one line on there. Average Earthman 11:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until evidence of notability is produced. U$er 06:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else want to comment? Otherwise, I think we have a majority for DELETE, so can a friendly sysop delete the page and it's image. --michael180 20:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Closer's comment. A majority is not consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Government Warehouse[edit]
A completely random, unreferenced, and made-up list of things that might be hidden in a secret government warehouse. Not are alleged to be, but might be; in its current construction, this list ought to list anything related to any conspiracy theory ever, as well as a number of completely random artifacts from history and legend. (Who has alleged that Amaterastu's sword is hidden in a Japanese government facility? Anyone, ever?) The fictional contents of this hypothetical warehouse are similarly random and unsupported (except for the Ark of the Covenant, which is the only thing that links here other than conspiracy theory and list of conspiracy theories). The only remotely salvagable parts of this list are redundant with list of conspiracy theories, and even then, any specific link between the cover-ups referenced here and a monolithic secret government warehouse are spurious at best. Original research. Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Now that the article has ben rewritten (and the ridiculous list removed) by UncleG, it's at least as worth keeping as articles on similar archetypes in pop fiction and folklore. Consider my nomination for deletion withdrawn. -Sean Curtin 01:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable, original research CDC (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with Sean Curtin. --bainer (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, most examples seem to be made up by author. Gazpacho 01:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although this is rather amusing, and may be fodder for a website, it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Possibly move to BJAODN? --M412k 01:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of this content is bunkum. In the Stargate television series the Stargate was housed in a facility located beneath Cheyenne Mountain, for example, not in a government warehouse. On the other hand, this is a concept that is used in works of fiction, and we can certainly have an article on a common fictional plot device, as a plot device. Watching Raiders of the Lost Ark is enough to verify the existence of such a plot device. ☺ What we cannot verify is all the stuff about what governments in reality have such warehouses, what the rules of the secret society of caretakers are, and where they may be. All of that stuff is too secret for Wikipedia. Moreover, the references that this article cites are entirely bogus. (From an earlier version of that same "Government Warehouse List": "Recently, I decided to try to use this warehouse in a role-playing game, for fun. I've been trying to figure out things that should be in some of the boxes.".) At best, this article needs an industrial strength dose of Cleanup. Every single item needs to demonstrate exactly what work of fiction uses the government warehouse plot device in relation to it, or be mercilessly edited out. And the utter conjecture at the top needs to go, too. Uncle G 02:24, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- It might be worth differentiating government warehouse from Government Warehouse, moreover. For a list of what is stored in one government warehouse, see here. For procedures relating to government warehouses, see here. For legislation relating to government warehouses, see here. For a memorandum relating to a government warehouse, see here. For a picture of people removing things from a government warehouse, see here. Quite dull in comparison to Martian spaceships. But a damn sight more verifiable. Uncle G 02:24, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Keep. Clever description of a very common concept in fiction. Reminds me of a similar article: President of Earth. Gamaliel 02:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN. Megan1967 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a concept that exists in a lot of literature, media, etc. Therefore it's notable. Perhaps retitle (by adding something in parentheses) so as to make sure the concept discussed in this article doesn't get confused with actual warehouses and storage facilities known to be owned and maintained by governments. Blackcats 07:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is not original research per se, but a copy of a long-running and ever-expanding fannish list, which appears to have been skillfully edited to remove some of the more idiocentric items. It is fiction, and probably belongs in BJAODN, with a clear label that it is fiction. It is, as peope have pointed out, inconsistent with other fictive universes and the original is internally inconsistent. It may be a copyvio -- I don't know. It wants delete-ing, but it wants an audit trail left behind it (sorry for lame phraseology -- I'm not a Wiki-talk expert) and a block on recreation -- does this equate to a redirect to the BJAODN entry ? --Simon Cursitor 07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting and a notable concept in fiction and conspiracy theories. the wub (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somebody has played too much GURPS Warehouse 23. There used to be an endless fan-generated listing of possibilities and this would attract more- Skysmith 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Rather more sensible version. No vote - Skysmith 07:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete, not an encyclopedia article. If kept, should only contain objects where the work of fiction alleging the stored item is also listed (e.g. the Ark of the Covenent in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Alien space craft in Independence Day) Average Earthman 11:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, replace with redirect to Warehouse 23? Radiant_* 13:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Unlike President of Earth, the government warehouse is a generic term and not a concept per se. Scimitar 15:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.A prototype for the HAL 9000? Please. Mr Bound 21:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)- After this extensive cleanup, I now change my vote to keep. Good work. I think Raiders of the Lost Ark might even need a link here. Mr Bound 14:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete drini ☎ 02:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Uncle G. U$er 06:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting and important information. :) Vorash 08:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highly popular idea in conspiracy circles, very detailed and encyclopedic Lord Patrick 10:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN. JamesBurns 11:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Karol 11:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Rewritten article. I've given the article that dose of industrial-strength cleanup that I mentioned. Also see the article's talk page. This might address the concerns raised by Skysmith, Mr Bound, Cdc, Thebainer, Gazpacho, Simoncursitor, and Gtrmp. Uncle G 19:38, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. -- BD2412 talk 17:26, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Delete Death69 Comes up for deletion every six months. Put it out of it misery. 02:59, 31 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 result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rokia Traoré[edit]
This has been speedy deleted twice [4]:
- First time: {{db|vanity}}Rokia Traoré is a Malian singer.Her music is characterized by an artistic style embedded in the mélant tradition andmodernism. S...')
- Second time: just an external link.
This one was tagged for "deleteagain". I don't believe this content is speediable at all. She gets 43,000 google hits [5] and the article says "The album got the prestigious BBC 3 World Music Award" Keep and don't speedy please. Kappa 00:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, three albums, BBC award, international tour, prominent representative of Malian music. Satisfies plenty of the WP:NMG criteria. --bainer (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clearly meete music guidelines--nixie 01:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Well-known artist. - Mustafaa 03:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Notable artist meeting Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. AиDя01DTALK 03:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep: The artist is substantial and recognized far outside of her region. However, the writing is currently quite POV and forces readers to go to Google to find out information that should be there. Geogre 03:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but expand, to give deeper context. --Simon Cursitor 07:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Over 20,000 Google hits each for the name with and without the accent on the "e." [6] [7] This is even more notable when you consider that fewer people in that part of the world have internet access. --Blackcats 08:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Revolución 19:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have expanded the article as requested. No change of vote from keep.Capitalistroadster 01:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep of course. Excellent singer, and has become a relatively big name. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepShould NOT even be questiond
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hermit's Cave[edit]
Appears to be nonsense. No further verifyable information found. --Sgkay 08:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sjc 10:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This entry was never listed on VfD, so I'm listing it here now. CDC (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Obviously nonsense, with no context at all. "An Italian Hermit?" Where? What hermit? Obviously just contrived. And really, he spelled "ludicrous" as "ludacris..." --M412k 01:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Patent nonsense. The use of the word "insane" to describe Pat Pittavino (who seems to be someone on the City Council of some Australian town) is definetly not POV, and the words "Italian hermit" could describe any number of people. --Aurochs EDIT: Changed my vote to Keep and clean up, as per Robojames's new information.
- Delete: Insane article. I love that the casino is a "ludacris" suggestion. My, my, but English is a rare thing. Geogre 03:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable nonsense. BTW, I didn't know Ludacris had started establishing casinos.Keep Robojames rewrite. However, I am highly sceptical of the figure of $14 billion for a casino. Griffith Council wouldn't have that sort of money and I am sceptical that the private sector would be looking at that sort of money. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Nonsense. Sjakkalle 11:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Just needs NPOV/Cleanup, etc. Googling Pat Pittavino reveals he's on the council for Griffith, New South Wales. Googling Griffith and Hermit's Cave reveals Griffith City Attractions (click Hermit's Cave). Robojames 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wacked out but true. Frjwoolley 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good work, Robojames. -- Jonel 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, who'da thunk it. Keep. DS 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stubby, but it'll come along with time. --Unfocused 02:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepVorash 08:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mike H 19:47, May 27, 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 result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hartigans[edit]
A pub - no evidence that it is unusual in any way. Wikipedia is not a business directory. CDC (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sholtar 01:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Advertising, and we are not the Yellow Pages. Geogre 03:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 06:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad. - Etacar11 16:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I live in Dublin and while it is a nice little pub it would probably be better off in an article about Dublin pubs in general, not much chance for expansion. -- Lochaber 18:10, 26 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 result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Scott Hervey Foerster[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jorb[edit]
Fan trivia - could redirect, but this is a nonsensical redirect, and the content is already at the target. So delete CDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.I would have suggested a merge, but as you note, it is already included at the Coach Z article. I don't know why the verifiability notice was posted though, he definitely says it. --M412k 02:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Coach Z, 'cause they're cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to a delete. AиDя01DTALK 03:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete
and redirect to Coach Z. Homestar Cruftter. Nestea 03:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, duplicate content, fan cruft. Megan1967 06:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Homestar Runner fancruft. No redirect necessary. --Idont Havaname 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even the Homestar Runner wiki doesn't have this. the wub (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think a redirect is necessary, as it's unlikely to be a common search term for folks looking for Coach Z, and besides, he says it other ways too (Jarb, Joereerb)... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, May 26, 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 result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John Stamey[edit]
Probable vanity. CDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to show importance, probable vanity. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: CV material. I suspect someone fulfilling a class activity by creating an article. Geogre 03:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity, doesn't seem that notable. - Etacar11 17:06, 26 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 result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Modal (textile)[edit]
Lacks encyclopedic potential and appears to be nothing but an advertisement dressed up like an encyclopedia entry. BenSamples 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Definitely promotional material, complete with registered trademarks, lest we forget that we're supposed to go out and buy this stuff. Geogre 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: needs to be made NPOV, but this is an interesting substance of moderate commericial importance. ike9898 13:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertisements. Scimitar 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertisment, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it was copied from a promotional brochure somewhere. --Carnildo 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, definitely keep. Being owned by a company doesn't make a new material unencyclopedic. Consider pharmaceuticals, for example. --Unfocused 02:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. May be important info. Vorash 08:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup. JamesBurns 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Karol 11:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Since these votes were cast, I've made the article less POV. I think that the ® mark is setting off user's advertisement detectors but I really think that this is unwarrented. ike9898 13:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, thanks for the cleanup ike9898. Wonder if wp has a policy on ® marks. Kappa 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I found it very helpful! Since my girlfriend bought a shirt form modal and I had no idea what it was. Just the fact that one kann
buy this material is no reason for deletion! Does anybody vote for the deletion of the Coke article?
- Keep Granted, I wrote a hefty chunk of this article (so take that into consideration), but the fact its name IS a registered trademark, and thus to use that name to describe the fabric without said trademark is a violation of the trademark. The fact that Wikipedia is open source doesn't mean that it doesn't have to follow others' rules for their content, only that its rules for its OWN content are lax. And no, I didn't copy this... I wrote after purchasing some sheets of the fabric, and did a bit of research on it. - Loweeel 00:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but add more detail. Doesn't Modal have any deficiencies?
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
BubbaTek Productions[edit]
Advertising vanity. Denni☯ 01:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete: Advertising for a non-serious (and, of course, non-notable) company, and delete the Kyle Devies article, which shows that the company's owner is a 17 year old. More kid project vanity. Geogre 03:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
low_no_ovlp.amt.day_only, not notable, advert. Megan1967 06:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Nateji77 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ruxton Towers[edit]
As much as I try to avoid the words, vanity page. Deltabeignet 02:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet my criteria for retention of a performing musical group article. Kelly Martin 02:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Isn't there an actual place in London by this name? I'm not sure it would be a good subject of an article, either, but this garage band certainly isn't. Unsigned, unrecorded, undistributed, unknown. Geogre 03:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It's the name of the fictional borstal in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner. Uncle G 08:42, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 17:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. -- Lochaber 14:39, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Component Pascal[edit]
This page is a promotional article for Oberon Microsystems, which is the seller of "Component Pascal". Further, "Component Pascal" is not in fact related to the language Pascal in any way, it is actually a variant of the language Oberon. In short, the page is promotional, and misleading, and should be deleted. I would suggest that the page be rewritten to be less misleading (and I have added a comment to the page to that effect). However, the page was clearly posted by, and has virtally all its references to, Oberon Microsystems. (this VfD was started by 192.18.43.11, an anonymous user. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Please examine the links at the bottom of the article. All but two point back to Oberon Microsystems, and the other two are close associates. Scott A. Moore
- KEEP. The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote. Furthermore, Component Pascal may not be related to Pascal but it is the name of the language. Damicatz 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you bother to make that accuation (the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote). You can check that easily by simply looking at the history of the page. Scott A. Moore
- I make a Pascal, lets put that up front. I saw this companies article on their own Pascal, and thought "why not make one on my version of Pascal". Well, the rules clearly forbid that, so I didn't do it. However, that's just as clearly what the creator of that article did, create a self promoting peice. So please, tell me the difference. "Component Pascal" is not a widely implemented langauge, it is one company's product. All of the references at the bottom go back to that company. I'm ok with it. If thats ok, then I think you are basically telling me to go ahead and list my companies product (which is actually a Pascal language product, not just named that) as well. Am I slightly annoyed ? Yes. Oberon Microsystems have been promoting "Component Pascal" even though their product had nothing to do with Pascal, and was in fact Oberon renamed. I emailed them about it, they told me "Pascal is dead, we can use the name". This, to me, clearly indicates that they wish to create confusion on the part of the reader. End of rant, sorry. Scott A. Moore
- I'll add: No, I would not list my Pascal implementation. I like and respect Wikipedia, and I will obey its laws and conventions. Too bad others don't feel the same way. Scott A. Moore.
