Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 17

March 17

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Eyre family

More Eyrecruft. See the VFDs for Truelove Eyre and Eyre Empire. RickK 07:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is more or less a recreation of Eyre Empire, but slightly humbler. I did a little searching around during the downtime and the Bill Clinton relation seems very tenuous, especially since there are no Google hits for "Anne Eyre", "Anne Heller", or "Jehu Eyre" in conjunction with Clinton. Genealogy sites aren't great sources, either. Rhobite 08:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Carnildo 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - same nonsense as before in a different package - Skysmith 09:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep sources show that Jehu Eyre actually existed, as are provided on this site. See Truelove Eyre], which also provides resources. [[[Eyre Empire]]] is rubbish. This is the story of the real family as the existed in historical records.

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has voted multiple times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep new sources not only show that Jehu Eyre existed, but that he was instrumental in the Revolution (the Washington website, second source listed). I am interested by this,as I see it as a more realistic portrayal of an actual family. I've been searching,and I found something listing Jehu's brother Samuel as a member of the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence. I'll list tha

• (Comments by History21) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep EYRE, JEHU 1738-1781

Capt., Philadelphia "City Guard", Aug. 30, 1775; Capt. of Artillery, Philadelphia Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, June 5, 1777; Col., Philadelphia Artillery Battalion, Aug. 25, 1777; at Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Valley Forge; commanded the Forts at Mud Island and Billingsport, 1780; died in service.

                          EYRE, MANUEL 1736-1805

Member of the Committee of Correspondence of Philadelphia, 1775; Delegate to the Provincial Convention of PA, Jan. 23, 1775; Member of the PA Navy Board, 1777; Private, Capt. Jehu Eyre's Artillery Company, 1777; Capt. of a company of Artillery, First Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, 1777, Philadelphia Militia.

These both came from: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/1pa/military/revwar/sorrolla-g.txt

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a reference for Clinton or the "numerous senators" mentioned, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this is merely a genealogical reference. Genealogy articles don't belong in Wikipedia. Rhobite 17:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep With or without Clinton, this family has (based on the evidence) played a fairly large role in American history (with special regards to the Revolution) and is significant in their own right because of their connection to the Truelove Eyre legend. I have heard that Bill Clinton had a strong Revolutionary War ancestry, and this would seem to fit. However, if definitive proof cannot be found then the article should be modified so that Clinton's name is not included. Connection to an American president is too huge a claim to pass off without verification. Other than the Clinton thing, the rest of the article is fine. Great job finding resources!

Okay, I've got something about Bill Clinton: "Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related to EVERY ancient aristocratic family in Britain today." This comes from: http://asis.com/~stag/uspres.html It's not a lot, but it is a small thread that leads me to believe that the Clinton-Eyre connection is genuine. If Clinton is related to every aristocratic family (I capitalized EVERY in the quotations to emphasize that point) in Britain, then he has some connection with the Eyres. The quote also mentions, "medieval monarchs," which would ostensibly be the House of Wessex through which the Eyres claim descent. Obviously more specific information must be found, but this is a start.

• (Comments by 208.22.177.10. Please sign your comments with a ~~~~ at the end of your message.) --DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has voted multiple times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If you think that the individuals are notable, write articles about them. The family as a unit however is not notable. DaveTheRed 18:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep I respectfully disagree with that view. I think that the family as a unit (that is, all together) is far more significant than any of its members (Truelove Eyre notwithstanding) alone. For example, we have established that Jehu Eyre helped build boats and give money to the Revolution, and that his brother Manuel was a member of the Committee of Correspondence. Obviosuly, their work was highly influential, but neither one is particularly famous. Separate articles would be immediately debunked as, "non notable," and it's ,much easier to just include every significant Eyre on one page. The Bill Clinton thing sounds like it would be right, but I haven't been able to find anything that confirms it, so it should be taken out. I hope that someone else can locate something about him. It appears that Jehu Eyre had a lot of children beside this one daughter, perhaps it's through another child. Liz1848 Hi, same person again. I just went over to Truelove Eyre and was reading the Talk Page that debated whether or not the legend was genuine. I just wanted to add that the Truelove Eyre article was widely denounced by Wikipedians following the Eyre Empire garbage, but that evidence eventually proved the legend to be verifiable. It now appears as if the Truelove article is going to stay, namely because so many Wikipedians changed their votes. I hope that this article is given the same consideration. I have found that there are some people here who are a bit, "delete happy," i.e., they attack things just to attack. Come now. I thought that our goal here was to report the facts. This is history, and, HISTORY BACKED UP BY REFERENCED FACT. Liz1848

• The above User's only edits are to this page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. If you want to write articles about noteworthy individuals, please do so. But remember that they should be noteworthy. RickK 22:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If you go back far enough, everyone is related to everybody...Is this genealogycruft? Lectonar 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• PS: If you created an account, you could include it in your talkpage Lectonar 07:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Dave. And WP:WIN. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rick is right. If no one has any objections, I am going to edit the article so that the part about Bill Clinton is ommitted. I will postpone doing this to allow for any kind of debate on the issue, but I've got to say that the evidence just isn't there. Liz1848 has a point, too, though; the family as a whole is notable and historically confirmed, as Truelove Eyre and the talk surrounding it show. As the politicalgraves website shows, the Eyres have significant political connections. This family should be included on wikipedia.

This vote is by User:208.22.177.10, who has now voted to keep this article three times. Please stop voting, your votes will not be counted. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep In the face of the overwhelming evidence (the profusion of websites detailing the family), I can reach no other conclusion but that the Eyres were a family of great importance, both politically and socially. Unless anyone can find a website stating, "all of these other websites are completely false, and here is the evidence of that," I find no reason that this article should not be kept. bit89medieval

This is bit89medieval's first contribution. Rhobite 17:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It may be my first contribution, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of said contribution. To 208.22.177.10: you can set up a user account by going to the upper right hand corner of your computer and clicking, "Log In." It's pretty self-explanatory after that. By the way, there are ten websites referenced on this page alone about this supposedly insignificant family! If their influence was really that miniscule, why are so many people talking about them? There is no reason to create so many sites about a group of entirely unimportant people.

• Not a single person here has accused this family of being insignificant. What we are saying is this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It isn't of interest to general readers of an encyclopedia, except as a geneaolgical resource. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, the article should go. As you've pointed out, there are much better genealogical resources than Wikipedia. Rhobite 18:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Normally I wouldn't bother voting on this but delete just to counter this silliness of adding obviously self-interested genealogical cruft. Very few families merit coverage as families. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The fact that we are even discussing this is amazing to me. --Woohookitty 08:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep for obvious reasons. This could be helpful to anyone who's ever had to do a history report on the American Revolution, or on influential American families. Perhaps this should be placed under "Important Families of the Revolution," or, "Important American Families," or even incorporated into, "American Revolution," something like that. The article is certainly noteworthy, though. I think that wikipedia would lose an asset if this article was removed (it's certainly a very interesting part of American history without the stink of uncertainty that accompanies legend), though it seems that some rather narrowminded people are bent on doing just that. Therefore, I would like to pose a question: if we absolutely cannot accept this entirely legitimate article, where should it go? Does anyone have know of any websites where this could be posted, or any other area of wikipedia where it could find a home? I remain steadfast in my opnion that this article SHOULD BE KEPT.

Above vote by User:63.27.64.45. Rhobite 18:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me, too.

This vote is by User:Frannie45. User's first edit. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep Besides referencing every other keep vote on this page, I draw my evidence from the listed websites dedicated to the Eyres. If any one family is notable, this one is it. They remind me of an eighteenth century version of the Kennedeys. joan53

User's fourth edit, no edits before today. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Definitely and without question. The petty arguments against this article remind me of the 24/7 nonsense. nanaszczebrzeszyn

User's first and only edit. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I've seen quite a few articles of blatant self-promotion (70 Foot Century), but this just isn't one of them. To be perfectly honest, it seems silly that this is being debated. What more could possibly be done to prove this family's significance? whoknew?

