Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 29

May 29

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete for being a self-promotional article. (Posted by User:ChrisO)

Wikinotes

More self-promotion. --W(t) 00:22, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Comment If it's a mediawiki project, doesn't it at least deserve an article? Ryan Prior 01:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a mediawiki project, not a wikimedia project. Also, even wikimedia projects should live up to the same standards of inclusion as the subjects of other articles under avoid self-reference. It's just the this happens rather quickly due to the association with wikipedia. --W(t) 01:27, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• delete - they've also tried inserting links to their wiki, even on subjects where they have no content. -- Solipsist 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -CunningLinguist 06:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sholtar | talk 06:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D Fawcett5 04:15, 30 May 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 wasAlready DELETED as a COPYVIO. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

R. v. Clay

Dunno what this is - was listed by an anon for speedy, but I changed it to here. -SV|t 17:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Both the anon and User:Stevertigo forgot to list this VfD on the VfD page I assume, so I am doing so. - Lucky13pjn 00:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup. This is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. Definately noteworthy, but the condition of the article as is sucks and needs copyediting. - Lucky13pjn 00:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep rewrite (put on list of requested articles. All supreme court cases are notable. Klonimus 08:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I don't see how this article has to do with any specific case. I think this needs to be deleted and atarted over as opposed to a simple cleanup. Xcali 00:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article isn't about the subject of the title, and I think we've got the subject of the article pretty well covered. --W(t) 01:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, content covered elsewhere. Megan1967 04:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like original research to me. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If the case deserves an article, it does not deserve this ramble. If someone wants to write that article now, then fine. If not, then delete this stuff in the meantime. --Doc (?) 14:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Tagged as copyvio. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete on the grounds of being advertising. -- ChrisO 21:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shwing.com

Looks like advertising. Xcali 00:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have a suprise for her too: delete as adcruft. I would be willing to bet that the logo is a copyvio as it has no source info. - Lucky13pjn 00:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement Linuxbeak | Desk 03:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert Nateji77 04:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Megan1967 04:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D ad Fawcett5 04:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 08:45, May 31 2005 (UTC)
• Keep informative - Oneaday -- Hi,I saw mySpace.com and did not think Shwing.com would be a problem. And what do you mean about logo is copyvio? BTW, I was waiting till after exams to tell her so it wouldn't look like I was sucking up. I won't be embarrassed if it's deleted. Do what you have to do, but IMHO, independent websites should be rewarded and not punished.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ace of Spades HQ

Self-promotion, not encyclopedic. Ryan Prior 01:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:29, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Xcali 01:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-prom. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. --Sn0wflake 03:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, blog promo. Megan1967 04:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad, not notable -CunningLinguist 06:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D ad Fawcett5 04:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• d a Mozzerati 20:05, 2005 Jun 4 (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. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Podolski

Bad title, no content, doesn't get much more pathetic than this. Denni☯ 01:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Moved, wikified. It's a nanostub, but as long as it isn't part of a large spree of them I can live with it. And if you think it doesn't get much more pathetic than this, you haven't been around VfD long enough… Weak keep. --W(t) 01:31, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. I'll bet there are a thousand unencyclopedic German footballers. Ryan Prior 01:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • There, added a claim to notability. And no, I'm not going to write an article on FC Koln. --W(t) 01:48, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Keep professional athletes, especially if FC Koln is the same as 1. FC Köln Kappa 02:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the one yes. At least I assume it is, as you may have gathered by now I don't know much about professional football. --W(t) 02:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Keep. We need to be a little more tolerant of newbie ineptitude. ----Isaac R 04:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Eixo 07:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He's a 1. FC Köln player. Certainly notable and easily verifiable. Phils 10:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as professional footballer. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• K Fawcett5 04:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expanded with basic info. Dryazan 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was This article was deleted as a COPYVIO. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Walter_Samuel_McAfee

This appears to be a poorly-written vanity page michael 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn Xcali 01:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Needs massive cleanup, but looks notable. See this. Vanity seems unlikely as he's been dead since '95. Keep. --W(t) 01:34, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Copyvio from here, but still seems notable (afro-american pioneer in astrophysics). Nateji77 04:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyvio. Megan1967 04:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Copyvio but could be potential for article in topic. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected by nominator. sjorford →•← 12:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Harold Perrineau