- (this anonymous edit was also made by 192.18.43.11. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The poster above referred to "The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote". I have pulled these links that were placed there at the start of the page according to the "history" tab from the page:
- If these links are not what you are referring to, please state that. I also respectfully request that you refrain from making wild (and completely unfounded) attacks on me. I have a long history with Pascal, going back to 1979, and have worked extensively on the Pascal language page here at Wikipedia, which I have helped become more factual and less biased. I have every reason to be concerned that this page advances disinformation against the Language Pascal> however, besides its disinformation aspect, it CLEARLY voilates the Wikipedia rules on posting to promote a company or product. Please excuse the poor editing, I am a new user of Wikipedia. user samiam95124
- Keep. Excellent article. Lovely, succinct, and tells me everything I need to know in ten seconds. I wish all Wikipedia articles could be this good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that the article should be kept. Should we remove Delphi next because it's a Borland-specific implementation of a language? It's still a programming language regardless of if it is only by one company or not. Damicatz 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It could still use some work to make it less promotional, but that's not something the article should be deleted for. -- Jonel 21:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I understand, I would be also free to place an article online about our company's Pascal (which is a true Pascal, by the way), as long as it is factual about the language and does not read like an ad. True ? samiam95124, 26 May 2005
- Yes. Please do that. This is what Wikipedia is for--providing neutral information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Isn't this VfD null and void anyway since it was started by an anon user? Ketsuban (is better than you) 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Why would it be?--24.221.65.46 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a perfectly good article. --Carnildo 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wikify. Hermione1980 22:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not ANON, I have signed up since posting that. Ok ?samiam95124, 26 May 2005
- Welcome. The anonymous deletion listing was a perfectly reasonable one and was acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing unencyclopedic about programming languages. So the article's genesis may have been commercially motivated... that's one of the reasons why EVERYONE has editor priviledges; to make good, neutral articles. --Unfocused 02:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. JamesBurns 11:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Come on, you don't just delete an article on a programming language designed by Niklaus Wirth! The article is OK as it is; could be improved, of course... GregorB
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CSE Revue[edit]
Non-notable (387 Google hits) event Denni☯ 02:11, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Merge into UNSW Revues.--M412k 02:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to UNSW CSE Revue. To be consitent with other UNSW Revues. I've rewritten it into a stub. I've also put in some more information about it. Bambul☯ 07:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with UNSW Revues (and maybe move that article. Isn't UNSW revues the correct capitalization?) --Carnildo 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right about UNSW revues. Bambul☯ 03:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm all for increasing our coverage of universities, but this is taking the cruft factor a bit too far. Ambi 05:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Carolyn S. Packard[edit]
Vanity Denni☯ 02:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails the Google test: 0 results. Would have recommended for speedy deletion. --M412k 02:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not a speedy, probably, as this is likely a genealogy page. Definitely delete, though, as we are not the county registrar. Geogre 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious vanity. Harro5 04:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Personal genealogy page. The author of the page Glenmarshall (talk · contribs) also created another page Edwin B. Marshall for his father which is yet another genealogy page. --Ragib 08:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, vanity. - Etacar11 17:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Tarutius[edit]
Article on very very minor mythological character. (He was cuckolded by Hercules. End of story.) Has been a stub for 2-1/2 years without anybody adding to it. ----Isaac R 02:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Hercules. AиDя01DTALK 02:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand to mention the cuckolding thing. Kappa 02:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally believe that every mythological figure should have an article. However, this fellow is so unbelievably minor that I can find not a single author who refers to him after the Classical period. No kidding. That means that it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will encounter the name and need an explanation, so, reluctantly, I have to agree to delete this particular substub. The reason is that it simply can't expand beyond a medium length sentence. Geogre 04:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Hercules. Megan1967 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; information on him is already at Heracles (not Hercules, and we may want to discuss if we really want those two to be sepaarate articles). --Angr/탉 07:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Emprière's has him listed as Tarrutius. No, he wasn't cuckolded by Hercules, he was, as all three of these articles say, married to Acca Larentia. L'Emprière's tells us that this was because of a bet that someone made with Hercules. Hercules won the bet, and sent Acca Larentia into the street to kiss the first man that she met. This was Tarrutius, an rich old man who became smitten with the young woman who kissed him, and who as a result made her his heiress. (Yup. Such is an old story — one of the classics in more senses than one.) We should at least do as L'Emprière's does, and Redirect to Acca Larentia, removing the self-links in the process. (This is in fact exactly what L'Emprière's does. It's also roughly as per the WP:FICT guidelines of redirecting minor story characters.) A translation of Plutarch's text mentioning Tarrutius can be found here. Also note that others when they mention Tarrutius are referring to a "16th-century astrologer, Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum" (asserted to be "original research" at Talk:Romulus and Remus, incidentally, but clearly tertiary source material in need of cleanup to demonstrate the disagreements in scholarship on this matter — treat it as we would a disagreement in religious scholarship: report the fact that for centuries people have analyzed the story as if it were true, and what the disagreements amongst the analysts are). Also further note that this asserts that Plutarch's Tarrutius was actually Carutius, an Etruscan. Uncle G 09:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Keep Can't think of a good reason to delete this. Perhaps someone will want to merge with redirect, but that's not something I feel moved to express a preference on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 23:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep until we have an article named "Minor characters in XXXXX mythology", then merge and redirect.
I knowI DON'T know enough of this subject to be comfortable casting a delete vote. --Unfocused 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)(correction)--Unfocused 12:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Keep or merge, and please expand, Uncle G. Eixo 10:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I understand it, he was a rich Etruscan who left his wife a substantial landholding which was later left to Rome. St Augustine refers to a different version of the story in The City of God. Interesting myth capable of forming a nice little article. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article accordingly. No change in vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all articles on mythological figures. An article need not be long to be encyclopedic. -- BD2412 talk 17:41, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep both (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alexander MacGregor & Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology[edit]
This was originally created as a vanity article (content as written by original author). Rather than VfD it, an editor apparently ran MacGregor through Lexis and found a couple items, which were added to the article (result). The content added casts MacGregor in a rather negative light, and a complaint has been made to the Wikimedia Foundation implying the possibility of legal action.
Considering the complaint, we should only have an article on MacGregor, if at all, that we are confident meets our standards and is unimpeachably relevant and factual. I reviewed the article and removed the biographical material from the original author because it is not verifiable. For similar reasons, I removed information about his educational credentials that cannot be traced to a verifiable source without original research, and a paragraph whose only source has retracted the story. None of this content is acceptable for an encyclopedia — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources.
What is left is the present article (and Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, included in this request). The verifiable facts about this man boil down to: 1) he runs a vocational school; 2) he was sued successfully by an employee for firing her when she was pregnant; and 3) he was found guilty of a domestic violence assault shortly before he was supposed to receive a local civic award. I submit that an article that amounts to nothing more than this is not one we should keep. --Michael Snow 02:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not verifiable, not likely to become encyclopedic Trödel|talk 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (I agree with Fred Bauder, below, that a new article may be needed - but only for the School where MacGregor can be listed as the founder. Trödel|talk 18:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1,690 google hits for "Alexander MacGregor", but a larger number of these links are for other MacGregors. I can't find evidence of notability here...and quite frankly, I have little patience for those who write vanity articles about themselves, the truth about them comes out, and then they go and threaten legal action. func(talk) 04:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both articles. The school, although not a liberal arts college, is post-secondary, so it seems notable, without reference to the ongoing schools debate. I lean toward thinking that the head of such a school would always be notable, but even if some or most of them aren't, a school official who's managed to get into so many publicized scrapes is. JamesMLane 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As it stands the article is too partial (in both senses) to be NPOV. Brief research suggests that the preparation of an acceptable article would involve interviewing the subject or consulting archives in several countries. The former is unverifiable and the latter is improbable. --Theo (Talk) 09:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the existing article but leave open the possibility of recreating the article in a form which avoids the use of news reports of matters which were alleged but not proven. The effect of setting forth all the details of a news report which was latter retracted with an apology is to republish it. Fred Bauder 12:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, president of notable institution. Grue 13:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preferably the wife-beating conviction story should be sourced directly to the court report, but the newspaper article doesn't seem like an unreasonable source in view of the criminal conviction. Michael Snow removed some general biographical information; this was a very bad move in my opinion and the information should be restored. The details of his Scottish birth, his distinguished academic career, and emigration to Canada, at least, should not be omitted without good grounds. If the article is partial, it should be edited, not deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Delete. I will follow Fred Bauder's lead in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- The reason they were removed is because they're presently unverifiable without original research. If you can verify his biographical information, feel free to provide the sources and restore it. --Michael Snow 16:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems to me that aside from the legal scrapes, there's nothing notable here and even less that's verifiable. I was unable to find much of anything factually relating to either article. For Alexander, I found mention of the human rights issue and the wife beating. There was no indication of any research articles, lectures, conferences, or other items of scientific value that's come from him. And not a shred of biographical information to be found. The school doesn't seem notable to me... no mention of research or great academic achievements, although maybe it's notable because of it's post-secondary education? Not sure exactly what the policy on that is. Overall it doesn't seem like it will be possible to produce an article of the appropriate quality. SirGeneral 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For what its worth, there *is* some biographical detail about him available on the web, though perhaps of limited usefulness [8]. This text, and several variants thereof, seems to be the boilerplate he uses for conferences. In general it is consistent with the information from the original vanity article. Fawcett5 19:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences" yields 22 Google hits, of which 12 are unique. One is its own web-site (it trades as Pharmacy Prep), and the rest are directory/portals. They all read "Offers preparation courses and study books for Canadian phamacology exams (PEBC)" and the contact information on the Institute's web-site includes a mobile telephone number. It is not to be confused with "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology", which yields 985 Google hits. I am not convinced that an evening class school with no notable alumni is encyclopedic but I am stone cold certain that the president of such an institution is not encyclopedic when his only verifiable achievement may be a conviction for a crime unrelated to the school. [For the record, I was also born in a country, gained several post-secondary academic qualifications, and lived in several countries; I look forward to reading my Wikipedia entry any day now]. --Theo (Talk) 16:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm off to create TheoClarke, International Man of Mystery. ;-) func(talk) 16:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments In my attempts to verify some of the personal history and the college I have found that the institute has not been accredited, nor is there any evidence that they have filed for accredidation. Trödel|talk 16:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is incorrect. TIPT is properly
accreditedregistered in Ontario as a private career college. See: [9] Fawcett5 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- What you're showing is that it's registered with the provincial government as an educational institution, which is probably required by law. Accreditation is an entirely different issue, and likely not handled by the government. --Michael Snow 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I stand corrected. As further regards notability of the school, it is worth pointing out that they verifiably participate in the manufacture of drugs used in human clinical trials. Whatever it may be, it is not quite your average vocational school. Fawcett5 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is incorrect. TIPT is properly
- Note I didn't realize this vote was for two pages before. So I listed the second one in the header to be clear - if two seperate vote pages are the norm can someone familiar with VfD let me know on my talk page and I will put the second article up for a vote seperately. Trödel|talk 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article on school; unverifiable, not notable. Keep article on MacGregor. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep both of these please they seem notable too Yuckfoo 18:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both articles. Nothing here seems notable enough. Plus, a man who beats women has tried to sue Wikipedia? He should be deleted from the Universe himself! Sarg 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the caveat that either could be recreated as encyclopedic articles rather than attack pages (as per Fred Bauder). Nothing currently on either page is useful, we don't really want the vanity/attack stuff in the history, and it would be best to start from scratch on both. However, I would say that either would be an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia if/when verifiable and NPOV information about them can be found. -- Jonel 21:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Fred Bauder. --Carnildo 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the content can be verified. - SimonP 23:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Universities and Colleges have their own articles, as well as many other organisations. In my opinion there is a witch hunt going on to delete everything about schools from Wikipedia. If you absolutely must delete this i would suggest moving it to Students WikiCity. Beta m (talk)
- Delete both, not notable enough. Incidentally, I don't like Beta m's way of boilerplate voting (see User:Beta m\vote\school). It is not so much that I don't think schools are inherently notable, rather my concern is that thoughtless keep voting is disruptive to our deletion processes which are meant to revolve around consensus, discussion and producing evidence of notability. — mark ✎ 09:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed the articles and rethought my vote... but arrived at the same conclusion on the Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology. As for Alexander MacGregor, i think it really needed to be a separate vote for it... i have no opinion on this article. Beta m (talk)
- Keep the school, it is post secondary and thus notable, merge Alexander MacGregor into that article. Sjakkalle 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons stated by User:Jonel except that from what I see and can extrapolate, I do not believe Alexander MacGregor is encyclopedic even if the school turns out to be. Also, private law suits that do not go to the very mission of an organization are not, in my opinion, relevant or encyclopedic. If a school is charged for financial aid fraud or criticized for lack of academic standards (i.e., a "diploma mill"), that is different and fair game (if verifiable). DS1953 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I might note that there is a difference between public post-secondary institutions and private vocational schools run, apparently, by "some guy". In general I support the idea of Wikipedia having a wide variety of school articles, but not every tiny vocational school. --Dhodges 18:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the school as it is notable and merge and redirect any pertinent information from the Alexander MacGregory article into it. Bahn Mi 20:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:GRider, who is banned by the Arbitration Committee from participating in deletion debates. --Michael Snow 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep MacGregor and merge the school into it. Add the threat of legal action against Wikipedia (which should certainly be verifiable) both here and in Wikipedia, as demonstrating Wikipedia 's notability. This topic is also being discussed in Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Votes_for_undeletion. Septentrionalis 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Threats of litigation are a dime a dozen. This one certainly doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article, and I'd be extremely dubious about putting it in MacGregor's article. JamesMLane 03:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both articles. —RaD Man (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the "institute", for the reasons given above by Theo. (Incidentally, I note that the "reference" cited in the article is to a page whose main text is written in the first person.) Delete MacGregor, who is of no note as the head of an "institute" of no note. The award he won seems rather obscure. The allegations made against him are -- very unfortunately -- routine, so he doesn't cut it even on grounds of notoriety. ("Want to get into Wikipedia? Simple -- just beat up your wife!" Er, no thank you.) -- Hoary 06:15, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:45, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Keep school, merge person. Kappa 21:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both articles. They seem like mostly smear campaigns, and not notable at all, except for the local media coverage of the allegations. Blackcats 06:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
United States Senate Simulation[edit]
This article really seems to be an ad for an online roleplaying game -- if it had any information on why someone not involved would care, it might be different but it doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. Greyfedora 04:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fascinating idea, but I looked at the site and it seems to be dead as a dodo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete game ad. - Etacar11 17:19, 26 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. Joyous 02:46, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Lenix[edit]
Vanity nonsense dicdef with no claim to notability. --EvilZak 04:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense. RickK 04:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsense definition. Sjakkalle 07:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vain nonsense. --Aurochs
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Colored_shadows[edit]
This article reads like marketing; there's nothing informative or encyclopedic about the band. If I didn't know better I'd say it was a satire on modern music reviews. Vircum 04:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Band advertising, and rock journalims cannot be satirized, for all parodies are plausible. Geogre 13:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
DOOM 4[edit]
Wait until it hits the stores. Delete for now. Denni☯ 05:09, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Simple enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too early for this speculation. Nestea 11:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but re-create once it's announced. Upcoming, anticipated games like Civilization 4 are notable, but it's too early.-LtNOWIS 13:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wow! How about Doom 45? Sarg 20:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand if something apart from the fact that it's the next number after three is known. Otherwise delete. Beta m (talk)
- Delete unless a wealth of information on this is uncovered in the next five days. Mr Bound 21:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even announced yet. Thunderbrand 03:05, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- keep who knows this might be true. namela 2:22,june 1, 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 redirect Basic Cable, delete others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Basic Cable, Tuna Lowers My Inhibitions, 1942 Beacon Street[edit]
Non-notable, vanity. We probably should have an article on basic cable as it relates to cable tv, but this isn't it. RickK 05:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this, I'm a Boston College student and 1942 beacon is a junior stronghold. They supply happiness to the rest of the student body. This is far more valuable than even a frat. Keep this one around.