User's has made nine edits; all to VfD pages, and all today. Please disregard as a probable sockpuppet. Rhobite 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vote For Rhobite to Get His Facts Straight whoa, there, cowboy. First of all, this is NOT my first and only edit. You'll want to check your records a bit more carefully before you, you know, make a fool of yourself be proclaiming, "Only one edit!" As I said, not so. And I would just chalk it up to a mechanical error, but your disrespect has me the teensiest bit riled. For you see, not only are you incorrect in your assertion about my edits, you have also impugned my integrity by suggesting that I am a, "sock puppet," which, I can assure you, I am not. I take history quite seriously and do not appreciate an insinuation that I would somehow try to twist it. And, given your incompetence in reporting my number of edits, are we sure that all of these accounts were created on the same day, as you've said, or are you wrong about that, too? nanaszczebrzeszyn

I apologize if my tone offended you. However, I'm clearly right here: As shown on your list of contributions, voting to keep this article was your first (and only, at the time) edit. Please find something more productive to do with your time on Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and ignore ridiculous sockpuppetry. Lacrimosus 03:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Genealogy vanity. Bogus votes. (Are we going to wait until every member of the vanity casts a vote here?) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Sock puppetry aside (I'm sure that nanaszcz... is really offended), this article seems to have historical merits. There are about ten or eleven websites listed here. In spite of my annoyance with these vandals, I simply can't find any real reason to delete this article. Sorry.

Above vote by User:69.72.27.233. Rhobite 21:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep the family is more than notable. SusanaeIII

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 19:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino

Advert for a future business. SWAdair | Talk 07:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is not an advert. It is a page documenting a major construction project that, from it's announcement, has been a hot political topic in the area. I don't see how someone would think that an $800 million project by the world's largest local casino operator would need advertising on wiki. If the decision is to delete this page, then there are many other building related pages that also will need deletion, like Wynn Las Vegas.
  

(comment by 65.41.248.221)

• • Re Wynn Las Vegas: consider it nominated. Any others? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, I'd like to see more proof of political debate surrounding the proejct for this to be kept. Unless proof can be provided of some major press or political interest this is just another future casino. We can always put it back when it's in business. Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles exist in the Review Journal and Las Vegas Sun newspapers on the political debate. The tower has been erected, so this is a project that is happening. In any case, why pick on this project when pages for similar projects were allowed?
    • I'm not picking on this page in particular. I just happened to notice it. And also, note that I'd be happy to keep the article if more sources are provided. You don't need to take a deletion discussion personal. Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the reaction. The newspapers are the only available sources, don't know how to show them to you. Don't know if it made the national press.
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 08:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable local development. --SPUI (talk) 09:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, delete until it is completed. Radiant_* 09:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • What part of "Ground was broken late in 2004 for the project." don't you understand? This thing is being built. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What part of 'delete until it is completed' don't you understand? :) Radiant_* 10:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • How is a project like this non-notable, even if not completed? In fact, being started and not completed often makes something MORE notable. --SPUI (talk) 11:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What is difficult to understand about Radiant's crystal ball analogy is that we don't need to use a crystal ball to see this project. Perhaps we should delete ITER, they can't even decide where to build that. Kappa 13:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you feel we should delete that, list it. Of course, you don't, and that comparison is flawed. My analogy of course refers to the policy quoted below by Dpbsmith. Read WP:WIN for details. Radiant_* 15:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Please explain why WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball applies to this article and not ITER. Kappa 15:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Never mind, I take it your vote meant something like "This project isn't notable now but might be notable when completed, at which time we can reconsider". Kappa 16:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a major project currently underway. Capitalistroadster 10:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is one of the fuller Nevada hotel articles that the original editor has contributed [1]. The real question is whather we need a different article for each hotel and casino in Las Vegas and Reno. --Henrygb 10:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is that a problem? These are real places. --SPUI (talk) 11:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So is the Tree in my parent's backyard. And I'm afraid your comparison to lesser characters from a well-known animation series is not very relevant to this discussion. Radiant_* 13:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • SPUI, while I admit that was kinda funny, please see WP:POINT. Android79 16:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major construction projects. Kappa 12:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or transWiki to Wikitravel, unless a very convincing explanation is provided as to why the project is important in its present state, such as having made the national news because of controversy. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months should be considered advertising, unless convincingly shown otherwise." The same should apply to construction projects. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment No hits found for phrase "Red Rock Resort" in New York Times online database. The political debate surrounding its construction is not important enough for the New York Times to have noticed it. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Construction projects are out there to be seen by passers-by, and easily verifiable. Unreleased media is unverifiable. --SPUI (talk) 15:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the future importance of the project is not verifiable. The usual claimed rationale for articles on about-to-be-released things is that they are certain to be big hits. What reason is there to think that Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino is going to have more than local significance after it is complete? And what is the urgent reason for including it now rather than later? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • "And what is the urgent reason for including it now rather than later?" It's already written up; it's stupid to delete it, only to write it up again if it become notable enough for the deletionists. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - real, notable both by inherent nature and scale. Jgm 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic article. On Wikipedia, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We certainly have room for this as well. --GRider\^talk 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is hardly an ad; it's consistant with the many short articles about Las Vegas casinos, and there is room for organic expansion. Me, I'm just hoping it has a nice poker room when it opens. (Disclaimer: I've been watching it under construction for the last year or so.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major projects like this belong in Wiki.--Gene_poole 00:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is notable and not an advert. Wincoote 13:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lan Ciao

• Delete. Vanity. Enochlau 07:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: It's not vanity, the title and the P-word in the article is a vulgarity in Hokkien. It has been nominated for speedy deletion by the way. --Andylkl 09:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe speedy. One or more of vanity, non-notable, or slander. --Carnildo 07:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Carnildo, almost speedy for that drug dealer bit. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Was speedily deleted 2 days ago but recreated today (see the "new notices" section at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions for more info). Speedy delete, again and lock page indefinitely from recreation if possible. --Andylkl 08:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, attack page. Megan1967 08:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leighann Starkey

• Delete, maybe speedy. Rhobite 08:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Only 2 google hits, maybe more under incorrect spelling. Unless she's done more than being on the cover of Marie Claire, I'd say delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic,vanityTjc 14:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This is the first ever vanity page I've seen that praises the author's breasts. That is quite funny in a way, but alas, I have to vote delete due to non-notability. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think this could go on BJAODN. She also "strongly resembles a Sim who is moving on up." DaveTheRed 18:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though it did make me laugh. "she now resides in an elusive manner", eh? (Though if the assertion "She has famous breasts" can be independantly verified, perhaps they deserve an article <-- Note: that is a sarcastic joke) -- Infrogmation 19:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable jugs. Denni☯ 23:35, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete. I know it's only borderline BJAODN, but it sort of made me laugh. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it!! She's adorable and famous!!
  • Comment made by 130.49.17.220, the user's second edit. The first was to create this article. DaveTheRed 01:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Shes as famous as, well, the person who wrote this article. Which is them. Thus, delete. Hedley 03:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without independent verifiable third-party critical assessments of her breasts - David Gerard 20:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer for that =) — JIP | Talk 05:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lillian Allethea Smith Wall

Being the younger sister of a first lady is nice and all, but is that really sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? --Carnildo 07:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Only google hits I get are gyneology resources. Can't find anything of note she's done. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Rosalynn Smith Carter. Megan1967 09:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Relative of a notable is not in itself notable. So merge. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I can count Keri Russell's aunt, Ralph Kiner's son and Martin Sheen's niece as friends of mine. They don't have articles. Merge and redirect. - Lucky 6.9 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 20:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 15:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Murray Lee Smith

The brother-in-law of a President. Not notable. RickK 07:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Carnildo 08:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing encyclopedia-worthy here. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Relative of a notable is not in itself notable. So merge. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of some news impact provided. Average Earthman 12:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and allow for organic redirection. --GRider\^talk 18:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirecting organs? Did you mean she's a donor or that she changes church music compositions? :) Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect somewhere - David Gerard 20:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect its organs. - Lucky 6.9 04:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 14:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

William Jerrold Smith

Another non-notable Presidential brother-in-law. RickK 08:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Carnildo 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing encyclopedia-worthy here. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Relative of a notable is not in itself notable. So merge. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a relative of a non-hereditary position (well, theoretically non hereditary, anyway) doesn't make you notable. Average Earthman 12:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, er, somewhere, to discourage recreation - David Gerard 20:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 15:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Genuflect