The page appears redundant. The Harold Perrineau Jr. page contains all the same information (and then some), but for the Oz spoiler and that is on the Oz page. That being said, a redirect from Harold Perrineau to Harold Perrineau Jr. is probably more appropriate, since Mr. Perrineau is credited as Harold Perrineau Jr. only slightly more often than as Harold Perrineau. I would have done the redirect, but I don't know how and could not find instructions. Fred 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. Just so you know, you can do a redirect by deleting the article's current contents and then putting #REDIRECT [[Article you want to redirect to]]. - Lucky13pjn 01:35, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with Lucky13 - before you redirect, merge any content from the Harold Perrineau page and then delete the content and put on the redirect tag--Sophitus 01:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks. Fred 01:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheneyism

This is a politically-biased rant; it is not informative. At best this is a slang term which does not belong in an encyclopedia. michael 01:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think this has been deleted before. Xcali 01:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hilariously angry article, but complete crap as well--Sophitus 01:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. — Phil Welch 02:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the funny/profane stuff was already removed from the article, I went ahead and BJAODN'd the old version. Change vote to plain Delete. — Phil Welch 02:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang term. No notable third party references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• This page is completely contradicted by this and this, which imply that Cheneyism is a political philosophy or ideology associated with a specific politician, akin to Thatcherism, Blairism, Bushism, McCarthyism, and so forth. It's supported (in its few relatively unbiased assertions, at any rate) by things like this and this, which imply that the using of words like "fuck" is Cheneyism, indicating that this is a style of speaking, akin to Spoonerism and Malapropism (albeit nowhere near as idiosyncratic as them, given that it is just simple, common, profanity). There appear to be two things here. They are distinct from each other, albeit that one is little different from the concept of profanity. profanity we have covered. So it comes down to whether Cheneyism the political philosophy is distinct enough from Bushism to warrant being separately discussed in its own right. (A few people, such as writers for Time, appear to have combined the two into a political philosophy that they refer to as "Bush-Cheneyism".) If it isn't, this should be just a disambiguation between profanity and Bushism. If it is, this should be an article on the ideology with a pointer to profanity. Cleanup, in either event. Uncle G 03:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Comment ---I want to vote "delete", but then just to be consistent I'd have to nominate Bushism, which isn't really better. I'm not a fan of either of these guys, but neither of them are exceptional abusers of the English language, compared to other politicians. ----Isaac R 04:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There's anthologies of Bushisms published, which makes it more notable. Nateji77 04:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That's attributable to anti-Bush partisanism, not notability. I'm an anti-Bush partisan myself, but I don't consider his tendency to mangle language to deserve its own article. The rest of Bushism has to do with his rhetorical/propaganda style, and is redundant with other articles. Bushism really deserves a VfD for its soapboxiness, but I lack any inclination to fight such a energy-consuming, futile battle. ----Isaac R 16:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to cheney's page. certainly don't need one page about a politician and then a second about the way he phrases things, when only the former is notable. Nateji77 04:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that "both Cheney and Rove are bald, fat, evil cocksuckers", but as of yet, the term just isn't sufficiently established in the English language. Eixo 07:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, POV rant. Quale 07:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although I do wish I could be this funny when I'm angry --Doc (?) 12:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, remove profanity, but move this to some kind of humor page. Ryan Prior 16:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That would be Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.
• Delete. NeoJustin 00:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Klonimus 08:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Solger

Solger only existed for 6 months, to my knowledge, only played local shows. Dosn't qualify for notability. Ryan Prior 01:36, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Phil Welch 02:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Fartz. Nateji77 04:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ameconspiracy

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Keep. We don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not it's notable yet, and the article is a day old. Let's not eat our young. — Phil Welch 02:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fanfic? 4 google hits? no article on the convention it parodies? I'm thinking not. -- Jonel 02:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Sn0wflake 03:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. A quick look in Google tells us that it's not notable. Try again when you get ten thousand hits. -- Hoary 04:13, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity fanfic. Megan1967 04:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unlike Philwelch, I believe in nipping problems in the bud. --Xcali 05:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, how would waiting make this any more notable than it is now? RickK 05:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 11:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be losing notability as time passes. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE to University of South Florida. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Oracle Newspaper