- Delete, pleeeease. Very vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, a couple of mates and a six-pack doesn't make you encyclopedia material. Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Basic Cable to Cable television. Delete the other two as vanities. Sjakkalle 11:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Basic Cable and bomb the others. It amazes me that freshman humor never changes. Geogre 14:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Basic Cable to cable television, delete the others. --Carnildo 22:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Basic Cable to Cable television. Delete the others. JamesBurns 11:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/delete. per Geogre, et al. Niteowlneils 19:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep It would seem there is somewhat of a double standard being applied when a fairly detailed article about princeton's eating societies is permitted, but not this equally venerable fraternal institution, the only one of its kind at Boston College which expressly prohibits fraternities.
- KeepKeep this page, every entering Freshman at Boston College should have a place of reference to learn more about the social scene at their new college, and 1942 is the epicenter of that.
- KEEP it is a work in progress page and it will be fixed and amended to show the true value of this organization
- Keep 1942 Beacon Street. It needs to be improved, no doubt, but it could prove to become a very interesting entry if more of a history of the building could be posted. Paul
- Delete Tuna Lowers My Inhibitions unless one of the creators come up with some more original material and gain some national exposure ;) Paul
- Redirect Basic Cable to Cable television but "keep" the article on the redirected page for a short explanation of the program as well as the specific term "Basic Cable" Paul 12:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except basic cable which should be redirected -- somehow I doubt that Wikipedia was created solely to provide freshmen at Boston College a social calendar... 67.101.113.10 June 01 2005
- KEEP It is a valid page and if fraternities and dining clubs are allowed on, then this entry should be as well. Also, wikipedia is a tool of the masses. It is for everyone to use. Be it geeks who are upset they have no social life, or freshmen at BC. Dont descriminate and be pompous because your college experience was subpar due to the lack of fun you let yourself have.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Icon Grill[edit]
Non-notable restaurant. Denni☯ 05:15, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete, Advertising. Megan1967 06:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Zagat refugee. Geogre 14:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Sn0wflake 14:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:23, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Buddha's Family[edit]
Non-notable band. No mention of them at artistdirect or allmusic. I can't figure out if they have actually released any records, their website is in Spanish, but there doesn't seem to be a discography thee, and when I just tried to access the productions website, it said its bandwidth has been exceeded. Note that this has been a red link at Reggaeton for a long time. RickK 05:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet Wikipedia music guidelines. Megan1967 06:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and rewrite. Google gives a lot of sites where they are mentioned.Vorash 09:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt meet Wikipedia music notability guidelines. JamesBurns 11:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Pakistan Social Democratic Platform, PSDP[edit]
- delete: Pakistan has many political parties and groups. Pakistan Social Democratic Platform, or PSDP, is unfamiliar to me, and googling it found only one non-wikipedia result. The article has what I believe is a promotional link to a website on bravepages. FactNTact 05:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unknown non-notable group. --Ragib 05:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They have an unfortunate acronym, which makes me think it could be a hoax designed to pass a careless Google test. However, this google (read it carefully to filter out financial references to the acronym) and this one produced a few more links. Keep as political parties are inherently notable. Vashti 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PSDP is a very widely used acronym in Pakistan, standing for "Public Sector Development Programme." It is also the acronym of a small party called the "Pashtun Social Democratic Party" which I don't think has anything to do with this group - if it's real. Delete for now. If they become well-known, we can always add them back later. Egalitus 18:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- UNDeleteThis group was formed in 2003 at Yahoo and its gradually expanding. undelete.
- Delete Spam. CryptoDerk 05:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed 11 anonymous votes which have been added by two contributors (216.113.2.51 and 207.96.224.163). - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 31 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anakyn[edit]
Article on someone's cat not wikipedic. Tom Barnwell 06:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Not encyclopedic, either joke or vanity (not for the cat, for the owner). --Ragib 06:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The VfD notice was removed, and a speedy delete notice was added. Redirected to Darth Vader as a misspelling of "Anakin", which you have to admit is funny. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Edwin B. Marshall[edit]
Clearly promotion of family history. User:Glenmarshall also created some other pages that do the same and under vfd too, e.g. Carolyn S. Packard, his mother's page. Ragib 06:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: promotion of family history. --Ragib 06:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, genealogy, family vanity. Megan1967 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT a memorial or a place for genealogy. --Angr/탉 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem notable. Vanity. - Etacar11 17:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Fab The Dog[edit]
Looks like a vanity article of someone's dog. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "The World's Most Popular Dog" has 10 Google hits. --EvilZak 06:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though he has "influenced countless lesser dogs". This sounds like it could be BJAODN... ;-) ;-) --Idont Havaname 07:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dog vanity. Sjakkalle 07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN. --Blackcats 08:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it's a parody of a typical wikipedia vanity article. I wouldn't count it as quite amusing enough for BJAODN, though of course opinions on that may vary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: It is kind of funny, but only in a punch-drunk sense. On the other hand, there is that dog in Germany that has demonstrated knowledge of new toys by name, showing symbolic thinking. He will need (probably has, given the wikiworld) an article. He's fab, but he ain't Fab, though. Geogre 15:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, cute dog. Delete. Ben-w 16:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. The author should try Dogster. - Etacar11 17:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crufts (sorry, couldn't help it). Leithp 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pet vanity. Megan1967 05:06, 27 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 rewrite. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bryan Adams (album)[edit]
Covers exactly the same ground as the Bryan Adams article Tom Barnwell 07:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete but let the red link stand. If someone wants to make an article about the album, go ahead. Sjakkalle 07:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This album was his debut on A&M Records and didn't have any hits from it. I might have a go at writing an article on this. If there isn't an article on this album by the close of the debate, it would be better to delete this than keep it but I would vote keep for even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have rewritten the article so that it is about the Bryan Adams album. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as duplication, unless rewritten as a proper album article. If article has been redone by the time the tally on this vote is taken, please change my vote to keep. 23skidoo 14:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, content duplication. Megan1967 05:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as duplication. JamesBurns 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep teh rewrite. Grue 14:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above average article about an album by a more famous than average act. CalJW 23:35, 29 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dark Sniper[edit]
Google suggests non-notability [10]. Jonnabuz (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- do not delete, i beleive its an interesting topic. (by 203.11.167.254)
- Delete: nn, unverifiable. If he gets his own television show, then we'll add him back in, but right now he's just a dork in the outback somewhere. Marblespire 09:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable scammer. Sjakkalle 12:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. - Etacar11 17:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:07, 27 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ryan Clark[edit]
He and his brother Don Clark have played in two bands, Training for Utopia and Demon Hunter, both of which are decently notable within their genres but not quite notable enough to give band members individual articles. TfU is broken up, so unless Demon Hunter gets huge, I don't see how this could get beyond a stub without becoming band fancruft. Redirect to Demon Hunter. Idont Havaname 07:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming both bands were notable, I think we should keep these. It's easier than trying to work mention of Training for Utopia into Demon Hunter and vice versa. Meelar (talk) 13:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Um, no offence, Meelar, but we're voting on the individual, not his bands. Agree Redirect, although I'd like to point out to Idont Havaname that any editor can merge & redirect w/out needing to bring it up here. If there's no actual non-duplicated info to merge to the Demon Hunter article (which there doesn't seem to be), you can just erase it and make a redirect. See Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Soundguy99 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Meelar, if someone's been in two notable bands makes it easier for users to have a separate article. Kappa 16:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Demon Hunter. Not notable on his own. Megan1967 05:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Demon Hunter. JamesBurns 11:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Clark is head at Asterik Studios in seattle, they do a lot of art work for a lot of bands.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class[edit]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gets at the most 53 Google results. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs severe cleanup, but Merc has been dangling this one under punters' noses since at least 2002, so there's enough to write about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: An article on a rumor as a rumor is one thing, but an article that participates in the rumor is quite another. Non-verifiable. Geogre 15:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I'll clean it up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Megan1967 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep . Vorash 09:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. James F. (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.Hektor 82.127.219.131 08:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC) . Autobild of this week announces a SLT-Class Shooting Brake for 2007, why not create an entry then ? and the MLK-Class ? etc etc[reply]
- Comment: Good question. Why not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:53, 29 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vittujen kevät[edit]
I think it's nonsense, but I don't know Finnish so I can't tell, but "Vittujen kevät" "Haistakaa vittu" only gets 6 Google hits. The article was created by a User who was running around vandalizing User pages. RickK 07:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the translation is about right... um. Bearing in mind that my Finnish is dire, none of the Google hits seem to talk about the group, they mostly appear to be people whining about the rotten spring they're having. Pending a confirmation of this by someone fluent in Finnish, delete as vanity. Vashti 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a bad joke / nonsense. All the band member names listed are obscenities in Finnish. Googling the band name produces a lot of results as it is a common curse. Jonnabuz (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, garage band vanity. Megan1967 05:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. I'm especially fond of the category it's in: Category:Useful articles. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It was my intention to nominate this for deletion few days ago while I fixed other vandalism by the same author, but somehow forgot. I didn't find any related hits on Google, only random profanity (Finnish is my native language). Vashti and Jonnabuz are correct. jni 10:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Jonnabuz comments. Who?¿? 07:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was
Art Brut (band)[edit]
Vanity page for a band with "Mike on drums," "known for their ambition to play on Top of the Pops." No evidence that the band has ever released a record or performed in concert. BTfromLA 07:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they play Top of the Pops, they will have had a hit record in the UK and meet the WikiMusic guidelines. Delete unless evidence of compliance with such guidelines is shown.Keep given Morwen's research. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 07:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. If you'd done even the slightest bit of research, you would have discovered they have a number of singles out already, and an album out on Monday. They have been prominently featured in NME, and at least one of their singles has gone top 40. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea Culpa: I responded to the article itself rather than looking for independent verification, which I ought to have done. It appears that the band has released two singles and received some notice in the UK music press. There is a little promo video for them at the NME web site [11]. (Not bad, at that.) I still question whether that is sufficient for a wikipedia entry: it isn't my impression that the goal is to provide an encyclopedia entry for everyone who ever released a record or published a book, is it? But clearly the band exists outside of the mind of the article writer, so it was not fair to dismiss it as sheer vanity. BTfromLA 14:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: They seem to be a medium fish in a small pond. They have had one single get to number 22 on the Indie charts, but that seems to be a pretty low bar [12] google cache Wikibofh 14:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as they've been written about in a number of publications, and I believe they've technically done an international tour. Beyond that, even if we do decide to delete this article, chances are that, given the buzz they're generating, this article will resurface shortly anyway. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, thanks for the research Morwen and others. Kappa 16:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Vorash 09:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have expanded the article. No change from keep.Capitalistroadster 05:13, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
God Sent Lunatics[edit]
This is a stub, with no in-links, no out-links, and a sketchy and unverifiable content Simon Cursitor 07:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Odd/prankish -fu. I thought it would be a band, but it's not. Unverifiable. Geogre 15:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable, sounds like a joke--Sophitus 10:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Caitlyn Par[edit]
Sweet, but it possibly isn't notable; it hasn't happeend yet; and when the Cosmic PandaBear eats us all next Thursday it possibly won't Simon Cursitor 07:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, can we please also have a Meta page telling us that people in love should not be allowed to edit articles? Uncle G 09:56, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and administer an insulin shot: Very sweet, and we wish them well, but we cannot send them gifts of articles at this point. Geogre 15:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and ewww. Vanity. - Etacar11 17:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanity. Oh, and second Uncle G about the Meta page :-) Hermione1980 23:05, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hindu University of America[edit]
This was tagged for deletion a month ago but never listed on VfD. Looks like vanity for a yoga and meditation school. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I looked at the faculty listings. The University President is Kuldip Gupta who has been a professor at the University of Colorado since 1983 [13] and has been associated with Hindu University of America since 1986. Most of the faculty seem to be educated to at least masters level in western universities, and to have relevant qualifications in the field they're teaching, so I don't see any reason to doubt their competence. As this is no fly-by-night institution I think it merits an entry in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — appears sufficiently notable. — RJH 15:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tony, thanks for checking it out. Kappa 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promo. Megan1967 05:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising. JamesBurns 11:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup. If it was a pure advert for Coca-Cola, would you vote to delete it? -- BD2412 talk 17:49, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- keep this please this is out of control Yuckfoo 22:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Da Vinci Game[edit]
Delete. Advertising for a game that hasn't been released yet. — P Ingerson (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This game was designed to include a lot of symbolism, based on feminine divinity. Rather than deleting it, I would be very happy to expand on this aspect of the game and link to other relevant articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere to do with symbolism, goddesses, feminine divinity, etc. If possible will you please email me on play@thedavincigame.com, or perhaps we can discuss this here.