A band whose first album isn't due out until late this year. They haven't had a chance to become well-known yet. Delete. Joyous 08:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable forward-looking statements; self promotion; wanted ad. --MarkSweep 08:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with MarkSweep, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to genuflection. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to genuflection. Psychonaut 10:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to genuflection - David Gerard 20:29, 19 Mar 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 or merge - SimonP 15:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Janet Norton Lee Bouvier Auchincloss Morris

Is being the mother of a First Lady sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? --Carnildo 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's probably at least somewhat more notable than being Homer Simpson's fictional grandfather. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've listed that one for VfD as well. --Carnildo 08:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on your quest, then. - Nunh-huh 08:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• she often stood in for her daughter as hostess for official White House functions. I'd love to see more info on that. At least she looks more notable than the other family members. No vote yet. Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• In general, being a parent/child of a notable person doesn't make you notable, so merge. Radiant_* 09:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with mergist approach. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. It's a bit long to merge and does okay as a separate article, I think - David Gerard 20:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Lean toward keep: there isn't much here yet, but I believe a lot more could be written about her. There's probably more than a bit to be said about her marriage to novelist Louis Auchincloss, too. Yes, her fame is mostly at one remove, but it's at one remove in so many directions as to probably merit an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Probably notable enough; probably more could be written. The title has to go, though: stringing together every married surname a woman ever had isn't proper Wikipedia format. Janet Lee Bouvier is probably sufficient title-wise, since realistically that's the most likely search term. Bearcat 15:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Radziwill Ross

GRider put a vfd header on this on February 15 but apparently never followed up. My personal vote is Keep. Lee Radziwill is notable in her own right. RickK 08:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If this is kept, should it be moved to Caroline Lee Bouvier Radziwill Ross? --Carnildo 08:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope not. Nobody knows her as that. Most people would know her as Lee Radziwill. RickK 08:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles should, as much as possible, be titled by a person's most commonly known name, with other names included only when necessary for disambiguation. Bearcat 00:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lee Radziwill has done enough to warrant her own article. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. DaveTheRed 17:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. My apologies, this nomination was in error and must have slipped through. Although Lee Raziwill Ross only garners 26 googles, she appears to be worthy of note on Wikipedia in light of recent events. --GRider\^talk 18:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 20:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Clear keep -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Unquestionably notable, but a more complete article already exists at Lee Radziwill. This one is simply an unnecessary duplication. Merge and redirect. Bearcat 00:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Noting that this was on its last day of VfD, I went ahead and did the redirect. Bearcat 00:47, 22 Mar 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 - reidrected - SimonP 15:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Silicon hydroxide

I believe this page to be a hoax- this is a rather unusual name for a compound more normally known as orthosilicic acid. Most of the information in this 2003 stub is either wrong or overly simplistic. I have never seen this name in any chemical catalogue, and books such as the ref. below refer to it as orthosilicic acid. It would be impossible to "pass SiO2 over water vapour" as the boiling point of SiO2 is much higher than the 800 C mentioned. Also, the ref mentioned below implies that complex mixtures of silicic acids are formed, not just one. I have created a stub for silicic acid to compensate for the loss of this rather dubious page. I am also proposing deletion for related nonsense on Silicate dihydroxide and Silicate monohydroxide.

Reference: N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.

Walkerma 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In general we don't need articles on every individual chemical compound, and these should be merged (e.g. onto acids) for easier reference. Since this is nonsensical, delete in instead, and if the name makes sense (which I'm not sure of, not being a chemist) make it a redirect. Radiant_* 09:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to silicic acid. --Carnildo 09:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to silicic acid. While we don't need an article for every chemical compound, it would be nice to have one for every notable chemical compound, and the silicic acids are notable. Shimmin 18:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected - SimonP 22:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Orville Simpson

The grandfather of a fictional character. --Carnildo 08:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• April 16,1989-December 17, 1986. Cool, he died three years before he was born. Delete because the time travel implications have warped my fragile little mind. RickK 08:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Fictional Simpsons characters are only notable when something useful can be told about them. Delete unless seriously expanded. Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character, onto List of Simpsons characters. Radiant_* 09:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge either to list of Simpsons characters or Abraham Simpson. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Abraham Simpson. --Henrygb 10:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --Haham hanuka 12:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into list of Simpsons characters. Shimmin 18:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into either List of Simpsons characters or Abraham Simpson (either is fine by me, whichever Simpsons minutia buffs think more relevent). -- Infrogmation 19:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and list as substub. The Simpsons is a large project on Wikipedia. Hedley 03:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If that means we'll be deluged with permanent substubs, then maybe we should be having the VfD on the project, instead. --Carnildo 03:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If its listed as a substub a Simpsons contributor would attend to it. Hedley 15:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redir. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I know this is probably closed by now, unfortunately I didn't see it before...but is there actually an Orville Simpson? Simspons' characters are very frequently invented by anonymous vandals, and this one may have slipped through somehow. I don't think I know ever character ever mentioned, but whenever I am suspcious that a certain character does not exist, it usually turns out that some idiot anon made it up. I've removed the references to Orville but I haven't deleted the redirect in case I am mistaken. Adam Bishop 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to patronymic. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Matronymic

Dicdef substub - has existed sporadically since September 2004 with no meaningful expansion. Attempts to redirect to related article patronymic have been opposed by author. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Wiktionary and redirect to patronymic. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yep, redirect to patronymic. —kooo 09:04, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to patronymic (more complete). Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Transwiki if needed. Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patronymic, since no expansion has occurred in such a long period. Substantial expansion by the author or others will change my vote to Keep. ?atronymic would make for an interesting disambig page, but I don't think it would be very useful... Android79 15:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patronymic. I agree with what Android said. Jonathunder 05:08, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 15:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Silicate monohydroxide

Even more than with silicon hydroxide described above, I believe this page (same author) to be a hoax. The author of this 2003 two line stub would have us believe that we can generate oxygen by mixing sand and water, while generating a trivalent silicon atom. This violates the rules learned by my students in freshman chemistry!

Walkerma 08:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to silicic acid. --Carnildo 09:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 15:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Silicate dihydroxide

Also see silicon hydroxide and silicate monohydroxide. Although at least this compound is a valid compound, the name is more usually metasilicic acid. I wrote a new stub, silicic acid to help cover this material. This 2003 three-line stub uses an invalid name and is incredibly simplistic.

See N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.

Walkerma 09:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. If the compound is valid we should convert this to a redirect since it might be useful. Sjakkalle 09:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to silicic acid. --Carnildo 09:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to silicic acid. DaveTheRed 17:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Crooked edge

Seems to be a non-notable movement. A google test on

"Crooked Edge" Jonathan Culver

turned up nothing. I am voting delete. Sjakkalle 09:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No google hits. I would expect a notable movement in this era to have at least some web presence. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there's no shortage of punk/straight-edge info on the web, so you'd expect that a notable sub-movement could manage at least one hit. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Either vanity or madeupTjc 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Allison Data

This looks like an advert for a small personal company to me. Should it be deleted? Kodang 10:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. -R. fiend 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability demonstrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vere

Article gives meaning of uncommon name. Wikipedia is not a gyneology site, and I don't think this page can be expanded. Either merge into the more common name; like Veronica or Veronique or delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Veronica. Radiant_* 11:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary has Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names, where this would be listed under Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names female ven-vez. I've encouraged the article's author, who has already added several dictionary entries to the encyclopaedia, to redirect xyr efforts to the dictionary instead. Delete. Uncle G 12:52, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Surely you meant genealogy and not gynecology? :o) Android79 14:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Freudian slip? I dunno. Of course I meant genealogy ;) Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