Student newspaper. --W(t) 01:45, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established, promotion only.
• Delete nn Xcali 01:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to Oracle (Newspaper) or Oracle (Student Newspaper). I have been convinced by FCYTravis to change my vote to merge into University of South Florida. In any case, Wikipedia is not paper. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia contains entries on other, smaller school newspapers. -Atsquish
• Merge into University of South Florida until enough information is gathered to make this more than a stub. --FCYTravis 02:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with University of South Florida for the time being. --Sn0wflake 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -per what FCYTravis said -CunningLinguist 06:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Eixo 07:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the circulation number into University of South Florida. Everything else is already in the parent article. Quale 11:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As Quale said, I have already mentioned The Oracle in the USF article months ago. Mike H 17:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Reminds me to add the school paper to my own Uni's page. :-) -- BD2412 ^talk 01:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

512DevOS

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is five days old, let's not eat our young. — Phil Welch 02:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The linked site's hit counter is <1000. No Google hits. Please provide evidence of notability, if any. -- Jonel 02:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep allow time for the article to grow. Megan1967 04:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Google finds no reference to it. Article all but admits software does not exist. WP is not a crystal ball. --Xcali 05:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the age of the article has no bearing on whether or not the subject is notable. RickK 05:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is still being written. Almafeta 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since more info seems to be coming, allow it to grow -CunningLinguist 06:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Since when is the age of an article any indication that it should be kept or not? The subject is what matters, and if the subject is not notable, adding more cruft is not going to make it more so. Please vote on the basis of whether or not the subject is notable, not on "give it a chance". RickK 07:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. I don't care how long the article gets, the subject is currently of no encyclopedic interest whatsoever. The board forums on the home site have only 34 posts total. The "give the article some time" votes are very discouraging. How about we give 512DevOS some time to become notable before we write it up in WP? It's currently at version 0.1. Quale 11:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Quale, and delete. Radiant_* 14:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dozens of such OSes are created and abandoned after short time. Until it gets longer history it is nothing notable. Pavel Vozenilek 00:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wouldnt dismiss notability out of hand. JamesBurns 06:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's one guy's personal project and is of no current significance. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be non-notable and is still under major construction. Kel-nage 23:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this not-particularly-notable, incomplete, personal project operating system. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gwynneth (Hardesty) Coogan

Not notable. --W(t) 01:56, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete. — Phil Welch 02:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? The article is only a day old, isn't that your criterion for keeping other non-notable articles? Delete, by the way. RickK 05:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - please, let us eat our (rather vain) young. -- Jonel 02:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• I am sure she is a nice person, but delete. --Sn0wflake 03:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Xcali 05:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete extremely rare on google. Mozzerati 20:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• notability factor of next to zero. delete

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fan film

Compound dict-def, neologism. --W(t) 02:09, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Article is less than a day old and is marked as a stub. I can foresee a great article being written here. Let's not eat our young. — Phil Welch 02:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But they're so tasty! ----Isaac R 01:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 138,000 google hits [1] indicate someone already created this word. Kappa 02:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I myself have heard of this term for the past several years. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why not. --Sn0wflake 03:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not a neologism (in the Wikipedia sense). There have been fan-produced Star Trek movies for years now. So they're entitled to a Wikipedia article -- just as long as I don't have to watch any of them! ----Isaac R 04:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a real phenomenon deserving of an article, tho individual fan films might not be. Nateji77 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef --Xcali 05:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -very notable and this article has the capablity of being greatly expanded -CunningLinguist 06:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some fan films are article-worthy in their own right, so this can definitely stay. —Xezbeth 06:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not a neologism. Wasn't it Star Wars that promted the creation of fan films in the first place? Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable topic. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brennan Reilly

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Phil Welch 02:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Sn0wflake 03:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete. Nateji77 04:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Userfy would be acceptable. --Xcali 05:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Brennan Reilly is one of the most fascinating and notable people I've ever met in my enitre life. And I'm Paris Hitlon goddamit!
  • comment by ParisHilton (talk · contributions)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barry Kulick