- Still advertising. Delete - Skysmith 09:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Radiant_* 09:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: An essay in advertising copy. Geogre 15:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Frjwoolley 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad. - Etacar11 17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertising. Megan1967 05:13, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Fans[edit]
I think I worked out what the article refers to. The Cleveland Indians sold out their seats for 455 games in a row, and dedicated player number 455 to "The Fans". This is a bit of trivial information which does not need an article. Sjakkalle 09:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge since it's kind of interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or entirely rewrite to be about the band. There was a group in Athens, GA called The Fans that acted as the Mother Love Bone or Green River for the Athens scene. They had one single, on db Records, but they kicked off the whole thing, from B-52's to Indigo Girls. Geogre 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:53, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ryan Tuck[edit]
Cannot verify. As User:Harro5 pointed out (see edit comment), this may be a hoax. Delete unless someone can verify it. (Also delete the redirect at Ryan tuck.) Lupo 10:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of; live in UK; read newspapers. At a guess: a hoax, delete. But I could be wrong --Simon Cursitor 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - probable hoax - no google results on "Ryan Tuck" + Maze or "Ryan Tuck" + Kray--AYArktos 11:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. Sjakkalle 12:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverifiable, strong suggestion of a hoax. Supposedly this guy is suspected of killing one of the two Kray Twins--which one of them is not mentioned. Reginald Kray died of inoperable cancer in October, 2000, having been freed on compassionate grounds. Ronald Cray died in Broadmoor secure mental institution in 1995, no suggestion of foul play. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probable hoax. - Etacar11 17:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, definite hoax. Claims to have escaped from a prison three years after it had closed down. Average Earthman 18:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:14, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hai Jie[edit]
Doesn't establish notability, and as it is a 16-yr-old, I am guessing this is a hoax article. Harro5 10:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hopeless vanity, not even an attempt at notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete teenage vanity. - Etacar11 17:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
James ballance[edit]
Googled with "James ballance" ninja and "James ballance" "Howard Bettany" with no relevant results. Ryan Tuck by this user is also on VfD. Jonnabuz (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Geogre's Law failure with the added joys of a prank. Delete or speedy delete as vandalism. Geogre 15:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity/hoax/doesn't know how to capitalize. - Etacar11 17:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:15, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alex Ching Yu PO[edit]
A personal CV. One Google hit titled "My Test Page". Jonnabuz (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A CV and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle 10:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post a CV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Please post your resumes elsewhere. --Aurochs
- Delete vanity/cv. - Etacar11 17:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:16, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anton's Law[edit]
Not verifiable. According to his edit on Selectively permeable membrane, Anton is the name of this editor. Jonnabuz (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Concur. Sjakkalle 10:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is such a thing as Anton's Law though, it's a nickname for a US law regarding children's auto safety belts. Perhaps an article could be made about that, but we'd be better off without this bogus one in the history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The equation described is the same method as that for finding the output of a voltage divider circuit, but the presentation as "Anton's Law" seems to be bogus. --Aurochs
- Delete. No such law in common electric circuit knowledge; no references cited. Samw 21:04, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Muhammad Furqan Khan[edit]
Seems to be nothing but Vanity --Irishpunktom\talk 11:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, no significant notability claims in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — Joe Schmoe. — RJH 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:17, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Martin Bryant[edit]
Very POV, verging on libel, paints a man as a "monster" using inaccurate unreferenced or else inaccurately referenced material, ignores other point of view, not notable other than for conviction for Port Arthur Massacre, all useful content could be merged with that. Largely original research. 203.26.206.129 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This a quality article about one of Australia's most well-known serial killers/mass murderers. Very notable, as his actions brought in the newest round of gun law reform in Australia. - Mark 09:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, this is a bogus nomination from an alias IP of User:Internodeuser, who is currently the subject of a request for arbitration, for incidents relating to this very article. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yet another example of lies being told by administrators. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a bogus nomination, it is by User:Internodeuser, User:Internodeuser is the subject of a Request for Arbitration, the request does concern this article, and User:Thebainer is not an administrator. Zero out of five. Ben-w 00:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment yet another example of lies being told by administrators. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nonsense vote. Even if there were POV problems that is no reason for a deletion. Dysprosia 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Very big POV problems. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, nomination was made in bad faith.--nixie 09:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is not consistent with Wikipedia rules, so it must be considered for deletion. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, nominator is either unfamiliar with recent Australian history, or as Thebainer says above, a troll. -- Chuq 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Or should we delete jack the ripper, Timothy McVeigh etc..... Xtra 10:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, with a redirect, is what was suggested. Why keep a separate page when there is no actual correct history about him on there, other than inaccurate POV arguments? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you also contacted the worlds' media to have them correct their reporting? Start there, then come back here. -- Longhair | Talk 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He's busy "correcting" the media about things like the December 2004 Tsunami being caused by a nuclear explosion and how cigarette smoking cures lung cancer. Certifiable nutjob at work.
- Comment: Have you also contacted the worlds' media to have them correct their reporting? Start there, then come back here. -- Longhair | Talk 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, with a redirect, is what was suggested. Why keep a separate page when there is no actual correct history about him on there, other than inaccurate POV arguments? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - this user is almost certainly an alias IP of User:Internodeuser based on the contributions from the IP address that nominated this VfD. As per comments by Mark above the article is worth keeping about a notable subject--AYArktos 11:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am suddenly a bad user? Goodness gracious. After all you've done? 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy KEEP: I have reservations about anons being allowed to nominate articles for deletion in the first place.--Cyberjunkie 12:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops sorry, forgot to log in. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sour grapes. Bad faith listing by someone with a conspiracy theory to peddle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a conspiracy theory. Rather, a factual recursion of events. Conspiracy theories are things which you're not sure if they happened or not. There is a difference. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep (delist) as very likely bad-faith nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Please forget about this potentially being "bad faith", as that is being peddled by people with a hidden agenda. Treat it legitimately, and then vote. There are serious and grave concerns about the content of this article. If the guy's rights weren't taken from him, no doubt he'd be suing Wikipedia right now for libel. 203.26.206.129 13:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge as patent nonsense. Needs to have many more references, especially when referring to things like psychiatric illnesses, which are proven elsewhere to be entirely false. 203.26.206.129 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One wonders why you object to the point on psychiatric illnesses. Are you a Scientologist? A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Port Arthur Massacre - Karol 13:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Vandalism by a bogus VfD nomination. Keep the article, delete User:203.26.206.129 as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 15:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Regardless of the user's personal feelings on the matter, this article is NPOV and accurate. There is no place for revisionist historians at Wikipedia. Scimitar 15:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, can't see anything that warrants deletion. If part of the article is incorrect, it can be corrected. Mgm|(talk) 15:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nominator continues to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and this bad-faith nomination is typical of the pattern. He has some wild personal theory about Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur Massacre, cannot accept that the consensus does not support his unique POV and insists on trying to force it through creation of spurious pages and malicious vfds like this one. Nominator needs to be fully aware that (a) his POV is not widely accepted (b) he has failed to provide sufficient evidence or cogent argument to make it widely accepted (c) no amount of dissembling changes the fact that these repeated edits, page creations, and nominations for deletion are disruptive and contrary to policy regardless of how he feels about the matter (d) these tedious, bad faith, disruptive tactics will not work. The world will not wake up one morning and experience a Damascene conversion about what happened at Port Arthur. Ben-w 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination. Even if the article were POV (of which I haven't seen any proof) there is no reason whatsoever to put it on VFD. Sarg 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delist. Bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; very notable fellow for unfortunate reasons. A2Kafir 01:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - the man behind the largest massacre by a single gunman is an encyclopedia topic. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got an article. Cedars 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Port Arthur Massacre made news worldwide as Bryant killed over 30 people. It led directly to tightening of gun laws in Australia which had a noticeable political impact most notably in the temporary rise of the One Nation Party. It seems to me to be a bad faith nomination because the nominator can't get his way on the content of the article. Capitalistroadster 15:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a bogus nominatin made in bad faith. Delisted for that reason. Tannin 11:15, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Profundity[edit]
The term "profundity" is not used in this manner in axiology, by Whitehead or as far as I'm aware in any field. It seems to be putting across the POV of www.livejournal.com/users/mostconducive/ but is entirely unencyclopaedic. I'm not aware of any other uses of the term which might require a mere rewriting of the article as opposed to it's removal 83.67.18.175 13:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Google returns some stuff, not sure how much of it is useful though. Some of the links seems to support the claims regarding Whitehead in the article. Keep for now. Vashti 14:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Seriously POV and specialized appropriation of the term in an article comprised of a number of sentence fragments. The problem I have is not that this is true or untrue, but rather that it is original research. This is one person's attempt at synthesizing and comprehending several philosophical approaches to a particular term/concept. The problem is that this represents new work, a new synthetic concept, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Had the article been a point by point discussion of the term in this person's philosophy, that person's philosophy, and the other person's, it might have been ok, as then it would have been a report. However, once it takes up the cudgel of "it means," it goes over to original research. Geogre 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for reasons well articulated by Geogre. A personal essay, not an encyclopedic review of how a technical term is used. Note the absence of any references. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not encyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the contributions that I was referring to in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paradigmeter. Note also that the anonymous author has repeatedly removed {{cleanup-technical}} without modifying the article one whit to make it more comprehensible to non-experts. Uncle G 01:46, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jamie Loiselle[edit]
This page is either a vanity page or patent nonsense. The owner reverted my CSD so I'm bringing it up for a VfD Shoaler 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Concur with vanity. Technically it is not "patent nonsense" since that refers to random characters such as "goshgøioshgoøirdh". Sjakkalle 14:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another category of articles that are considered patent nonsense: those that are well-formed, but make absolutely no sense. As an example, see the entry "Binary pulsar" on my user page. --Carnildo 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Obvious vanity. In fact, I'm going to speedy delete it right now. --khaosworks 14:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hm. For some reason I'm getting an error. Marking it with {{delete}} again so someone else can handle it. --khaosworks 15:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I speedied it successfully but most likely it will be back. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kevin Lindeman[edit]
- Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Shoaler 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, vanity. Megan1967 05:19, 27 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 (someone else can BJAODN it, but I was only lukewarm about it). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons[edit]
This appears to be a hoax. While I realise google isn't a reliable determiner of everything, all of the following searches get 0 hits:
- "Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons"
- Society for the "Preservation of Waffle Irons"
- "Waffle iron preservation"
- "Ian L. Chalmers"
- "Ian Chalmers" "Waffle iron" (There appear to be at least three different professors named Ian Chalmers)
- "Ian Chalmers" "Red China"
Other searches do return results, but nothing apparently relevant
- "Waffle iron" "Red China" - almost all from different sections of "on this day..." type pages
- "Waffle iron" "preservation society" - various preservation society pages, the Xanau Preservation Society movie and, curiously, adverts for escort girl sites. Thryduulf 15:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Smells like a hoax. --InShaneee 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and kudos to Thryduulf for his diligence in verifying that this is a hoax. Meelar (talk) 15:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)`
- Delete, please see WP:AN/I for the anon's contributions page, so year and day articles can also be cleared. Mgm|(talk) 15:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Definite hoax aroma. --khaosworks 16:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 26 May 2005
- BJAODN --24.158.179.87 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
- Delete No Brooklyn, NY telephone directories list this organization, either---Outlander 16:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and while we're at it the anon user who keeps trying to add this to the 2003 page and has had his entry reverted twice should be reported for vandalism, if this hasn't been done already. PatGallacher 16:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Scimitar 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or BJAODN, if appropriate. "Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons" gets zero Google hits, as does "Preservation of Waffle Irons".
- BJAODN. Someone will find it funny. --Aurochs
- Delete (Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO) and congratulations to the nominator for excellent and thorough research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Seems like a hoax, and an almost plausible one. Given the randomness of the postings from that ip it could be a public access computer or part of an unsecured wireless network. Spotteddogsdotorg 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Weird hoax, but I really want to know what those call girls are doing with those waffle irons. (Check that: no, I don't.) Geogre 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax (but not funny enough for BJAODN). Megan1967 05:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please check http://www.geocities.com/wafflepreservation/! (vote by user:209.137.173.69, who has been around since 18 May (I suspect the 30 December contribution was a different user with the same IP)). Thryduulf 16:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I remain unconvinced by a single page website hosted on geocities that I could have created inside 10 minutes writing the html in vi. Google doesn't know about it, suggesting that it hasn't been around a very long time, although there are now 4 results for "Society for the Preservation of Waffle Irons" - this page, WP:VFDL, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) and User:AllyUnion/VFD List. no change of vote. Thryduulf 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN Quite funny hoax, and their website is basically the same text for the entry and frankly I am all for organisations that want to stop Wal-Mart and China. FREE TIBET! --Toasthaven 15:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BJODN Blackcats 07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ashtree Primary School[edit]
A non-notable primary school. Dunc|☺ 14:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a failing primary school, it was put on special measures in the 1990s but was mentioned in the 1999-2000 OFSTED annual report as one of only five Hertfordshire primary schools to have undergone a "very substantial improvement" in the previous year, resulting the lifting of the special measures order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, then let's have an article on the other five too. And the ones that get mentioned in the 2001 report, the 2002 report, the 2003 report... the 2004 report, the 2005 report, and those not just for Herts, but Cambs and Oxon and Bucks and so on and mention nothing of interest at all about any of them. Dunc|☺ 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to start those articles. The more the merrier. -- Visviva 16:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it with some people? This isn't Sesame Street, it's an encyclopedia. People who are interested in this information will find it; the only time that anybody else needs to look at it is when someone puts it up in one of these increasingly hopeless vote for deletion listings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, then let's have an article on the other five too. And the ones that get mentioned in the 2001 report, the 2002 report, the 2003 report... the 2004 report, the 2005 report, and those not just for Herts, but Cambs and Oxon and Bucks and so on and mention nothing of interest at all about any of them. Dunc|☺ 16:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Haven't we had this discussion already? See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ashtree_primary_school. -- Visviva 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks to Visviva for an excellent cleanup job. This is now a very informative and useful article indeed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this important information, sorry if it's not entertaining enough for your tastes. Kappa 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on, this school is notable for failing, then not failing? You think this is notable? You think anyone outside of the small little catchment area of this school pays any attention to it whatsoever? It teaches the curriculum set for it, and even notable alumni would be irrelevent (it would be like listing supermarkets with notable shoppers, since the influence of one primary is much like another). This is only of any relevence whatsoever to the very local area, the catchment area of the school, so the useful information in this article should be merged to a relevent geographical article. Average Earthman 18:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entitled to your opinion, but do you really think primaries have little influence on future life? It seems to run contrary to my own experience and I have no reason to believe myself unusual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it only has an effect in the immediate catchment area. The specified curriculum means that one non-failing primary is much like another non-failing primary. Besides, the water I drank in the last 48 hours has had an absolutely vital influence on my future life, but it would be daft to write an article on the specific drinks - vitality on an individual does not mean that it is individually notable. Average Earthman 08:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entitled to your opinion, but do you really think primaries have little influence on future life? It seems to run contrary to my own experience and I have no reason to believe myself unusual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Beta m (talk)
- 'Merge with the appropriate geographical article. --Carnildo 23:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please this already survived vfd earlier a few months ago Yuckfoo 23:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh, you're right! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Schools belong in Wikipedia. Unfocused 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable school. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 04:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People should consider eating apples more often as it's good for your health, and therefore delete. Radiant_* 08:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Stevenage and delete - Skysmith 08:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why do the infoboxes for secondary schools contain an entry for enrollment, with no indication of what year they're talking about? Doesn't the enrollment on these schools change every year? It does where I live. Quale 15:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. James F. (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per the general consensus and outcome of the previous VfD discussion for this article. —RaD Man (talk 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and stop nominating schools. Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Mindspillage (talk), 05:15, 9 June 2005
Genesis 1:1[edit]
Despite the importance of this verse in creationist theory, I hotly oppose a Wikipedia article on individual verses of the Bible. We already have Psalm 119, and even that is borderline. It should be deleted or merged with articles on creationism. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with Creation according to Genesis. btw, creationists don't have any theories. Dunc|☺ 16:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an appropriate article, either as suggested by duncharris (despite his uncalled-for statement) or into Genesis.--M412k 16:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No content worth merging. Redirect to Creation according to Genesis. - Mike Rosoft 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good article overall but it could do with actual references in place of 'some believe that..." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... but if you absolutely have to merge Beta m (talk)
- Keep - a bible verse (and particularly this Bible verse) is at least as influential as a primary school (and I have nothing against primary schools btw) --Doc (?) 21:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Creation according to Genesis. This Bible verse is enormously influential, of course, but there are dozens of extremely important and influential verses (where there are not nearly so many important and influential primary schools), but the question is at least as taxonomical as priority. Also, we have the entire Bible in Wikisource, so there is no need to have a chapter/verse call. The verse can be read at Wikisource. Geogre 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See also WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16. -- Jonel 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. While interesting in its own regard, if Wikipedia had an article on every single Bible verse it would just get ridiculous. This might warrant its own Bible Wiki, or something, though. Hermione1980 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More than enough scholorship available to create an encyclopedic article on this verse. --Allen3 talk 23:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Creation according to Genesis. --Carnildo 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand this article on an incredibly important and influential Bible verse. WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16 has also been mentioned. Kappa 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and compliments to Neutrality on the good work. - SimonP 23:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as long as the article contains content and not just text. IZAK 00:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wrote the article. Ridiculous nomination. "Genesis 1:1" gets 103,000 Google hits. Neutralitytalk 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete! Bad precedent to start articles about individual scriptures/superstitious beliefs. Rlw 00:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- We already have many precedents, including WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20. Also a Bible verse seems to be nearly as encyclopedic as a Simpsons episode. Kappa 01:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve the article. Scholarship, philosophy and exegesis on this verse (and numerous others) is broad and diverse enough to warrant an encyclopedia article (albeit a specialized encyclopedia, like much else in wikipedia). Don't reduce the whole issue to a matter of +/- creationism. HG 01:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Aren't many Biblical verses grouped together on Wikipedia? I see nothing wrong with this and the following item being merged and redirecting to Genesis 1:1-5, which would cover a more comprehensible part of the Book. The whole Bible could quite probably be covered sensibly in this way, whereas covering it verse by verse would not be particularly sensible (how much can you say on "Jesus wept" (John 11:35) without referring to the chapters on either side of it?). Grutness...wha? 01:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dsmdgold 03:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable bible verse. Klonimus 04:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with the general principle. Why shouldn't there be an article on every verse? I have always thought that separating Wikipedia into Wikisource, etc., was somewhat arbitrary anyway. --Ezra Wax 04:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC) -Addendum against merging: This verse is interesting on its own without regard to creation. For example notes about some of the words in the verse and their meaning, why the Torah starts with the letter Beis, why the specific name of God is used, etc.[reply]
- Because, Ezra, then WP, in order to maintain NPOV, will have to have a separate article on every chapter and verse (or analogous) of every single religious text on the planet. Seems beyond the scope to me.Delete before it's too late and WP slides down a slippery slope. Rlw 04:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- We have an article on every day of the year, and on every year, and on every tiny town in the United states, and on every minor character of many TV shows, books, films, and comic strips. What slippery slope were you concerned about? There is plenty of storage space. There were thousands of photographs uploaded to the Wikipedia commons. There is no problem of article collision, because no other article will be wanting to use those titles. I have no problem with having an article on each verse for each religion either. Why can't there be ten or even a hundred articles on each verse? Disk space is cheap.