IMMMM

A piece of historical trivia. Orphaned article under a nonsense name, no evidence of notability. Until/unless an article about Janos Jeszenszky is created, its inclusion in an encyclopedia makes no sense. Delete or move to author's talk page. - Mike Rosoft 10:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If the consensus is delete, I will move this to my user space. (I only created the article as a more encyclopedic replacement for the earlier JMMMM, which was complete nonsense, written in Swedish.) — JIP | Talk 12:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if verifiable, possibly rename. Interesting historical footnote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• One answer may be to Rename to János Jeszenszky (as per Mike Rosoft ☺) and turn this into a {{bio-stub}} on the person. It depends from who János Jeszenszky actually is, of course. I'll have a look around. Uncle G 12:57, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Well he's not Jan Jesensky. But he might be Jan Jesenius. Uncle G 13:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • I am reasonably sure he's Jan Jesenius. I remember very little from my Hungarian, but the original article mentions the cities of Wroclaw and Praha, and I spotted the word orvos, meaning doctor or physician in Hungarian. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Then I vote Merge to Jan Jesenius (as per Mike Rosoft and JIP). The resultant redirect will prevent silly re-creations. Uncle G 14:51, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Uncle G and JIP for finding out what the article is about. I managed to find a Czech article on Jan Jesenius, and it does mention this legend. I am changing my vote to merge and redirect. - Mike Rosoft 15:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree, merge and redirect to Jan Jesenius. Unfortunately I know only very little Hungarian and no Czech at all. Someone who is better at one or both languages might want to write the relevant section in the Jan Jesenius article. — JIP | Talk 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps merge or keep or rename if this can be verified. Also, if Janos said the emperor would die, and the priest said Janos was lying, how can they both be right, as the article implies? -R. fiend 15:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the second prediction being right meant that Jesensky died a horrible death. — JIP | Talk 16:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have significantly updated the article, based on the Czech source which mentions the legend. - Mike Rosoft 16:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Jan Jesenius. Shimmin 18:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, interesting trivia. Grue 18:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Jan Jesenius as a legend attached to him and delete - Skysmith 10:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, a proper vote would be "merge and redirect" to preserve information about authorship (and to discourage recreation of the previous nonsense article). - Mike Rosoft 12:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Salty Samurai

Non-notable messageboard spammer/vandal. Only ~50 Google hits. Delete as webcruft. jni 11:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete forumcruft, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, orphan article. -- Infrogmation 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Glad it isn't another variant on Wet Santa, but delete anyway. Grutness|^hello? 06:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No known use. -- 8^D ^gab 04:59, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Punka pixiez

Vanity page, spotted in the list of deadend pages. Davelong 13:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as link spam IMO. - Lucky 6.9 18:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete zero google hits for "Punka pixiez". -- Infrogmation 19:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Hedley 03:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable crew and if anyone would have a clue, it'd be me. (I'm the one who got Graffiti thru FAC)  ALKIVAR™ 03:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected - SimonP 16:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Disfiguration

Content: disfiguration- an alteration in the original appearance of an object or person

Delete. Dicdef, and I wouldn't consider it the start of an article. Nothing has been or needs to be merged with the existing wiktionary definition Wiktionary:disfiguration.

Vote changed to "keep" below. Kappa 00:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Note: CSD is full of dicdefs that already exist in wiktionary, and it seems like they will be hanging around for a while if they don't get Vfd'd). Kappa

• Delete whether Wiktionary has it already or not. It's not as if wiktionary can't come up with simple definitions of common words if we don't spoon feed them. Same goes for many other such words that may exist in wikipedia. -R. fiend 15:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They can come up with definitions, but we can still save them some time by transiki-ing any useful ones that we have. Kappa 15:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Article hasn't grown beyond a 1 line dictionary entry in 5 months, and Wiktionary grew an article independently. Delete. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Merge to disfigurement. Well spotted, Jmabel. Wiktionary:disfigurement thanks you, too. ☺ Uncle G 22:18, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Keep. As an historic form of judicial punishment, notably in the Byzantine Empire, as well as elsewhere, this is more than article-worthy.--Gene_poole 01:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually this is a good point. I'm changing my vote to keep, and I'll write something after the Vfd. Kappa 00:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'' and allow for natural growth. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Gene Poole's comments. Capitalistroadster 13:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep topic, but isn't the correct term "disfigurement"? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which I see we have. Looks like merge and redirect to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to disfigurement Kevin Rector 18:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 16:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

counsel

This page has been around for almost a year and in the Wiktionary queue for four months. In all that time it has not grown into an encyclopaedia article (as per the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice) clearly demonstrating the improbability of this expanding into an article. Wiktionary already has an entirely separate Wiktionary:counsel, so transwikification is uncessary. 81.138.100.115 13:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This substub definition of a real thing needs to preserved somewhere because 17 pages link to it. Deletion would mean continuous recreation of more definitions. Merge into List of legal topics or similar. Kappa 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Things have no chance of organic growth when there's a wiktionary tag on them. Kappa 15:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? They can still be edited. Radiant_* 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes but the tag tells people not to. Kappa 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • False. The tag says exactly the contrary. Read the second sentence of Template:Move to Wiktionary. And we're not exactly short of examples of articles where such expansion has actually happened. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
          • The tag tells people only to expand if they can make a (presumably complete) article, so it prevents incremental growth. Maybe we can discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary#Wiktionary_tag_of_doom. Kappa 16:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletion would mean continuous recreation of more definitions. — Not necessarily. Removing redlinks, if it has been decided to do this, is part of the Wikipedia:deletion process. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef. And remove links to the page from other articles. People love to overlink some pages and it should not be encouraged. -R. fiend 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere where it's explained in context. No need for this dicdef page. Radiant_* 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef. Remove the redlinks. DaveTheRed 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lawyer. Jonathunder 05:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lawyer. Kevin Rector 19:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 16:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Omaha Riot

This page is beyond repair on NPOV and is a copyright violation of http://www.historicomaha.com/riot.htmTjc 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Please list copyright problems at WP:CP, not here. Uncle G 14:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • It's not a copyvio; the text was published in 1919. --SPUI (talk) 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The article is filled with things like "The story of the riot is more thrilling than any moving picture." and "That curious psychological phenomenon, known as "mob spirit," was evident frequently."Tjc 15:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up. Seems to be a notable event in Omaha's history. Capitalistroadster 16:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have had a go at cleaning this up myself trying to NPOV the text, adding some perspective on events and adding references. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up. Notable event in Omaha's history. DaveTheRed 17:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete. Delete. This sort of thing belongs on Wikisource, not here. A contemporary pamphlet is not the sort of thing we should be using as the basis for an encyclopedic article. Our sources should be researched histories, not a popular account potentially rife with inaccuracies and biases. Gamaliel 18:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic reference. On Wikipedia, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We certainly have room for this as well. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\^talk 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki the source text to Wikisource and then start from scratch on this, with a link to the text. RickK 23:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki source text to Wikisource and rewrite this to be a succinct summary of the events. --Angr 06:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

And which image is a copyright violation? All have been licensed from their original sources and are noted in the text. Other images are from Eddie Schneider himself and were his publicity photos and are also marked with the appropriate copyright notices. So please be specific and tell me which ones are considered violations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images of Eddie August Schneider (1911-1940)

This page is an image archive. Most of the images come from the 1930s and are therefore probably covered by copyright (the uploader claims them to be public domain but provides no evidence).

Hello! The copyright for Gone With the Wind (1939) expired in 1989. Images from the 1930's are NOT covered by copyright. The only issue to debate is whether these photos are useful or not.

An image gallery is not sufficently educational for a fair use claim. Therefore most of these images should be removed as copyright violations. The others should be transfered to commons, and this page deleted — Zeimusu | Talk 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm pretty sure there's a policy against photo galleries such as this. Also, Eddie's article is littered with them too. All but 2 ot 3 should be removed. -R. fiend 15:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article that really is only a photo gallery is not something you would find in an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 18:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia has long had image gallery pages (eg, there are a couple linked from the Pompeii article) when such images are informative and too numerous to include in the main article without clutter, though such have become less common since the start of the Wikimedia Commons. I know of no blanket policy against image galleries if they are encyclopedicly done (for print parallels, my old Americana has blocks of pages of photographs not integrated into the text), and I strongly disagree with the suggestion that any and all photo galleries should be deleted. IMO to keep or delete this article should be based on specifics. This one IMO does seem a bit of overkill, and I'm not sure the copyright status of all the images is adiquately researched and taggged. -- Infrogmation 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I think such gallery pages are the exception rather than the rule. Certainly for a minor biographical article like this such images are overkill, copyrighted or not. And I maintain that the article on the person has too many photos. -R. fiend 21:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Infrogmation, the gallery you are referring to, Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum, is an exception because it supports content from Pompeii. My point is that a photo gallery by itself without any substantial content is not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 03:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One or two are fair use, a gallery of them is a copyright violation. RickK 23:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with RickK. Delete. Especially when most of them are likely copyvios. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Romantic forgery