Not notable. Has two films to his credit, and thats it. Donovan Ravenhull 02:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, produced two films. Kappa 03:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete produced two films with no established notability. Please don't cite the "Not paper" rule -- I'd make room for any filmmaker that's gained any kind of acceptance beyond friends and family. But anybody can spend a few bucks on a Hi-8 camera (back in '69 it would be a 16-mm) make a movie, and get it listed in IMDB. You need more than that before you deserve to be recorded for posterity. ----Isaac R 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --- He only directed two films, but one of them starred Oliver Reed. ----Isaac R 19:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just because you can get a cheap 8mm movie into IMDb (criterion in that case is public screening, eg a local film festival) doesnt mean that that's what these are. Nateji77 05:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but it's not enough to speculate that the article's subject might be notable -- you have to actually demonstrate that it is. "Two movies" isn't notable, but "One movie that's a major Hollywood production is, which is why I changed my vote. ----Isaac R 19:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I turned Sitting Target into an article to "establish notability". Kappa 05:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Yup, Sitting Target included Oliver Reed and Jill St. John. That's notable enough for me. But I'm easily amused. ;-) — RJH 05:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jonel 11:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The major Hollywood production is enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jake Morphonios

Nonsense. --W(t) 03:03, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete Xcali 03:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D - reverting vandalism to user votes, obvious BS. Fawcett5 04:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment User:66.20.180.32 has been vandalising the page by changing user votes. JamesBurns 06:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalized again, no vote. This IP certainly deserves a block. Grue 10:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bit Whore

Appears to be a dictionary/neologism page; poor attempt at being funny. MardukZero 03:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to geek. --Sn0wflake 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete However.. it made me laugh. <> Who 04:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Being an IT tech it didnt offend me, but I'm open minded, so change vote; agree with Phil.

What do you call 2 IT techs?

One too many.

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, BJAODN, oh yes, and demean the professions of those responsible. — Phil Welch 05:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 05:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MarukZero and Megan1967, also no references. Quale 11:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Affrodyetee 05:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Mozzerati

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as personal attack. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

St. Mitchell

Notability not established Samw 03:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A good speedy deletion candidate, but since it made it to the VfD... --Sn0wflake 03:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, looks like an attack page. Megan1967 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and marked as such. — Phil Welch 05:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Xcali 05:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — graffito — RJH 05:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as personal attack. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 29 May 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. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DawgHouse Entertainment

Article about a nonexistent record label. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball—Delete JeremyA 03:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and marked as such. — Phil Welch 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reason above. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable. Thue | talk 11:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this was VfDed, as it was already (and correctly) marked as a speedy; it was simply a bit of silliness by a bored adolescent. I've deleted it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hamed Eissa

Non-notable (one hit in Google) and overall not worthy of the Wikipedia. Delete. --Sn0wflake 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and marked as such. — Phil Welch 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • By which speedy criteria? Thue | talk 11:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Am I misinterpreting "Very short articles with little or no context"? — Phil Welch 23:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Doesn't appear notable. But I enjoyed seeing the long template stack... :) — RJH 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 11:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jannali East Public School

I always try to give a measure of kindness to school articles; however, this one is a fairly obvious vanity page (excessive use of "they", etc.). No part of the article seems useful or notable. Deltabeignet 03:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep almost all schools, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments for discussion. Kappa 03:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm usually in favour of keeping schools, but not public primary schools with notability somewhere in negative numbers territory. Unless something big has happened there, it's nothing but school vanity. Harro5 04:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending Wikipedia:Schools resolution. — RJH 05:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 06:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup needed but schools are notable -CunningLinguist 06:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I went to this school, it is rather interesting, I just have not added everything yet, it will be good. Just give it a chance, please, I beg you. -Sam15 08:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could possibly do with trimming to get rid of trivia and ephemera, but the research is good. You've got a Hansard reference to Barry Collier, NSW Assembly member for Miranda, talking about his visit to the school, so it can hardly be claimed that this is not a notable school: it's been noted! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Primary school established relatively recently with under 200 students. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I had to rescue this because someone thought schools were speedy delete worthy! BeBop 15:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rescued one or two like that lately. It's worth keeping an eye on the deletion log because a couple of admins are rather trigger-happy when it comes to school stubs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DS1953 15:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the list of 2003 teachers and the list of sports supervisors. There isn't much left now so Sam15 has some work to do. I am going to start notifying nominators when they put up stuff like this. Too many editors who don't participate in the system are tagging articles and not looking back.   —Teknic^T-M-C 17:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. --Unfocused 03:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 08:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, also, why was the list of teachers deleted? It's good. Can I put on a list of the teachers from this year? - User:Sam15