- R1w's argument is spurious. Deleting Bible verse 'to manitain NPOV' is silly - shall we delete articles on US TV episodes to maintain NPOV with other cultures, which don't have so many entries? The Bible has had an enormous cultural, religious and literary impact, rivaled by no religious text (other than the Qu'ran). There are fewer verses than schools in the US - and I suspect most of them (and certainly Gen 1:1) are more universaly notable. (I do, however, think that the parrallel translations should be deleted). Do not redirect to creationist debates - that would be POV! --Doc (?) 13:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, Ezra, then WP, in order to maintain NPOV, will have to have a separate article on every chapter and verse (or analogous) of every single religious text on the planet. Seems beyond the scope to me.Delete before it's too late and WP slides down a slippery slope. Rlw 04:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I am hotly in favor of of keeping commentary articles on Bible verses. I completely disagree with any attempt to cast this as creationist article only. You could just as well redirect to Paradise Lost. -- Decumanus 05:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. Megan1967 05:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis Kaibabsquirrel 07:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. JamesBurns 11:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and I'm sure this could be expanded. I agree with Decumanus. Falphin 02:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This should probably be mentioned on this page. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16Falphin 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the Book of Genesis. This article says nothing that couldn't be said there. Giving the text in 10 different translations is a job for Wikisource, not an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 03:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleven, actually. Neutralitytalk 08:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into articles covering groups of verses. Unless someone is able to expand this into a larger article without overstepping the NPOV.
- Transwiki. There do live b:Biblical Studies projects in English Wikibooks. --Puzzlet Chung 14:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We are not voting whether every verse needs an article, we are voting on this verse and it deserves an article. At its current length, I do not think it would be user friendly to merge this into a longer article. DS1953 22:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...this is an important verse in western civilization and has far reaching influences outside of the creation/evolution debates. KHM03 20:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not Wikisource?[edit]
In terms of the Bible verses articles (a perfect eg of a content issue!), my opinion (to get some list of opinions started) is that they are a waste of time/space on Wikipedia. Something like this belongs more on Wikisource, as it is in essence the presentation of an extended primary text with detailed information about every part (assuming people add more verses...) - I saw a large article which did not contain much information that can't be found in other Wikipedia articles - and yet it covered so little of what could be said about the verse. If this keeps going, it will engulf Wikipedia. On Wikisource though, something in the style of the Mishna project (see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mishnah as an example) (with user contributed public domain translations, see Wikibooks:The Open Mishnah Project at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:The_Open_Mishnah_Project) and concise summaries of commentaries, the uses of the verse in Jewish texts etc would be a good idea and I'd probably like to contribute to those. As it stands, I think deletion or relocation to Wikisource is the way to go. Frikle 11:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent idea. Wikisource (or wikibooks, the Bible is a book isn't it?) Radiant_* 08:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikisource is not an encyclopedia. Also the bible is not a textbook, so wikibooks is not appropriate. Kappa 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Books other than textbooks might be fine. Wikibooks already has b:Jokebook. --Puzzlet Chung 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikisource is not an encyclopedia. Also the bible is not a textbook, so wikibooks is not appropriate. Kappa 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the beginning ... of a proposed rewrite[edit]
Just revised the article on Genesis 1:1 substantially. Hopefully it is an improvement w/NPOV. (Except I am unable to do justice to the subsection on Christian exegesis, please edit and add.) I already voted to keep articles by key verse(s). The rewrite attempts to demonstrate why the article should not be merged (esp not w/Creationism) and why such articles would be useful to keep. It also conforms somewhat to the format proposed in the Talk section on 1:1. Would welcome more such Talk. HG 17:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The key overarching point of my proposal has been reverted/removed already. I had restructured the article to differentiate scholarly vs. religious views, and -- within religious views -- between Christian and Jewish (and Moslem, etc). Instead, the article showing now has sections entitled "Analysis" (aka Christian w/some academic) and "Jewish interpretation", with attendant POV issues. If you are interested, my proposed structure and initial implementation may be seen in the history [15] of the article. Best wishes, HG
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Genesis 1:2[edit]
Despite the importance of this verse in creationist theory, I hotly oppose a Wikipedia article on individual verses of the Bible. We already have Psalms 119, and even that is borderline. It should be deleted or merged with articles on creationism. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Genesis or other suitable article. I agree that we shouldn't have articles for every verse just for logistical reasons; besides, it's unnecessary.--M412k 16:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No content worth merging. Redirect to Creation according to Genesis. - Mike Rosoft 16:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just DELETE! We don't need all of these articles about each and every goddamn (no pun intended) Bible verse. Revolución 20:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sake of spaceMy previous vote was too hasty. After giving the issue some thought, I vote Keep. Karol 20:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)- Keep. As Gen 1:1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... but if you absolutely have to merge Beta m (talk)
- Delete. Mindmatrix 21:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that the vote listed from Tony Sidaway was actually cast by User:Beta m
- About the above note: when I load the edit history, it keeps changing state. What's going on? (It's not a caching issue on my end.) I'm not sure if the statement I made above is accurate. Mindmatrix 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard my notes, everyone. Apparently I'm getting incorrect edit history information from the DB right now. Mindmatrix 21:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - still more notable than your average school - although this does need some content - I didn't know we were short of space?--Doc (?) 21:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per Genesis 1:1, reasoning as stated in that vote. Geogre 21:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See also WP:VFD/Matthew 2:16. -- Jonel 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More than enough scholorship available to create an encyclopedic article on this verse. --Allen3 talk 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. While interesting in its own regard, if Wikipedia had an article on every single Bible verse it would just get ridiculous. This might warrant its own Bible Wiki, or something, though. Hermione1980 23:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Creation according to Genesis. --Carnildo 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Vast amounts have been written about this verse and the others at the start of Genesis. - SimonP 23:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect As above - many Biblical verses are grouped together on Wikipedia. Create Genesis 1:1-5, which covers a more comprehensible part of the Book. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, could write books on the subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. Megan1967 05:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Single verses in the Bible have inspired reams of commentary, controversy, scholarship. --Decumanus 05:33, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete Kaibabsquirrel 07:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dsmdgold 10:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Creation according to Genesis. JamesBurns 11:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Falphin 02:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, don't redirect or merge. I would expect this article to grow and will best serve users in its own article. - DS1953 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable bible verse. I;ve been adding additional translations (Modern Translations) to each of the bible verse articles. Klonimus 02:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bellevue West High School[edit]
This vanity article's last vfd was closed with a result of merge. A sockpuppet banned from VfD refused to accept consensus, and reverted the closing redirect against several editors, adding trivia less notable than my proverbial pet fish to the article as he went. The article is currently protected in a disgusting display of biased inclusionism, three minutes after the protecting admin reverted it to the non-consensus version. While I admit this vfd is probably futile, as the schoolwatch trolls will flock to it like sheep, the article should still be deleted as utterly non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 07:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment This wasn't listed on VfD by the nominator so I've added it to the May 26 listings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Baa Baa. Bleat Bleat. [Just to be predictably English-eccentric] --Simon Cursitor 07:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Waaah, waaah, waaah. Keep unless someone suggests an actual reason for deleting and take the drama elsewhere. Ben-w 07:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep and expand once the page is unprotected. Though I agree with Harro5, I don't want to refraing from voting and risk the page being deleted. Secondary schools are inherently notable. --BaronLarf 11:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a shame that the lister included an attack on those who think that schools should be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would not get far if we all engaged in such behavior. I've looked at the local school district article, Bellevue Public Schools, and I don't think a merge would be suitable in this case. It's no longer a brief stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm also concerned at the lister's misinterpretation of the result of the last VfD. The closer, Rossami, made it quite plain that the result was no consensus and that in merging he was merely being bold. I sometimes do this myself but, to avoid this kind of misinterpretation I always carry out the editing after closing and as a separate edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The lister also writes: "The article is currently protected in a disgusting display of biased inclusionism, three minutes after the protecting admin reverted it to the non-consensus version"
- Actually that was me protecting the article which I'd been told was subject to a revert war. When I got there there was indeed a very silly revert war in progress. I protected The Wrong Version, as is my privilege, because of a perception, which I think was quite correct, that an attempt was being made to enforce a merge without consensus. Four people up to that point had tried to get it back to an article and four people had tried to get it back to a redirect. That just doesn't happen when there is a consensus. I made a rather exasperated note about the whole silly thing on the talk page at the time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
End discussion please[edit]
I urge everybody accept the fact that this vote will end in 'no consensus', and to not increase VfD size by adding more votes. Wait for the forthcoming vote before deciding. See also Wikipedia:Schools. Harro5 08:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the damned thing already, or if the school fanatics won't accept that, delete --Carnildo 18:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. My favorite line in the article is, "Bellevue West High School is known for their academics and sports." That's truly unique for a high school, and I'd love to see the cite on it. The notable alumnus is also good for a laugh. Quale 00:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though this is another obvious no consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:55, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Oh I dunno, I was hoping we could try for another keep this time. :) (this is not a vote)--Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. DS1953 01:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Once again, the school VfDs were only funny when Neutrality did them. Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles such as this should not be deleted until at least the discussion at Wikipedia:schools is settled. --M412k 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. I think we could do without the fight song unless it has achieved notoriety of which I am unaware. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalist, I greatly respect the cleanup work you do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect much improvement in this article. It's on its second trip through VfD, and its already got about 60 edits (of that total GRider has made about 20 and Tony about 5). It is what it is. Notable Alumni have been doubled by including a college volleyball player to go along with the original notable alumnus, Mr Biggs, a radio DJ. I guess some people might consider that an improvement. For some reason WP doesn't yet have an article on their cross-town rival, Bellevue East High School. It isn't even a redlink in the article, although Mr Biggs is. Quale 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly not but it might be useful feedback given that it is likely that we will end up with a hung vote on this school and the school will probably remain.Capitalistroadster 05:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, personally I don't find either of the alumni listed to be notable. The quality of an article can't be measured by number of edits and length, otherwise a rambling 30 paragraph long article of asides and irrelevency would be viewed as better than a one paragraph straight to the point article. Average Earthman 18:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalist, I greatly respect the cleanup work you do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect much improvement in this article. It's on its second trip through VfD, and its already got about 60 edits (of that total GRider has made about 20 and Tony about 5). It is what it is. Notable Alumni have been doubled by including a college volleyball player to go along with the original notable alumnus, Mr Biggs, a radio DJ. I guess some people might consider that an improvement. For some reason WP doesn't yet have an article on their cross-town rival, Bellevue East High School. It isn't even a redlink in the article, although Mr Biggs is. Quale 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaargh. Can we get a moratorium on school VfDs? I'm as big an opponent of schoolcruft as most of the delete voters here, but this is just getting silly. (BTW, a radio DJ and a college volleyball player are notable alumni?) AиDя01DTALK 02:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: It's a school. It has students. The same could be said about the local donut shop. Why is this particular school needed in an encyclopedia? As for the desired moratorium on votes, I hate to be cynical, but this is the way I look at it: school votes end up with half and half (unless the valiant warriors of Schoolwatch get clued in, and then a dozen "OMG KEEEP!!!! Schools must never be deleted ever ever ever you trolls! Start an RfC on the nominator!" votes show up, and then it's about 60/40. True. However, the policy proposal can end no other way than a similar knot. Not to vote until a definitive conclusion to the policy discussion is, de facto, to vote "keep" on all and to welcome more stunningly profound entries as "Lincoln School is an elementary school in New Jersey" to the encyclopedia. I should rather say that a moratorium could be observed after a policy consensus is reached. Until then, these nasty fights will continue, with people acting entirely irrationally and hating each other over the absurd issue of meaningless stubs staying or going. Geogre 03:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I say, it's really not a hating matter, is it? A number of people make hopeless, doomed VfD listings and they fail to reach consensus (or, increasingly often, end up with a straight majority to keep). That's the beginnning and the end of it. None of us need hate or be hated, I should hope. It's just a difference of opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unless some well known people have graduated from the school, or there was some notable contreversy surrounding the school, or the school had a unique or ground-breaking program of some sort. Contrast the school in question with the only other school in the "Nebraska high schools" category: Brownell-Talbot School. The latter school was the first school in Nebraska, and claims Peter Fonda among its allumni. It's possible there's something notable about Bellevue West, but I can't tell that there is from the article, and I'm sure Nebraska has hundreds of other high schools which are just as un-noteworthy, so let the fun begin~! --Blackcats 06:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This school is very notable, just by existing. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this school, apart from being verifiable and wikipedia:important, has one of the best marching bands in the USA and thus passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 08:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete another crap article about a non-notable school, telling us how big its canteen is, leaving any sane person totally underwhelmed (although I fear my attempts to to stop this flood of crapcruft is failing) Dunc|☺ 16:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about overwhelming people, its about providing them with information. Kappa 16:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My coffee mug is brown, and the air conditioning in my office doesn't work. There, that's information. Going to make an article of it? Of course not, because it is inconsequential drivel. This is a deliberately silly example of course, but just to show a line has to be drawn somewhere. Average Earthman 18:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I don't think anyone is likely to want to look those facts up. Also they are pretty much unverfiable, and not likely to be true for any length of time. Kappa 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought my statement that they were deliberately silly was a bit of a clue that I thought they were useless facts, and that was indeed the whole point - they're only slightly more trivial and pointless than which school a local radio DJ went to.Average Earthman 08:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I don't think anyone is likely to want to look those facts up. Also they are pretty much unverfiable, and not likely to be true for any length of time. Kappa 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My coffee mug is brown, and the air conditioning in my office doesn't work. There, that's information. Going to make an article of it? Of course not, because it is inconsequential drivel. This is a deliberately silly example of course, but just to show a line has to be drawn somewhere. Average Earthman 18:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about overwhelming people, its about providing them with information. Kappa 16:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this informative article. Lupin 16:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote. Could we please just stop with the school nominations until we decide what we're going to do with them? Scimitar 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, verifiable. - SimonP 23:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- 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. Average Earthman 08:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So is the publication record of any scientist. Does this mean that every published scientist warrants an article? Average Earthman 08:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go to the donations page you will see that the mission statement set out by Jimbo states that we are gathering the "sum of all human knowledge," I see no reason this excludes high schools. Wikipedia is not a directory so hundreds of lists of scientists by publication would probably not belong here. Personally I feel prose is a requirement for an article and if a list of publications is the only information that is verifiable it would be best to move such pages to another Wikiproject. That said if someone started creating such pages more than likley they would be kept, most published professors survive VfD. - SimonP 14:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- keep this again please it is verifiable and interesting Yuckfoo 23:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - another awful useless school article. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Schools belong in Wikipedia. Unfocused 03:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 42. Radiant_* 08:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Bellevue, Nebraska and delete - Skysmith 08:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 14:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow for extra helpings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Bellevue, Nebraska and delete Denni☯ 03:49, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
- Delete. "The school claims its marching band, the Thunderbirds, to be one of the best in the country." Fascinating. Neutralitytalk 03:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Please stop asking people not to vote. CalJW 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the damn thing and stop wasting our time. The last vote did not decide for merge either, that was some admin's improper decision. --Zero 19:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (am I too late?) — Dan | Talk 00:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Matrixparody[edit]
No Google hits for "Matrix Parody" "Adrian Shaw" [16]. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Vanity. (Go play outside, Adrian, and learn baseball, or cricket, or soccer, or some game that involves living human beings.) Geogre 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, project vanity. Megan1967 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and alert the Agents to the presence of those responsible. — Phil Welch 05:52, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Damian Ohanyido Okoli[edit]
There is no denying that Google, WP and the Web in general are awfully short of information on Africa. So I suppose the fact that some tripod pages seem to confirm the existance of this person are quite an achievement already. It is mostly the circumstances that make this article suspicious (beyond desperately needing a cleanup): The formatting makes the article look like a recreation of a deleted article scraped off some WP mirror. The creator of the article added this note to the article's talk page: "This article appears factual and well written. More African biographies like this should be encouraged." The same editor also pushed the deleted Francis Okechukwu Ohanyido (e.g. [17], while Atomse who recently recreated said deleted article has edited the subject of this VfD with three of his five edits. Subjects of the articles are father and son. Bottom line: One-man mission to push some unverifiable subject into WP. Rl 16:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,very good biography.It seems true. We should keep it.-- [[User:Ok|Ok]