Delete. Neologism; 12 Google hits for "romantic forgery". Android79 14:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, cute but never-used. Philthecow 15:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I hope SamuraiClinton did not create this article on the presumption that widespread usage of the term might someday exist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial content. Charles Matthews 17:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article's author, SamuraiClinton, did not cite any credible evidence to what appears to be neologism. Zzyzx11 18:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep, merge or redirect to a related article. I don't consider this a neologism, because "romantic" and "forgery" are 2 common words; and there is a space between the 2. This by SamuraiClinton, the author of the artice. VladMV ٭ ^talk 05:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologism disagrees with you. The term can also apply to phrases. Android79 00:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • The point is that invented concepts are original research, whether they're represented by one word or several words. Rhobite 15:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, trivial and irrelevant neologism - Skysmith 10:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another invented phrase from SamuraiClinton. Rhobite 15:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a phrase invented by a bitter ex. Sad, really, but doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --Orelstrigo 18:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad enough that SamuraiClinton spews myriad articles with non-standard names about trivial topics that can at least be verified, but articles on trivial, invented phrases -- no way. older≠wiser 17:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments given above. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. VladMV ٭ ^talk 05:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sheepdog van

Delete, or failing that, Merge into Dumb & Dumber. Article refers to the Shaggin' Wagon from the movie, which is not notable enough to have its own article. Android79 14:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Android79; Delete or Merge with my preference on Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Antaeus Feldspar, who agreed with Android79. Delete. Joyous 15:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, well-known, encyclopedic example of a custom vehicle. Kappa 16:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it. The Dumb and Dumber article doesn't even mention it. DaveTheRed 17:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me. Looks like someone wrote a "that was funny" article, which are almost never encyclopedic. A wouldn't totally oppose a few sentences merged into the movie article, but most of it has to go. -R. fiend 18:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Dumb and Dumber. --GoofyGuy 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for reference, the above vote was from User:SamuraiClinton, who also created the article.
• Merge as minor concept. I doubt we actually need a redirect for this one, though. Radiant_* 09:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it into Dumb and Dumber. SamuraiClinton, please stop creating these trivia articles. Rhobite 15:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge There's little need for a redirect, except to avoid re-creation by trivia-mad contributors. older≠wiser 17:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Straight delete. Nothing that I consider worth merging. Rossami (talk) 06:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, gushing, unencyclopedic. If SamuraiClinton thinks this van worth mentioning, he can write about it in the Dumb and Dumber article. Binadot 16:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lorraine Lam

Not notable. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Philthecow 14:57, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity Tjc 16:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Children's Echelon

According to Google, if The Children's Echelon is anything, it would seem to be an unpublished story by JD Salinger, which I doubt would be a French black market commodity. Also no hits for the supposed medium "Franz Delmonait." This might just be a notable French book that doesn't Google, but without any evidence, I say Delete. Philthecow 14:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Nonsense. Even if it was only on the black market there would be a few hits for it. Selphie 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) **
• Ha ha (doesn't rate a third one). Delete - David Gerard 20:28, 19 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wynn Las Vegas

A casino that's under construction. Delete because: advertising, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dpbsmith (talk) 15:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. According to the informative, NPOV article: 1) it looks like construction is pretty much done on the main building and it's going to open soon, so there really isn't a lot left to speculation at this point; and 2) however new it is, as a major casino, one of the largest buildings in Vegas, and the coming venue for a notable Broadway show, it's a notable landmark. Postdlf 15:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, those seem like some trumped-up charges. Even (especially) if the casino never opens, it deserves an article. Rhobite 16:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major construction projects and local landmarks. Kappa 16:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable project underway. This crystal ball policy needs to be applied with discretion - I also note that it states that projects where work has definitely started are acceptable providing they meet other criteria. Capitalistroadster 17:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on many of the major casino/hotels (see Category:Hotels of Las Vegas and Category:Casinos in Nevada). Such an article isn't advertising unless it consists solely of puffery. Although this facility won't open until next month, it's a major current construction project, it's been the subject of considerable media attention, and the hiring for it has already affected some of the other Strip casinos. JamesMLane 17:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Agree with Postdlf and JamesMLane. --GRider\^talk 17:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Seems like I probably shouldn't have nominated this. Apologies. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This will be the most talked about casino/hotel in Las Vegas when it opens; in fact, it already is the most talked about casino/hotel in Las Vegas. Steve Wynn hasn't failed at anything in Vegas yet, and he isn't about to this time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge with Marill; that article's looking rather shabby). --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Clearly notable. All the so-called reasons for deletion are misrepresented by the nominator. Wincoote 13:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anatistical

As the notice says. (Note that the article appears to have been moved directly into the main Wiktionary namespace at Wiktionary:Anatistical, rather than into Wiktionary:Transwiki:Anatistical as it should have been.) Uncle G 15:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete. Previous content was "To be able to enjoy analysing things; critical". But are we supposed to vote delete just because it was transwikied? Kappa 17:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No. Treat it as you would any other VFD nomination and vote on the merits, with the exception that you cannot vote "transwiki to Wiktionary". ☺ Uncle G 20:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Also see Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Anatistical Uncle G 04:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 16:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Buyers laboratory

This is a pretty spammy page, but it does make claims for notability, so I'm converting it from a speedy candidate in case anyone wants to fix it. Kappa 16:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hi- I put up this page this morning in my capacity as an editor for Buyers lab... Please let me know how I could render the page less "spammy" so that the legitimate information can stay up... (benjamincurry@gmail.com)
  • Um hi. I think you missed the bit that says "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business". If you want this to stay, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and condense it to something your competitors, detractors and sceptical wikipedia voters would agree is true. Also you will need verifiable evidence that this is an important company, maybe media coverage. You may also need some luck (and get a user name). Kappa 22:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. RickK 23:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• As I am new to this community, I hadn't completely reviewed your policies; as of my latest edit, I have reviewed the two articles you cited. I would like to do what I can to ensure that a legitimate profile of our company remains on this site - I have no desire to advertise, I would simply like information about our existance to stand here on Wikipedia, which more and more is used for all levels of reference in the business world. I would also like to note that the article on Mr. Kallet referred to our company by link, a link that led nowhere before this entry was created - isn't that alone a reason for this article, in order to provide comprehensive information on a given subject, ie Mr. Arthur Kallet? Again, please let me know whether this re-edit satisfies you in regards to your editorial policies. Here are several articles that I hope may show that we are in fact a legitimate company:

-http://www.katun.com/resourcecenter/bli.html -http://www.ricoh-usa.com/about/press/releases.asp?id=190 -http://www.okidata.com/mkt/html/PR/2002-06-04_16_13_39.html

As to whether we are an important company, I'll leave that up to others to decide... Benzamin 18 March 2005

• OK between your rewrite and mine I'll vote Keep, and yes that "link that goes nowhere" is evidence of your company's notability and your good faith. Kappa 19:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Many thanks for that... And thanks as well for cleaning up my formatting - or is that SOP? I would like to change the title of the article, by capitalizing the 'L' in laboratory, but can't seem to do so... Benzamin
  • I'll move it assuming it survives this Vfd. Kappa 02:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Looks okay to me. Keep, and fix title - David Gerard 20:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

VxWin

Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. VxWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/CeWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant ad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another ad. Zzyzx11 18:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I am really sad that you guys voted for deletion of my articles, because I spent a lot of time creating them. It was not meant to be commercially persuasive but only an informative description of what is nowadays possible in the field of real-time operating systems. I tried to keep the article as objective as possible. Perhaps you can tell me which paragraph(s) sound too much like advertising then I can consider changing or deleting them, but please do not destroy my whole work! -- KUKA 09:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you may want to save a copy elsewhere - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP if not sooner - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I think this article is very interesting but I don't feel like urgently having to buy this product now. As Windows XP and the like have found their way into Wikipedia why not other software as well? 217.184.102.44 17:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) 217.184.102.44 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to this VfD and that for CeWin.
  • So you're basically saying it isn't advertising because it didn't make you buy the product? I disagree, it's blatant advertising. There is no attempt to look at how the product fits into the history of computing, into a general category of products, to look at criticisms of the product -- the only perspective in which the product is looked at is "how can our product solve the problems of you, the prospective buyer?" and this is betrayed openly when the text comes right out and claims "Your application gets the best of both worlds". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: reads like an ad. Yes, some work went into this, I suggest you save a copy if you care. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete unless completely rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. In General, the deleting of Ads is a good thing as this is an encyclopedia. BUT: Let me ask you the question: have you ever heard of this technology before or found something on the web that explains it like this article? I guess the answer is NO. So, this article serves, even if it doesn´t present a critical view of the technology/product, as a means to give you an idea how it works and what can be done with it. Precisely the purpose of an Encyclodpedia! If you have any other views on the technology or discovered disadvantages, just edit the article or start a discussion. But deletion will lead to nothing. No information, no discussion. If you delete this article, you have to delete the Microsoft article too ... and all other articles on existing commercial products and goods. And "in dubio pro reo" (you could look it up, if it´s not been voted for deletion from the dictionary). Robert, 10:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) This vote by 62.154.235.58 (talk • contribs), author of the article.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