- Keep, with reservations. I dunno, both this and the article on this guy's son look to me reasonably encyclopaedic. I don't know much about Nigeria, but these don't look like hoaxes or simple vanity. And they aren't asking for bank account numbers ... Frjwoolley 17:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable source provided. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independently verified. Scimitar 18:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Google turns up just one hit, an adaption of the same article but hosted on somebody's free Tripod homepage. We must err on the side of caution when it comes to plausible but unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Revolución 20:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Karol 20:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We can defer the verification process until someone has made a due diligence search of independent sources--the mere fact that Google searches failed isn't enough to justify deletion in this case. Refer this article to WikiProject Countering systemic bias who can remit if they cannot confirm. I've also made an edit on Talk:Nigeria to see if anyone can help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC).Delete as unverifiable after nixie's searches turned up nothing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- The burden of locating and providing sources is on the author, not those who have doubts. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinda. Nearly. Actually the burden is verifiability. The article provides information which should be verifiable. We should make a reasonable attempt to verify it. Google is not the gold standard of this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the author can't be bothered to provide verifiable sources, why should we be required to do the research for him? If a thing cannot be easily verified using online tools, then the author should point us in the right direction to find other sources. It's basic courtesy. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to be conservative in these cases. If we cannot confirm it, we cannot have it. Therefore, I recommend move to /temp location until settled. The point is that we're supposed to be the last to know, in a sense, and not on the cutting edge, as we're aiming for a reference work, and not a compendium of all ideas. Geogre 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it must be deleted if unverified. I'm only suggesting that in view of the fact that only a google search has been performed we need more time to perform due diligence. We have no reason to rule out the reference site and the language can be edited, or a "totallydisputed" template should be added meanwhile to reflect the tentative nature of the article. I absolutely don't suggest that we leave it around for long. A week or two should be enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article was created by an anonymous IP whose edits you can view here: [18]. As you can see, this is a person who seems to be knowledgeable about Africa, therefore I don't think this is a hoax. There is a website, where you can see info about this guy, and a picture.[19]. This article looks, at least to me, to be factual. Many google hits mention him as a "chief". You must also take into account the fact that Nigeria is not a country where internet access is common, which explains the low amount of Google hits about this man, who is probably only nationally known inside his own country. Also, I think his son, Francis Ohanyido, is notable. You can read one of his poems here: [20] -- Revolución 22:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified. A Tripod website isn't good enough. --Carnildo 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read what I said? Revolución 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it, and still consider the current verifiability of this article to be nil. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you dispute the man's existence or the things he has done? Revolución 03:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to think I am saying the man does not exist. I am not. I am saying that there is insufficient evidence that he does exist. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But what do you believe? Do you believe, with the amount of evidence presented to you at the current time, that the man does or does not exist? Revolución 19:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to think I am saying the man does not exist. I am not. I am saying that there is insufficient evidence that he does exist. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you dispute the man's existence or the things he has done? Revolución 03:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it, and still consider the current verifiability of this article to be nil. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read what I said? Revolución 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Vorash 10:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independently verified. JamesBurns 11:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,I couldn't verify anthing about this guy, he's not in the Contemporary Africa Database which is generally pretty good, there was no BBC radio Africans of the millenium, there are no ISBNs for his books, most prominent African authors are published in other languages. The copyright disclaimer at the top indicates that it was written by his sibling Clement, the absolute lack of verifiability lead me to think it should be deleted. --nixie 13:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problm most of you are having with this articles and others like it from Africa is the same issues that colour North-South divide in all aspects of human endeavour...communication gap!Chief Ohanyido is widely celebrated in Nigeria and Africa.Those of you who searched BBC may not realise that the BBC African service / Network Africa is quite distinct from BBC world service.The fear here amongst wiki followers is that people sit all the time in advanced nations of the world and think that they know better than Africans about Africa. There are Africans who have achieved things that beggar parallel in the West.I vote that it should not be deleted if Wikipaedia will meet up with a balanced coverage of the world in view of the present digital divide.Revolución appears to have a true wiki-sense. --User:Atomse 13:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, to safeguard from "wiki-bias".--User:Atomse
- You mean the grand conspiracy to have articles agree with reality? Keeping a Wikipedia article that is impossible to verify because it gives you warm happy multicultural fuzzies is ridiculous. It's 'put up or shut up' time, and I don't see you providing any sources. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not verifiable. Quale 15:26, 31 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. CDC (talk) 23:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rebecca Gunter[edit]
Not notable. Nice picture, though. Frjwoolley 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity article of a non-notable college student who draws a non-notable web comic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with both of the nominator's points. Delete. Scimitar 16:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't for judging talent and potential, it's for noting high levels of achieved success and influence. Average Earthman 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn vanity --Lawlore 18:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Advertising for her site. Geogre 21:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. She's a talented artist judging by that picture and she may become notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thryduulf 23:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Excellent quality art, but misuse of Wikipedia. Using tracking counter linked from her webcomic, there are an average 241 hits a day, and I am unsure how many of those came from here. I believe this fails notability, but Rebecca, if you're reading this, its not because we don't like you or your art, but because of the policies we apply to all articles.--Tznkai 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very nice picture, but it's a vanity article. --Carnildo 23:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity article. I hope you are successful, but this is not the place to advertise your works --Leonsimms 14:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Joy flores[edit]
I was just going to mark for wikification, but I can't verify any of it: don't see any relelvant hits for Pogi Flores;, zero hits for "Bugoy Studio Compilation" or "Gen Giallo Reborn"; no allmusic.com listing for Joy flores or pogi flores; other combinations of words from the article don't seem to find any thing related, either. Niteowlneils 16:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Geogre's Law failure for a person who is a musician, not necessarily a recording artist. In the era of instant CD production, a list of titles doesn't indicate much. Unverifiable. Geogre 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity. Thryduulf 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:28, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bobby Hamilton[edit]
Vanity. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for deletion--vega007
- Keep, cleanup, and expand. Notable NASCAR driver. The pics don't need to be there, though. -- Grev -- Talk 18:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Its a vanity and it stands at the moment, but if he's the winner of a notable champtionship then I think he deserves an article. Keep/cleanup as Grev. Thryduulf 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A winning (or any) NASCAR driver article here is NOT vanity. It may be written POV of a fan and need correction, but vanity is a misnomer. --Unfocused 03:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, nomination withdrawn. Previously, I have removed the pictures and marked the article as a stub and as needing cleanup. When the author reverted my edit, I nominated it for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 07:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Notable racing driver. The article could use some pictures if relevant but I will follow others judgement that these pics weren't. Capitalistroadster 16:16, 27 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jerome Blake[edit]
Vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a long bit about his schooling, a throwaway comment on being an extra in Star Wars (IMDB list a Jerome Blake as a Star Wars extra - in the newest three, rather than the first trilogy- but says he's ten years older and English). Average Earthman 18:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article does not establish notability. / Alarm 18:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity. - Etacar11 18:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep not notable? He's been in 8 films. Five of which are very notable, reguardless that he wasn't credited or was a voice actor (which btw, is still considered acting). I strongly suggest that the article be improved and NOT deleted. We keep several articles of much lesser known people, some of who ONLY write articles for a news company, and just because there name is in the paper, they're considered notable? Please reconsider your votes. Thanks <>Who 04:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. His roles in the Star Wars prequels have made him more notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but add a cleanup tag. 96T 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fingertime Free Games[edit]
Advert. The anon who created this article also added lots of external links to that site to other articles. --Conti|✉ 17:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems like an ad to me. Can't find anything that makes it any more notable than the other billion game sites on the web today. SirGeneral 17:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious advertisement for a non-notable games website. Sarg 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't contain any interesting/additional/historical info about site. All info can be obtained by directly visiting site. Vorash 10:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Creator of article was kind enough to remove my original VfD notice. Appears to be advert. --Alphachimp 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Part of a wider attempt to spam Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 29 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 (merge?). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
List of blood libels against Jews[edit]
A big list of cryptic references and nothing else. I don't see any encyclopedic value here. --Conti|✉ 17:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Blood libel#Blood libel against Jews. RickK 18:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect but list seems to be too small from my pov. Beta m (talk)
- Merge and redirect to Blood libel#Blood libel against Jews. Mind you, from the edit history, that's apparently where it came from in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, we have plenty of separate lists. After being NPOVified & with refs standardized, has a potential. Unfortunately (my POV) human history is full of barbaric and uncomfortable events, lest we forget. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as split out, per Humus sapiens. Why would one want to re-rerging a list this long? Kappa 21:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve only because there are way stupider lists; some of these could turn into interesting articles. It's too bad that the list is only a tiny sampling. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chase, Richard Brian[edit]
It's a vanity page.-- Robojames 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Successful, but not that successful, businessman. Below the level of national and international recognisability or influence I'd say was needed to be included in an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough. / Alarm 18:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and concur with above comments. Scimitar 18:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 18:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity, begone! Sarg 18:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:31, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Malik al-Nasir[edit]
Press release. Russ Blau (talk) 17:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Either needs to be cleaned up thoroughly or started from scratch. Just copying and pasting a press release doesn't cut it, even if you add wikilinks. So Delete unless someone works on it in the next five days. Average Earthman 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promo. Megan1967 05:32, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Little Rock restaurants[edit]
Just a very unencyclopedic list of 14 restaurant names. Should be deleted as non-notable/promotion. Alarm 17:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I completely agree that this list is unencyclopedic. But judging from debates on similar VfDs, the only real question is this: Are there enough Wikipedia editors from Little Rock to block the deletion? ----Isaac R 18:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Reword. I think lists such as this should be merged with their parent articles. In this case, Little Rock, and then modified (having a list wouldn't be suitable, but it will surely be nice to have a section about, for example, gastronomy, at Little Rock). A list of restaurants in a city with 18000+ inhabitants is silly (just imagine "List of restaurants in New Delhi"... PHEW!!!) Sarg 18:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would be almost as bad as List_of_people_on_stamps... Isaac R 21:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, I'm from Little Rock and I'm not sure I want to block deletion. I don't think there's much of a purpose for the article, although some of those restaurants (like Restaurant 1620) are a part of Little Rock history and do have an impact on the culture here. So, it's a difficult response for me because I agree it's not encyclopedic, but I think the information could be of some use. --Wolf530 18:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: If someone wants to write a new article about a restaurant that is part of Little Rock history and has had a verifiable impact on the culture there, I'm all for it. If there are several such restaurant articles I'd even find a "Little Rock restaurants" category reasonable. And if someone can write a good, NPOV, non-promotional section about gastronomy in Little Rock (that is not a simple listing), I'm all for that too. However, I'm rather convinced that deleting this unencyclopedic article will not decrease the chances of any of those things happening. It shouldn't be left hanging around just because we could use something fundamentally different, albeit on the same topic, that nobody has got around to writing yet. / Alarm 19:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOT the Yellow Pages.—Wahoofive (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promo. Megan1967 05:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perhaps I will be going out on a limb here, and maybe I'm just being sensitive b/c I live in Little Rock, but how is this a promo? 2 of the 10 entries have links to the restaurants. Useless, maybe. Promotional, not. --Wolf530 06:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing but an unadorned list. No references, no reason to believe any of these are notable. Quale 15:28, 31 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SURREEL[edit]
This one has been hard... I have been unable to find anything about this group, except for their own page and a lot of French sites which have nothing to do with music. Unless someone manages to find their notability, I'll think it is band vanity... Sarg 18:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: See also Surreel. Sarg 18:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:34, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
List of software[edit]
The list will be un-manageablely huge. Same information is already served in Category:Lists of software. minghong 18:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator. Sarg 20:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Already covered by Category:Software. Also agree with nominator. --Durin 21:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that it is a large unmaintainable list that would be better to have it generated automatically with Category:Lists of software. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator. Adrian Buehlmann 07:25, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete. [[Category:Software]] is a much easier way to maintain such a list. Project2501a 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Evan Pryzant[edit]
Supposedly "an author in the late 1800's." Zero Google hits. {{cleanup-verify}} has been put there twice only to be removed without comment. Biography smells a bit of a hoax. Unverifiable. Rl 18:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probable hoax, unless verified. - Etacar11 21:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unverifiable. Agree zero Google hits. Let's keep tabs on the article; it's likely the VfD tag will be removed as well, as soon as the orginating author of the article sees it. --Durin 21:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied this and blocked the IP that created it for 3 days. He's been putting out utter crap for a couple of days. Library computer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6009[edit]
I don't find anything notable or encyclopaedic about this. I attempted to expand, but came up with nothing. Jdcooper 18:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of other articles about years that have yet to come. Keep. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, just a typographical curiosity. Frjwoolley 22:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, unlike most of the other "future years" articles. --Carnildo 23:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. And not about a year, just about a number in decimal notation. Are we going to have articles about all numbers with interesting properties? There are surely many numbers more interesting than "mirror" numbers.... --Macrakis 02:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we're not going to do that, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Delete. Radiant_* 08:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep notable Year. Perhaps the most useful thing an encyclopedia could document is the future. Klonimus 04:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete utterly non-notable year/number. We have articles on many years from the next century or so, and many numbers with interesting properties, but this counts as neither. If there's anything interesting to be said it can go on 7th millennium or 6000 (number). sjorford →•← 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Keep the mention at 1961, though, but de-link it. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Moved this page to Goodson-Todman Productions, so the history would remain at an article title unlikely to be deleted, for attribution purposes. Deleted the terribly-titled redirect List of game show facts. Merged content into Mark Goodson. I have no further interest in this content; just cleaning up a bit, and most of the actions were as an editor cleaning up and not an admin closing, so feel free to change them without consultation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and renamed - SimonP 22:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
List of game show facts[edit]
This article is a list of Goodson/Todman game shows, even though the article name doesn't suggest it. There is already a category in place (Goodson/Todman game shows) with all of these entries, and all entries listed here are already listed in 'Game show'. This makes this a redundant article in full. Skybunny 18:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here's a suggestion: What we could do is rename this article " Goodson-Todman Productions" and merge both Mark Goodson and Bill Todman into it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see why this article was created in the first place. --Iowahwyman 01:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, content duplication. Megan1967 05:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge there is some logic in renaming to Goodson-Todman Productions, which should not redirect to Goodson, since the production company really should have an article. Then remove the duplicate information and clean everything up. Let's use this VfD to get those articles cleaned up. Vegaswikian 07:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, except the company has been known as Mark Goodson Productions ("...a Mark Goodson television production") for the last 20+ years. I'd put everything under the Mark Goodson article. --Iowahwyman 11:41, 27 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 now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was do something with this that doesn't involve deletion (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Motorväg[edit]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Simply a direct Swedish translation of motorway/highway which already has an extensive article at motorväg. It's use is in no way notable outside of Sweden in the way Autobahn or Autostrada is and already has an appropriate article. The Swedish highways do not differ markedly from the average European highways and the term is never used as free-standing concept in Swedish or as an official term for the national highway system; use and meaning is basically identical to that of "motorway/highway". Peter Isotalo 19:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Motorway. Thryduulf 23:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Uncle G has persuaded me - merge into Transportation in Sweden and redirect there or to Motorway. Thryduulf 16:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Title your pages using the English name, if one exists...
Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.
...for example Sverige could be a redirect to Sweden.
— Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).The English name of these things appears to be Motorway. Merge to Transportation in Sweden and Redirect to Motorway. Uncle G 02:01, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Move to Motorways in Scandinavia or the like. This article specifically talks about motorways in that region. --SPUI (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article must be deleted, moved or rederected to Motorway, you should do the same with the articles Autobahn, Autostrada, Autoroute and Autoput, because thats the same situation. /E70 04:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't comment on Autoroute and Autoput, but Autobahn and Autostrada are very notable concepts even outside of Germany and Italy. As far as I know, they are also used almost as a proper nouns; they are a concept in of themselves and are used to describe the road network in its entirety (as far as I know). Motorväg remains just a simple translation of "motorway", rendering it encyclopedic. :--Peter Isotalo 14:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Just from a glance at Autoput it looks no more notable than Motorväg and IMO should be treated the same way. Autoroute and Autostrada are more debatable in my view, and Autobahn is a veritable institution. More generally -- at risk of digressing from the VFD debate -- how much depth is appropriate in Wikipedia documentation of national road systems? If Sweden's national road system were as aggressively documented as California's state routes, would Motorväg become legitimate? And if so, then isn't deleting it an example of geographical bias? I'm just a novice Wikipedian with a bunch of questions -- forgive me if I'm stepping out of line here. -- PhilipR 20:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my vote to move, but keep the content. I feel it is very reasonable to cover any numbered highway. --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, then you've sold me. In re: Motorways in Scandinavia, how did Sweden get lumped in with Denmark here? Is Motorväg specifically a Swedish word? I think it would be preferable to document each country separately, e.g. Motorways in Sweden, Motorways in Denmark. - PhilipR 21:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a slight nudge; it should be motorways of Sweden if it's to be on a national basis. But I must point out that many Swedish motorways are a part of a much larger European network of motorways that all have the designation EXX. These things run through all of Europe, and I think some of them even go all the way into non-Turkish Asia. See European route E18 for a good example. / Peter Isotalo 06:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, I point to Transportation in Sweden with its Road Traffic section waiting for something about motorways. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
- Ah, then you've sold me. In re: Motorways in Scandinavia, how did Sweden get lumped in with Denmark here? Is Motorväg specifically a Swedish word? I think it would be preferable to document each country separately, e.g. Motorways in Sweden, Motorways in Denmark. - PhilipR 21:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my vote to move, but keep the content. I feel it is very reasonable to cover any numbered highway. --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just from a glance at Autoput it looks no more notable than Motorväg and IMO should be treated the same way. Autoroute and Autostrada are more debatable in my view, and Autobahn is a veritable institution. More generally -- at risk of digressing from the VFD debate -- how much depth is appropriate in Wikipedia documentation of national road systems? If Sweden's national road system were as aggressively documented as California's state routes, would Motorväg become legitimate? And if so, then isn't deleting it an example of geographical bias? I'm just a novice Wikipedian with a bunch of questions -- forgive me if I'm stepping out of line here. -- PhilipR 20:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Autoput is not related to this discussion. Other than the other articles, it's not a type of road, it's a particular motorway which is notorious even outside the former Yugoslavia.Martg76 22:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't comment on Autoroute and Autoput, but Autobahn and Autostrada are very notable concepts even outside of Germany and Italy. As far as I know, they are also used almost as a proper nouns; they are a concept in of themselves and are used to describe the road network in its entirety (as far as I know). Motorväg remains just a simple translation of "motorway", rendering it encyclopedic. :--Peter Isotalo 14:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Move per above; desination to be determined. - PhilipR 21:08, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Semper Tyrannis and Casting Dark in Morning Light (EP)[edit]
Non-notable band with one demo and one independently-released EP, "Casting Dark in Morning Light" gets 3 Google hits.
Semper Tyrannis is not a non-notable band and has played with the likes of Symphony X, NWOBHM Allstars, Testament, and Obiturary at the [2004 March Metal Meltdown].
Use the same standard on us as you would to on any other band. I don't think your personal Wikipedia pages are all that impressive either. There's thousands of other articles on bands here (see Distorted Mind) that are not any more or less notable than us. If you're going to work by a single standard, then enforce it fairly. Describing a band's sound is NOT vanity, it gives anyone who might be reading the article an idea of what we sound like. We're not out to get any undue promotion; I dont know anyone who goes on Wikipedia for the specific purpose of finding bands. Congratulations, you have your own pages on here, you treat it like a Myspace. That's not any less vain than what we're doing. Take that into consideration.
- Fails the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Delete. Meelar (talk) 19:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete band vanity. - Etacar11 21:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Exe 10:15, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Steven Stewart[edit]
Article does not indicate notability. Thue | talk 20:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Karol 20:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Jester2001 20:25, 26 KEEPMay 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. Mr Bound 20:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Quale 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is text-book vanity, complete with poor grammar. Scimitar 21:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for all the reasons above. It seems to be a target for vandalism by IP addressed users. - Master Of Ninja 21:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete drini ☎ 02:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I feel this article must be kept since it is factual knowledge.
- Delete. Pure vanity; article does not establish any legitimate relevance. Kelly Martin 13:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- BUMFLAPS! Honjelhinelsmith!
- Keep Factual knowledge must be kept.
KEEP You Can not deny this entry. It is one to remember. People have been on the edge of there seats listening to the fine fable of steven stewart. Deleting this would only cause up roar in the streets of busby.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OkayBlowhards[edit]
Internet Fantasy Football league, started in 2003. 3 google hits (69 with similar hits included), so probably not yet notable enough. Thue | talk 20:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established. Mr Bound 20:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as notability is firmly established. Wikipedia should encourage the growth of positive-minded internet communities, even as subsets of larger communities. cereffusion May, 26, 2005
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and as such, should not "encourage the growth" of anything but itself. To do so would be POV. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Soapbox? Nobody is preaching anything, buster. In fact, articles about a fantasy football league are usually devoid of any sort of righteousness. cereffusion
- Uh, you, not the article, are advocating a position by saying: "Wikipedia should encourage the growth of positive-minded internet communities". Why should it? Why is this a reason to keep the article? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- It's a suggestion. And I meant that Wikipedia's uniqueness allows for articles relating to cyber-communities, i.e. the type of people that understand the importance and beauty of such endeavors. cereffusion
- It seems like a compromise is being worked out at Okayplayer. cereffusion
- Uh, you, not the article, are advocating a position by saying: "Wikipedia should encourage the growth of positive-minded internet communities". Why should it? Why is this a reason to keep the article? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Soapbox? Nobody is preaching anything, buster. In fact, articles about a fantasy football league are usually devoid of any sort of righteousness. cereffusion
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and as such, should not "encourage the growth" of anything but itself. To do so would be POV. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this is one of the four million greatest fantasy sports leagues around, which it might be, is anyone ever going to go to an encyclopaedia to look it up? Not notable, not encyclopaedic. Frjwoolley 21:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The thousands of members of Okayplayer.com might argue otherwise. cereffusion
- How can twelve teams have thousands of members? RickK 23:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hey. You love "encyclopedic" so much. Learn to use it. okayplayer
- So if this league is so important to the thousands of members of okayplayer, why isn't there a link to it from the okayplaer front page? RickK 23:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hey. You love "encyclopedic" so much. Learn to use it. okayplayer
- How can twelve teams have thousands of members? RickK 23:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The thousands of members of Okayplayer.com might argue otherwise. cereffusion
- Delete. Not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An article about fantasy football in general is encylopedic. An article about a particular league is not. RickK 23:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless it's the very first one, or all its members are ex-Presidents of the U.S., or something like that. Frjwoolley 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Carnildo 23:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just a fantasy football league with a boring name. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is not Wikifantasyfootballpedia. --FCYTravis 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Karol 05:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Falls below the bar of notability. jni 10:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. However, if online fantasy football leagues becomes worthy of a list, then list OkayBlowhards on there. Nestea 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Okayplayer, no redirect. --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deeez Nuuuts[edit]
Hoo boy, this is bizarre. One, the title is extremely narrow and would almost never be found on a search. Two, it appears to be a slang dictdef. Three, a Google search shows mostly lyric results, and we are not a lyrics database for copyright and encyclopaedic reasons. Recommend deletion. Mr Bound 20:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- With the article content as it stands I agree delete, it seems to mainly be a track found on the album The Chronic. I didn't think it qualified for a speedy though. Stoive 21:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I actually just mentioned this on the article talk page. Mr Bound 21:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I think this should remain in wiki in some form, without the last paragraph, perhaps. I think adding it as a slang dicdef. would be the most appropriate.keep
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, I think that perhaps Wiktionary would be appropriate- can someone clarify? I don't know Wiktionary policy as well. Mr Bound 21:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that, despite the title, the article actually discusses "deez nuuutz", even though the song title appears to be "Deeez Nuuuts". Without doing the research, I'm fairly sure that deez can be attested as a word that (whatever one may think of it) people use, and less sure, albeit still reasonably so, of nutz. However, "deeez" is arguable, and both "nuuuts" and "nuuutz" very probably cannot be attested. As such:
- "deez nuts" would just be a non-idiomatic combination of deez and nuts (the slang meaning for which was, predictably, the very first addition to that article, by the way).
- "deez nutz" would similarly just be a non-idiomatic combination of deez and nutz.
- As "deez nuuutz", what this article says it is discussing, pretty much doesn't occur at all, there's no question about its exclusion from Wiktionary.
- "Deez Nuuuts", the title of this article (albeit not what is discussed in the body), appears to occur only as the title of an album track, as a reference to that title, or as a reference to the lyrics. As such, I believe that it falls foul of the Wiktionary requirement for occurrences in independent contexts. (Moreover: The assertion that it has an actual slang meaning is therefore, quite simply, false.)
- "Deeez Nuuutz" occurs so infrequently that it probably wouldn't make it on that ground alone. It occurs as a mis-spelling of "Deeez Nuuuts", but that causes it to fall foul of the independence requirement, too.
- Summary: You are welcome to come and add deez and nutz to Wiktionary. Please, if possible, provide proper quotations, as per Wiktionary:quotations, to stave off any disputes. The non-idiomatic combinations, or the album track title components that occur in no other independent contexts, would probably get nominated for deletion, though.
- As for this article in Wikipedia: The assertion that "Deez Nuuuts" is a slang phrase is simply false. It's the name of a track on an album, nothing more. Unless the track was released as a hit single, Merge to the album seems the best idea. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines#Songs.) Uncle G 03:35, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Note that, despite the title, the article actually discusses "deez nuuutz", even though the song title appears to be "Deeez Nuuuts". Without doing the research, I'm fairly sure that deez can be attested as a word that (whatever one may think of it) people use, and less sure, albeit still reasonably so, of nutz. However, "deeez" is arguable, and both "nuuuts" and "nuuutz" very probably cannot be attested. As such:
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, I think that perhaps Wiktionary would be appropriate- can someone clarify? I don't know Wiktionary policy as well. Mr Bound 21:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non notable track, slang dictionary definition to boot. Megan1967 05:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Karol 05:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 12:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Im agree that merge would be appropriate, and don't see how that could be questioned, shouldn't the song titles be redirects to the article which contains the list of tracks and information about the album where the song is found. This seems to be the appropriate action for many, many article deletions, if they aren't offensive having redirects from deleted pages helps people to find the most relevant article to the topic they are searching for.