CeWin

Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. CeWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/VxWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant ad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another ad. Zzyzx11 18:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I am really sad that you guys voted for deletion of my articles, because I spent a lot of time creating them. It was not meant to be commercially persuasive but only an informative description of what is nowadays possible in the field of real-time operating systems. I tried to keep the article as objective as possible. Perhaps you can tell me which paragraph(s) sound too much like advertising then I can consider changing or deleting them, but please do not destroy my whole work! -- KUKA 09:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this blatant adcruft. ComCat 03:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this ad and its images - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I think this article is very interesting but I don't feel like urgently having to buy this product now. As Windows XP and the like have found their way into Wikipedia why not other software as well? 217.184.102.44 17:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) 217.184.102.44 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to this VfD and that for VxWin.
• Delete: reads like an ad. Yes, some work went into this, I suggest you save a copy if you care. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete unless completely rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. In General, the deleting of Ads is a good thing as this is an encyclopedia. BUT: Let me ask you the question: have you ever heard of this technology before or found something on the web that explains it like this article? I guess the answer is NO. So, this article serves, even if it doesn´t present a critical view of the technology/product, as a means to give you an idea how it works and what can be done with it. Precisely the purpose of an Encyclodpedia! If you have any other views on the technology or discovered disadvantages, just edit the article or start a discussion. But deletion will lead to nothing. No information, no discussion. If you delete this article, you have to delete the Microsoft article too ... and all other articles on existing commercial products and goods. And "in dubio pro reo" (you could look it up, if it´s not been voted for deletion from the dictionary). Robert, 10:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) This vote by 62.154.235.58 (talk • contribs), author of the article.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Charl

Delete. Probable vanity, not notable. —Caesura 16:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete zir. Sie isn't notable. DaveTheRed 17:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Um...yeah. Delete. People who refer to themselves in the gender-neutral third-party creep me out.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 18:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (but on the positive side "soon to be published on the internet" - so you never know) - Colin Angus Mackay 01:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Martin-Logan

Converting from speedy candidate because my feeling is that this is a good-faith substub about a notable company (123,000 hits) . Kappa 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep is fine by me - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Seems a reasonable sub-stub, keep, expand. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Xanthous

Wiktionary independently grew an article, from a stub, in less than a day, better than what Wikipedia had grown in four months. This is, of course, an adjective article title (not a noun as per Wikipedia naming conventions) so redlinks to it should disappear too. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• delete, adjective with no obvious potential. Kappa 20:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• An adjective meaning yellow, eh? Hm. I thought it would have had something to do with Piers Anthony. Oh well. Delete, since it won't ever be more than a dicdef. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Whine

Wiktionary has an independently grown entry. This entry hasn't grown beyond a dictionary entry for whine (and a dictionary entry for whinge — one that is false, moreover) in 8 months. Uncle G 16:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, no clear need for an article. Kappa 17:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What they said. -- Infrogmation 20:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's at the Wiktionary. -- MessedRocker 23:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirect - SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of Music

Poorly researched essay which devolves into POV rant by the end (see the final section, "Blacks Domination). Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Also I think it would be difficult to make an encyclopedic article from such a broad topic. DaveTheRed 17:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the current content since it is POV, but I still think the evolution of music might be a worthy topic to have an article about. Zzyzx11 18:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is much easier to get rid of the current content and just Redirect to History of music. Zzyzx11 00:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV all the way (not just final section), as well as remarkably bad original research, IMHO. The two first sections almost deserve to go to Bad Jokes etc:) Tobyox 23:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree about parts to BJAODN.Antandrus
• Tchaik? Redirect to History of music, but do not merge. RickK 23:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay, rant. Megan1967 00:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to History of music. Antandrus 05:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested above... selected excerpts at least to BJAODN? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then recreate as a Re-direct to History of music. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Shraddha

As the notice says. Uncle G 16:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete. The Transwiki process to Wiktionary is complete. Zzyzx11 18:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 06:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 16:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla the Rabbit

How is encyclopedic notability being established in this article? --GRider\^talk 16:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge this minor character to Sonic Advance 2. DaveTheRed 17:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, sonicruft. Megan1967 06:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. Radiant_* 09:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep fancruft. Kappa 12:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sonic has had the same success as Pokemon yet characters from that would not be deleted. Just because there aren't a lot of Wikipedians contributing to Sonic articles doesn't mean that this article isn't of interest to the users of Wikipedia who come and go everyday looking for information. Personally it doesn't matter to me whether it stays or goes, but it is a character from a notable franchise, and based on the behaviours of Pokemon articles i'll go with keep. Hedley 03:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, there are several Sonic articles already in the Sonic characters category, and it is a growing area, so I don't see why the progress of those Wikipedians should be hampered. The character seems notable to me. Hedley 03:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. Lacrimosus 02:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. Martg76 16:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. ComCat 02:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sabel4

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Incredible Eagle

Delete vanity band listing. No AMG listing; "incredible eagle" + "tempe" gets 0 google hits. Postdlf 17:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 00:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Video Memories

Unwikified text dump, which I don't find the title or the content (comparison between Home Video to DVD) encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's advertising junk. Same IP posted it to two other articles, both since redirected: Video conversion and Home videos. Those are reasonable titles, but this one isn't, so shouldn't stay. CDC (talk) 17:00, 17 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Multi

Wiktionary had a better article than this even at the time that this article was originally written. The only growth that this article saw in 10 months was some etymological rubbish about the word "polio". Uncle G 17:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Keep I've rewritten article to deal with another important topic and it's no longer a dictdef. Grue 18:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • An article about something called a "multi" rather than about the prefix/word. I'm satisfied. ☺ Uncle G 22:41, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Keep nice new article. Kappa 20:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I seem to recall this also being called Multiplaying so I added a redirect there. Radiant_* 09:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Grue for the changes. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to MMORPG. There is not a single article in the article namespace that references this meaning of the word "multi". In fact, the only artcle that links here is Poly through a redirect on multi- as the Latin equivalent of Poly as a Greek prefix. While Grue's attempt to salvage a vfd candidate is commendable, there's nothing that that can't go into the MMOPRG article. Kevin Rector 19:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Either Keep under different name or Merge with MMORPG. "Multi" might not link there yet, but that might come - and this is a very specific use of the word. -- AlexR 23:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After Kevin's complaint I added several links to that article in related topics, so it is not out of context now. Another user expanded the article and now it is big enough to not be merged. Grue 06:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Infra

Whilst this article about a word and not a thing/person/concept sat languishing in the Wiktionary queue, Wiktionary went and grew a better Wiktionary:infra article all by itself. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. (No transwiki required.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 20:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Christopher John Proud

Appears to be vanity. I always suspect vanity when the first sentence is "X is a famous Y" and the second sentence, instead of describing X's accomplishments in the field of Y, describes what X is now studying at university. Delete unless actual notability is established (and if the Big Pink Yorkshire festival proves to be notable, it doesn't automatically make him so). -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think thay if: He achieved prominence in 2001 when he organised Big Pink Yorkshire, the first of, a now annual, gay and lesbian festival which runs in Yorkshire. turns out to be true and if Big Pink Yorkshire turns out to be notable, there's sufficient evidence to keep him as well. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • No hits for "Big Pink Yorkshire" [2].
• Delete, reads like a hoax. Kappa 23:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I find the veracity of this article highly suspect. I cannot find any evidence that the incident mentioned in the final paragraph, something which one would expect to make the news somewhere or to be mentioned on Usenet, actually occurred, for example. I cannot find evidence that Big Pink Yorkshire existed, either. If it did, it must have been promoted solely to a group of patrons who promised never to mention it anywhere on the World Wide Web or on Usenet for a period of at least 4 years. Those, and Antaeus Feldspar's concerns, cast suspicion upon the whole thing. Delete. Uncle G 23:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Looks like an obvious hoax, by article creator Grinner. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, or extremely non notable if not a hoax. Excuse me while I VfD Big Pink Yorkshire now. -R. fiend 01:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if this was legit there'd be something about it somewhere online, the GLBT community is pretty web savy--nixie 02:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find anything on Google with his name and variations thereof that links him to gay rights in Yorkshire. I possibly suspect the page may have been an attempt at a personal attack on student Christopher Proud. Megan1967 06:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing to do with me! I'm at Newcastle University, anyone can use my (various) IP's! (Delete) Grinner 15:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Jason Dominus

Are the authors of PERL modules inherently noteworthy? If not, how is encyclopedic notability being illustrated within this article? No vote. --GRider\^talk 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. 19,100 google web hits, plus another 12,200 Usenet hits. He has notability within some circles (Usenet, Perl). -- Infrogmation 20:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, award-winning perl programmer, managing editor of www.perl.com; I'd expect a programmer to get a lot of google hits, so I don't think they're particularly important in determining notability in this case. Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• keep award winning programmers Kappa 22:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur w/ GRider. No vote. Lacrimosus 02:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 05:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as it should've been before. This is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear

Dicdef. This is the third time this article has been created, and it should be deleted for the same reason it was the other two times. Marnanel 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• Keep This is different from the other article which was just a simple dictionary definintion but seems to meet the "Ideally this would redirect or disambig to something about saluations in letter writing" comment from the previous AfD.

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment what happened?

This should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (2)" or something like that and not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear/2 other one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear WPdian editors, or Orwellian policeman--just kidding!!!

• Disambiguation. It is not that important to me personally.

However, I do think that it certainly requires Disambiguation. Also, the fact--the reality--is that WP have made Wikipedia into a dictionary--it is a dictionary de facto, if not de jure. I'm fully aware that the WP policy is that WP is an Encyclopedia, or should I say Encyclopaedia? Yours truly Ludvikus 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment And if you dear--not deer--Wikipedians elect to retain it, I think you will not a choice but to do the same with yours truly, or yous truly!

Ludvikus 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to salutation (greeting) per Damian Yerrick. --Rory096 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 16:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Callipygian

The Wiktionary article preceded the Wikipedia article by 5 months. And in the 6 months that this article has been in Wikipedia so far, in various forms, it has never expanded to be more than a dictionary entry about a word. Uncle G 17:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, agree. -- Infrogmation 20:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose it's just Wiktionary stuff. Gee, should we redirect to R. Crumb? (just joking. delete). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Venus (mythology). The word is especially used with regard to Venus (trust me, I was in a band called Callipygian!). Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 00:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Emotional Hobocore

Delete this subtrivial rubbish. 4 google hits. "Emo Hobo" and "Emo Hobos" get 3 and 6 respectively. Djbrianuk 17:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or Merge and redirect into Questionable Content if some fan of that comic cares enough to do so. -- Infrogmation 20:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 131.247.115.124 is a fan and doesn't care.
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 17:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Augusta Louisa

Delete. A page about a child who died within a day of birth, even if she was a member of a royal family, has no potential to become encyclopedic. RussBlau 17:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: see Patrick Bouvier Kennedy; please note that article survived a VfD. It's possible that this child, however short-lived, was the focus of enough attention to also have as much to say about her, but someone familiar with the British royal family should make that judgment. Postdlf 19:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, you make a valid point; some articles about infants can be informative and encyclopedic. It's just that this one isn't. It doesn't contain anything remotely comparable to the Kennedy article or the one on her sister, Princess Elizabeth of Clarence. Is there any reason to think that there will ever be anything more to say about this poor child than what appears on this page? RussBlau 22:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and remove link on William IV of the United Kingdom page. Any further information on the manner of the death can readily be posted on the William IV's page. — RJH 19:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to William IV of the United Kingdom. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. A line in her father's article is sufficient. The deletion of Henry, the short lived sets a precedent. Gdr 01:57, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Merge for now. If this does prove to be a case like Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, we can spin out when there is enough material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Bantal

There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article here, and the title is in the wrong language for a redirect to be worthwhile. Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 20:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect? I don't know, maybe put it in a wiktionary. Lilyana

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trollband

Neologism, user mentions it in his weblog here. Delete. Joyous 18:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've speedied it. No need to waste any further time on it. Postdlf 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 17:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Time Displacement

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dictionary definition (which someone more knowledgeable than I should check for accuracy). RussBlau 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep scientific concepts, especially key concepts in extemely notable theories. Kappa 21:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Time displacement and link to correct theory and Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and expand. Megan1967 06:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with redirect to Time dilation, which is the scientifically correct term. Radiant_* 09:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Time dilation. Nothing here to merge. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Gazpacho 07:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Time dilation --Kzollman 01:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Asian Tsunami

Delete. There's nothing on this page that isn't already on Tsunami, and there's nothing on this page specific to Asia. RussBlau 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and REDIRECT to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Mgm|^(talk) 22:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate entry. Megan1967 06:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The title is a useful redirect, but the content is about tsunamis in general, and that is already covered. Sjakkalle 12:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sjakkalle. Hedley 03:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

browbeat

A common mistake is to think that "if it is more than 1 line long, it isn't a dictionary entry". This article very clearly demonstrates the error in that thinking (to those who haven't been to Wiktionary lately and so haven't noticed that many of the entries are a lot more than 1 line long ☺). Wiktionary's article about the word had existed for 15 months at the point that this article was created. Also note that the identical text was added to Wiktionary:browbeat 2 minutes after this article was created. So somehow I doubt that it was by a different editor, and GFDL considerations don't apply. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, detailed definition duplicating Wiktionary content. -- Infrogmation 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Neophyte

In the 8 months of its existence, this article about the word and not the concept has not grown at all. In the meantime, Wiktionary, all by itself, grew a full Wiktionary:neophyte entry. Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete agree. -- Infrogmation 20:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ideally this topic would be merged with newbie somehow. (no vote) Kappa 20:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate entry. Megan1967 06:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do we do soft redirects to Wiktionary? That might prevent recreation of dicdefs. Just a thought. Delete. Radiant_* 09:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

shitload

Wiktionary had had shitload for four months before this article was created. 6 months later, this article has seen zero expansion, and is still a dictionary article about the word, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the concept, indicating that there's probably nothing to say about the concept. Uncle G 19:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete agree. -- Infrogmation 20:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of anything to say about it either. Kappa 20:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already covered by Wiktionary. —Caesura 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicated elsewhere. Megan1967 00:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree Tjc 09:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• either Delete or redirect to Bulk untold multiple truckloads. Grutness|^hello? 11:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- MessedRocker 01:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 01:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

dilettante

As the notice says. After a year of sitting here, half of that with a notice affixed encouraging the creation of an encyclopaedia article, this is still a dictionary entry describing the word. Uncle G 20:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• delete but I'll change my vote if someone wants to try expanding it. Kappa 20:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kevin Rector 19:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef Grutness|^hello? 07:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 17:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gallery Black Swan