- Contributed by 216.143.191.131
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ameer Hamza Ahmed[edit]
Non notable poet who posts his poetry at a blog... Article created by himself. Vanity. Sarg 21:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established by article. Mr Bound 21:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non only vanity, but (I followed the link) nothing to be vain about. Wow, really awful. Frjwoolley 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Karol 05:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jan van der Niekerk[edit]
This looks like a joke. Thue | talk 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete prank/hoax. - Etacar11 21:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Garbage. Frjwoolley 21:53, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John Noblitt[edit]
Article doesn't indicate notability. An IP which may be the original author blanked it. Thue | talk 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Karol 05:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete utter vanity--Sophitus 10:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Star Bars[edit]
I propose to name next BJAODN section "The Bad Jokes Strike Back"... I haven't found anything to support the existance of a "Star Bars", unless we are talking about chocolate bars. Looks like a hoax. Sarg 21:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Google only yields food results, so my vote's delete. Mr Bound 21:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and feed those responsible to the sarlacc. — Phil Welch 05:53, 28 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Biblical Patriarch Dynasties[edit]
Original research Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV original research--Doc (?) 21:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's gibberish. IZAK 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is derived from the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, then merge with that article. If dates are from a different established scholarly source, merge with that article. Otherwise delete. -- Decumanus 05:44, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete, considerable original research. The spelling is idiosyncratic, as well. Qeynan? That's Canaan. Mahalel? That's Mahalalel. Yared? That's Jared. RickK 19:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pål Driveklepp[edit]
Tagged as CSD by User:Xcali, however vanity is still not a reason for speedy deletion. Agree that it's vanity and should be deleted Cyrius|✎ 21:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Frjwoolley 21:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 21:54, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
William Jonsson[edit]
Tagged as CSD by User:Xcali, but vanity is not a CSD reason. Person only gets a few actual google hits, delete as vanity/self-promotion. Cyrius|✎ 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Frjwoolley 21:49, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Project Wyze[edit]
Tagged as CSD by User:Xcali, but vanity is not a CSD reason. 20k google hits, proceduralish nomination by me only. No vote. Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promo, band vanity. Megan1967 05:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete band promotion. JamesBurns 12:01, 27 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Next-door neighbor[edit]
Delete: Dictionary definition (maybe not, as it is a phrase) with no other content. I let this sit for a couple of days but the original creator did nothing with it. --Durin 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Neighbourhood, as per the example of neighbor. Meelar (talk) 21:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lennart Geurts[edit]
Hoax. Lennart Geurts doesn't exist, or at least doesn't show up on Google; nobody's ever detected a graviton; Hawking is at Cambridge; there's no "Kuis award". Frjwoolley 21:42, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Liberty Phoenix[edit]
"She leads a low-profile life". Not notable. Thue | talk 21:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's keep it low-profile. Delete. Scimitar 22:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if whoever made the page had said she was the sister of River and Joaquin, she still wouldn't be notable enough. Delete. -- Grev -- Talk 03:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I hate vanity pages--Sophitus 10:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — seems half-baked. — RJH 14:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable sister of two celebrities does not deserve her own article. RickK 19:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not assert notablity. Wikibofh 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and tag as historical. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Unprotected MediaWiki messages[edit]
There are no unprotected MediaWiki messages, or at least none of the ones listed on this page are. Even if they were unprotected, having an explicit list of them would be a huge vandal magnet. Thryduulf 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for historical purposes (these used to be unprotected) and rewrite the page to indicate that. JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as {{historical}} and rewrite to fix the listing. --cesarb 22:55, 29 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quintippio[edit]
Seems to be a hoax. The word, when on google, turns up 4 hits, two of which is Swedish wikipedia, the other two in languages I don't know. Even if it were real a non existant product that stars in an adverstisment is not encyclopedic. Delete. Sabine's Sunbird 21:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that commercial. I laughed. Not encyclopedic. Delete. RickK 19:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gordon Springs, South Carolina[edit]
Delete: There is no such town in South Carolina. It is a subdivision of another town, but not a town in its own right. See [21]. Note that the text of this article is virtually identical to the text found at Gordon Springs, Georgia (Update:That article now describes a spring/creek, so the text is not a match anymore --Durin 06:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)). I suspect the author is attempting to create more basis for his article on Evan Pryzant (which is up for VfD). The author has made some other contributions/edits that are questionable, such as the article Hard clam which is up for nonsense-speedy. --Durin 22:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the article to say "Gordon Springs is a subdivision in Richland County, South Carolina." This much is verifiable and verifiable geographic locales are encyclopedic. Delete any unverifiable nonsense. Ask for help on WP:RFPP if people insist on inserting nonsense into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)No vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Articles on subdivisions? U.S. Census bureau does not count this as a town. I could be wrong, but I doubt Wikipedia has subdivisions of towns having separate articles. Any such article would/should be merged into the town's article itself. --Durin 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Here in the UK we'd basically catalog everything. It's a small country so that is feasible, and we're also very history-dense. Every small area of a big town was once a town or village of its own, usually for centuries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have our share of merges as well, but our history is shorter than yours. Regardless, in this particular case 'Gordon Springs' is not remarkable enough to warrant an article. There may have been a town of that name at one time (I found references to Gordon Springs Post Office as historical in Georgia), but I can not verify that it ever existed as a town in its own right. I rather suspect the originating author of this and related articles created a number of reasonable sounding hoax pages, testing to see how long it would take to wipe them out. --Durin 01:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the other article, Gordon Springs, Georgia, I take it this is the same place that changed hands or was always a border marker? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless new information turns up. There are two Google matches for "gordon springs" "richland county", both of which are likely based on a flawed listing of towns. Searching for "gordon springs" "south carolina" doesn't do much better. The final match includes lat/long, but that location doesn't turn up anything that seems to be named Gordon Springs (I also checked Mapquest). --SPUI (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subdivisions are rarely encyclopedic and the USGS doesn't know about this one. Gazpacho 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Although it is listed by the USGS [22], there does not appear to be anything worth noting about the place. older≠wiser 14:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep real places. -- BD2412 talk 18:03, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gordon Springs, Georgia[edit]
- Delete: There is no such town in Georgia. There once was some property named Gordon Springs, and a spa-hotel was built upon it to take advantage of some mineral springs. However, there is no town today in Georgia by that name. See (blocked link deleted) and note the absence of 'Gordon Springs'. Note that the text in this article is virtually identical to that found on Gordon Springs, South Carolina (which is also up for VfD). I suspect the author is attempting to create more basis for his article on Evan Pryzant (which is up for VfD). The author has made some other contributions/edits that are questionable, such as the article Hard clam which was speedied for nonsense. --Durin 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unverifiable and even if verifiable, not notable. Samw 02:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sholtar 02:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as fixed; the place it now refers to does exist. --SPUI (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:...exists as a small, unremarkable, spring. It's not a town. Should we have articles for every spring and small stream in the world? I can't see that as reasonable. Is it remarkable for something? Unusual species of fish perhaps? --Durin 05:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why did you find it necessary to create five redirects for a page that is up for VfD? I'll put those up for deletion too. --Durin 05:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The place has three different names, with and without the Georgia. This is standard practice. --SPUI (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of this standard practice other than ones you have created? Regardless, I can't see the logic in referring to small creeks as '<small creek>, <state>'. --Durin 15:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it wasn't standard practice, it would be common sense. Kappa 00:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as fixed up, real spring and community. Multiple redirects are appropriate, and would get deleted if the article was. Kappa 07:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a historical place. There are references to the place in historical maps and documents (e.g., [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28] has a 1920 photo). Although perhaps not entirely reliable as a source, this account describes the place as being built by the father of Confederate General John Brown Gordon, and one of the "most fashionable watering placed (sic) in Georgia" before the Civil War. older≠wiser 14:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep real places. -- BD2412 talk 18:05, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm still bothered by the idea of a spring being referred to in an article title as "<creek>,<state>". This seems especially problematic for small, unremarkable springs/streams/creeks as there are likely to be many replicate names if we were to use this model for article naming. It is certain this is not a town, so it is inappropriate for it to be named in the "<town>, <state>" convention. If it is a neighborhood/community (I still have my doubts) then perhaps it should follow the Willowbrook, Staten Island model? --Durin 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is a place that has taken its name from the nearby springs. While it may not be much to see in the present day, it is a place that is identified as a locale on period maps from the 19th century. There is a longstanding precedent for placenames to be taken from nearby geographical features, even springs and creeks. older≠wiser 01:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chris davis[edit]
I try not to say "vanity page", but this one looks to be a vanity page, and Google hits appear to be for a variety of Chris Davises. Deltabeignet 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not to mention that the title isn't capitalized properly. For shame! :P — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:40, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete: "noted for his offshore outsourcing efforts"? At age 16? Doubtful. Further, if he's won "state-wide (Maine) awards for his work in the web development field", let's see a list of the awards. That offers some hope for this person being notable. Failing such presentation, this is pure vanity. --Durin 22:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 23:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Xcali 23:27, 26 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neu Schwabenland[edit]
Original research, not to say totally nutsoid. Frjwoolley 22:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ditto. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete original research, and WAY out there. - Etacar11 23:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete *extremely* original "research". Ben-w 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — seems like some variety of alternate history or game fiction. — RJH 14:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. RickK 19:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John Amdor[edit]
Vanity & insignificant Kingturtle 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 23:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete worthless vanity--Sophitus 10:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — Nothing really distinguishing. — RJH 14:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep!!!
- Delete. Non-notable. Quale 15:32, 31 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tchai Ovna[edit]
This entry is about a small coffee/tea shop, not notable or encyclopedic.
- Delete Agreed. Xcali 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, advert/promo. Megan1967 05:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, This is a unique and unusual place which is rather more than a shop, which plays an important role in the alernative cultural landscape of Glasgow. It is of interest to ther people, but the entry is perhaps in need of expansion Greensquirrel 09:30, 27 May (BST)
- The above is in reality 130.209.6.40 (talk · contribs). RickK 19:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertising--Sophitus 10:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This entry was not written by anyone affiliated to the shop, so cannot be considered advertising. Shops such as Macys and Harrods have entries because they are culturally important. On a smaller scale, so too is this shop - surely the point of an open source encyclopedia should be to include small, and lesser known pieces of information
- The above is also 130.209.6.40 (talk · contribs). You wouldn't get to vote twice even if you were a logged-in user, but being an anon and an unsigned anon, you particularly(?) don't get two votes. RickK 19:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. RickK 19:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC) (third vote?)
- Comment, the "double votes" issue really dosn't mean much. Let him have his say, and if he wants to add more that's his perogative. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the discussion that matters. Ryan Prior 16:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Quale 15:33, 31 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kentucky Trade-In[edit]
Slang dicdef with no Google hits that concern it. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 23:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Xcali 23:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Megan1967. Quale 08:16, 29 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Funny names of open source software[edit]
Not encyclopedic or NPOV. Easier to list open source software that doesn't have a "funny" name or name origin. -Sean Curtin 23:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I removed two entries which were just being used to knock Microsoft (the word "Microshit" was actually used, and some of it could be construed as some sort of vague threat against Steve Ballmer) and self-referential text. There's not much left to salvage. A Naming conventions in Open Source Software article might be interesting, and I wouldn't strongly oppose a move/expand to that article name or similar, but it'd probably be best to just Delete this and start from scratch. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or speedy delete. The title is inherently NPOV. --Edcolins 13:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — Non-neutral, &c. &c. Also I coundn't find a more general page of humorous acronyms. — RJH 14:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic POV fork. Original research. Nestea 17:24, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Five Soft Drink Monsters[edit]
Not notable. Google shows numerous hits which appear to be the author/publisher's own press releases. Factoring those out yields about 20 hits. This appears to be yet another attempt in user's (Andrew Lin?) "Stop Drinking Soda" campaign. Xcali 23:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As mentioned, only hits on Google are press releases of this e-book. Cannot find any other third party evidence or credible stores that sell this material to establish notability. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissolve in a giant vat of Mountain Dew. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete stupidity. Ben-w 17:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, self-promoting Shoaler 17:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More Andrew Lincruft. I've blocked him and his two known sock puppets for repeatedly recreating his anti-soda articles. RickK 19:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ugh, not again. --Kiand 21:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Ban Its bad that this person has this much free time Joey.dale 03:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What?!?! I thought this was a prefectly good article describing a book a friend of mine wrote and published. — (Unsigned comment by 68.170.0.238.)
- It's not so much the article as the topic of the article. The editors above feel that this topic is not notable enough (at least at this time) to be included in Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP!!! — (Unsigned comment by 68.170.0.238.)
- [I removed the font tags from your comment. Using a font size of ten will not increase the weight of your vote, but it makes the page harder to read. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
- KEEP!!! 128.2.247.100 17:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed formatting. drini ☎ 17:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this voting user appears to be the another instance of the same person who wrote the article. He just began editing today, adding similar articles. --Xcali 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If Xcali is correct (which is almost certainly the case), then the above anon's vote is the second by the article's creator in this Vfd, the other being 68.170.0.238. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238 - Jersyko talk 22:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete drini ☎ 17:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, for non-notability and just to annoy our little anonymous troll ;) Aecis 10:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Denialist[edit]
This is at best a dicdef for a word that doesn't exist on dictionary.com, and at worst just a blatantly POV stub of political commentary 81.153.177.193 23:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concurring. Frjwoolley 23:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This is me 81.153.177.193, I am afraid I have made multiple edits to this page entirely by accident and my own ignorance of the mechanics of vfd - I was trying to fix the stuff going on on this page at the 'denialist' heading, but kept on editing this subpage as a result. I've fixed the problems now, and my own extraneous edits, I just hope my silly contributions to page histories today haven't confused everyone else as much as they've confused me 81.153.177.193 00:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- A Google search turns up many people labelling others as "denialist", in relation to disputes such as whether HIV causes AIDS or whether there was a genocide in Armenia (Fun fact #1: The French for denialist is apparently négationniste. Fun fact #2: Wiktionary outdoes dictionary.com here.), and as such this appears to be a real concept. A redirect to big lie would be biased, and a redirect to denial doesn't work because that's about a concept in psychology, not politics. The content of this article is indeed biased, inasmuch as it asserts that whatever denialists oppose is the truth. It also cites no sources for its assertion that being a denialist is a route to a successful political career, when there appear to be plenty of denialists around, of various flavours, who don't even get elected. Redirect (not merge) to list of political epithets, and add a stub section there, is one option. Uncle G 05:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:47, 27 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.