• Delete Non-Notable Vanity Page created by user Daniel C.Boyer to promote his, "surrealist" friends as a means for advertising this gallery that is no longer in existence. The question of any historical relevance should be considered as well. Advertising and Spam for the, Surrealist Movement in the United States a commercial enterprise run by Daniel C.Boyer's friends.Classicjupiter2 20:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comments on latest phase in Classicjupiter2's quest to purge all information on surrealism from Wikipedia: What would be the point of advertising a now-defunct gallery? Historical relevance (site of 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition, largest-ever surrealist exhibition) is stated in article. Saying the Surrealist Movement in the United States is a commercial enterprise is in my opinion a real stretch, but that's just my POV; at any rate, this POV could be stated in any relevant article but you do not explain in any way how this would make it a grounds for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Incoherent nomination. Advertising for a gallery that no longer exists? Yeah, right. --Gene_poole 00:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the Google hits on this gallery seem to refer back to Wikipedia's article on it. Hosted an exhibition with the word world in its name 30 years ago. Not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Inform yourself about 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition before dismissing it like this. Over five hundred works, almost all from active surrealists from thirty-one countries, the surrealist exhibition with the largest-ever scope, though I'm sure Classicjupiter2, for whatever reason, has already decided it is non-notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent nomination, but that doesn't make the subject notable. android↔talk 03:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Android. This is not a courthouse - if a procedure is messed up, that doesn't necessarily invalidate its result. Radiant_* 09:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but if it's significant, the article could sure do a better job of demonstrating it.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

smutriculator

Not actually a dictionary entry, but a request for a dictionary entry (submitted by the same author to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary at the same time). Uncle G 20:40, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• You mean this doesn't qualify as a speedy? Chris 23:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a word. Just because some author throws together a string of characters doesn't mean we should have an encylopedia article about it. I'd hate to think of some of the stuff coming out of James Joyce that people would like to try to define. RickK 23:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Also see Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Smutriculator Uncle G 04:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Andreas

The dictionary entry for the name had been at Wiktionary:Andreas for a month before the creation of this article. No-one of note commonly referred to solely by their given name "Andreas" springs to mind for a biographical article. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Chill pill

No clear need or potential for an article; wiktionary already has a definition Wiktionary:chill pill which covers it. Kappa 20:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• As per Kappa. Delete. Uncle G 22:06, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate article. Megan1967 00:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. And what's with the see alsos in it? —Korath (Talk) 03:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Future Judgement View

Non-notable, hardly verifiable article about a small faction within Jehovas Witnesses. Zero Google hits for the lemma. One of the external links given (on GeoCities) has already stopped working. --Pjacobi 21:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Critical views on JW can be treated otherwise. Summer Song
• Delete for reasons above.George

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Church of Spiritual Humanism

I don't think this organisation is sufficiently notable to mention in Wikipedia. In particular, see Talk:Church of Spiritual Humanism, which points out they seem to be more of a commercial enterprise than a religion. --SamuelKatinsky 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo. Edeans 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Spiderman is Gay

Do we really, really need this? DJ Clayworth 23:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Heh, I've seen it so I figured it must be notable... (no vote yet) Kappa 23:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable gayspidermancruft. --BD2412 23:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. Reading this made me question my own sexuality. Oh, the power of teh intarnet. (No vote either) —RaD Man (talk) 23:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are countless flash animations on the internet. They aren't all notable. Neither is this one. DaveTheRed 23:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment its a notable internet meme. whether or not internet meme's deserver articles should be the question here.  ALKIVAR™ 00:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is so gay and unencyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder if there is anything any less encyclopedic than this article? Maybe. Well, delete. -R. fiend 01:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. 1210 Google hits isn't much of a meme. We're not talking about a 70,000-hit Dancing Baby here. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Alkivar says it's a notable internet meme, and I think closer to 7,350 google hits. [3] Kappa 02:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There must be thousands of these things out there. No indication of any real notability. Edeans 03:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, using the android-hasn't-ever-been-forwarded-a-link-to-this-Flash-animation-by-his-annoying-relatives test. Seriously, though, this is unencyclopedic. android↔talk 03:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Numa numa yes, Badger badger badger yes, this.. no. Hedley 03:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. — JIP | Talk 06:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, will have disappeared in a month or two. RickK 06:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • If only badger badger badger and numa numa would too... I HATE MEMES!  ALKIVAR™ 06:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I hate mimes, but that's a different story all together. —RaD Man (talk) 21:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Mushroom, mushroom! android↔talk 06:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I preferred the Lord of the Rings version. Professionally done, you could imagine the badgers walking in.. er, yeah. Hedley 03:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with all the other delete voters. Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article about a joke. Gazpacho 09:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic silly nonsense. Martg76 21:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Had I known that this would be such a lively discussion, I wouldn't have tagged it as a speedy! BTW, has anyone checked out "The Drugs I Need" over at JibJab? - Lucky 6.9 22:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer: This should be transferred to an Internet pop-culture article, as well as the other Internet memes that don't have substantial information to be their own articles. MessedRocker 23:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Graphicsphere

Seems nonsensical. Gets 30 Google hits, most of which relate to a graphics company by this name. Separating the words only jacks it up to 140 Google hits, mostly relating to an icon you might find on your desktop. I say delete, but maybe someone else knows something I don't. --BD2412 23:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense. It's far too brillig. Edeans 03:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Let's put it out to gyre and gimble in the wabe. Delete (as NN and/or vanity). Radiant_* 12:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

3 S's, which is now Shoot, shovel, and shut up

Definition of slang term. Recommended transwiki to wiki-dictionary. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism, nonnotable, whatever, unless someone can verify usage. Postdlf 23:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary would reject this for being encyclopaedic. It's an article about the method, not about the phrase. And a Google Groups search reveals that this phrase, and related phrases like "3S dog", are in use, and that this method of dealing with animals exists. Keep, but perhaps with a better name. Uncle G 02:19, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Delete. If this term is actually used at all, it is probably a very limited local useage. Edeans 02:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the rewritten article. Kappa 01:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) Move to wiktionary. Pace Uncle G, this is just explaning the meaning of the phrase. What would wiktionary have about it, if not this? 4,690 hits [4] for "shoot, shovel", appears to be in use regarding BSE. Kappa 03:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Edeans. android↔talk 03:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article.. Rad Racer 04:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, rural where? I'm originally from a rural area and I've never heard anything like this. If anything, if it is kept, the article needs to be more specific as to where this term is in use. android↔talk 05:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Shoot, shovel, and shut up already exists as an article, and there is nothing here to merge there. I cannot imagine anyone searching for this article using the term "3 S's" Denni☯ 01:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Ahem. Rad Racer moved 3 S's to Shoot, shovel, and shut up, then expanded the article and removed the VFD notice from it. Saying that "Shoot, shovel, and shut up already exists" is rather bizarre, considering that that is the very article that was nominated for deletion here. Similarly, saying that the article nominated here should be deleted in favour of Shoot, shovel, and shut up is bizarre, considering that that is the article nominated here. If you want to delete 3 S's, the redirect created by Rad Racer, then that's fair enough (although WP:RFD is really the place to discuss it). But please be clear about what article is being discussed for deletion. My keep vote for Shoot, shovel, and shut up stands, by the way. I intended to improve the original article myself, but found when I sat down to do it that Rad Racer had beaten me to it by 20 minutes. Uncle G 08:24, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Ahem also. And there is a reason for being so, ehm, snotty about this? Why should it be "bizarre" to say that Shoot, shovel, and shut up exists? Is it my bad that there is no redirect notice when you pull up this article? Be nice. Denni☯ 19:43, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Keep and improve rewritten article -- Jmabel | Talk 00:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. A redirect to New Zealand was subsequently created. —Korath (Talk) 01:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• 01:54, Mar 18, 2005 DavidWBrooks deleted New zeland (vandalism)

New_zeland

Unnecessary, profane, speedy deletion

• A redirect profane? Unless of course you didn't mean New_zealand but New_zeland. Speediest delete. Chris 01:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect New Zealand. Niteowlneils 01:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Common misspelling. android↔talk 03:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Agree this is likely a common misspelling. Jonathunder 05:02, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Someone has redirected it now. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I should hope it's not a common misspeling, becaus that wold maek me shuddre abuot the wolrd's ecudation. Nevertheless, delete and replace with redirect. Radiant_* 09:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh come off it. Iff there was a redirect from Yankee land to United States, would it be allowed to stay? Most probably. It's now an issue for WP:RFD, and I say that it's not doing any harm, so it should be kept. Alphax ^τεχ 15:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd have to have a pretty funky keyboard layout to mistype United States as Yankee land. Dvorak, maybe? :o) android↔talk 16:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, I was allowing it to stay! Bad spellers of the world UNTIE! Radiant_* 16:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect. JuntungWu 06:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to New Zealand. Common misspelling. Not everyone is a spelling genius. Wikipedia must be usable by all, even those who can't spell, if it expects mainstream success. - Longhair | Talk 13:02, 21 Mar 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.