It's not really encyclopedic. The names of the staff members aren't really that important. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and make room for additional helpings of BEEFSTEW. —RaD Man (talk) 00:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Account 21:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While not great it does contain information that can be expanded on. Vegaswikian 06:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2_the_Ranting_Gryphon

• Delete. nn.
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic vanity article--not a notable person. -- Krishva 03:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I found this article started by a fan and edited it to clean it up, clarify elements, and proceed with a proper entry. Like the entries surrounding such members of filk fandom as Leslie Fish and Heather Alexander, 2 is an actual producer of original material. In other words, he's not just some schmuck getting a vanity piece on Wikipedia; he's actually created original art, writing, and has made a living within fandom. As long as he is more than just a fanboy geek, he -and all others who work as semi- or full-fledged-pros- should be considered for an entry.
  • Also, he didn't start the article and hence this is not a vanity piece. -- Sylvan012 04:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • (Sylvan012 originally posted this unsigned in the discussion area of this template; moved into normal discussion by Almafeta 06:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC))
• Do Not Delete. Who defines "a notable person"? As it is, he's produced original works, is rather well known in his fundamental community, and makes his living in this fashion. -- Sylvan012 11:09pm, May 29, 2005 (Central Time Zone)
• Keep. "Not notable" is a matter of opinion, and a poor justification for the deletion of a page. As a musician, a stand-up comedian who regularly performs, and with his weekly radio program having an audience of thousands, I think he's definately notable enough to stay around. Almafeta 04:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, note: A page about this comedian has already been put up for VfD twice, under a different name; it survived the first vote, however, it was re-nominated and deleted within a month by User:WhisperToMe because he felt 'it did not get enough attention from the community.' That this page was recreated later by someone unrelated to that vote should be considered before voting on this VfD. Almafeta 06:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Xcali 05:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just to counter the "notable is a matter of opinion" argument, which is a non-argument. The guy is a podcaster, for God's sake, how many thousands of those are there? And any musician that is unknown to allmusic.com and artistdirect.com, then they are by definition not notable. RickK 05:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 07:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hardly notable if the person is just a podcaster. -- Grumpyhan 08:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanded the article some, as I was in the process of doing before this vote came along. Most podcasters don't make a living off of their DVD sales. Almafeta 23:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn as expressed by RickK. --FCYTravis 17:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 00:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - RickK may have his comments about this being a vanity entry, but -honestly- it's still the entry of a professional comedian who is no less famous than others who have listings such as Leslie Fish. --Sylvan012 22:40, 29 May 2005 (Central Time)
• Comment. 2 is pretty well known within the furry fandom, and certainly counts as notable within that community, but I don't know how notable he'd be considered in the world as a whole. Loganberry 02:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Perhaps merge into an article on furry fandom or shock radio in general, but 2 does not merit his own wikipedia page. Stiv 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (Mountain)
  • History shows the above vote was cast by 67.173.255.141, not by Stiv. Almafeta 03:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My mistake; I forgot to log in before casting my vote. My motion for deletion still stands for the reasons stated. -- Stiv 05:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Prangton 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Probably a vanity page. Making money on DVDs doesn't mean anything, DVD pirates also make money on DVDs as does Bob the happy Best Buy salesperson. Neither of these people are notable. Keffy 05:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-noteable outside furry fandom. --MWMiller 05:17, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• Comment As this page has been up for a week with more than 2/3 of votes going for deletion, should this page be deleted? -- Grumpyhan 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. Nightwatch 05:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. I'm a big fan of the guy, but even I have to admit that he isn't encyclopedia material.
• Keep.. In an ever-expanding and updated internet encylopedia, I feel that we need to keep the concept of "notable people" rather loose. I don't feel its a vanity page since he appears to be a regular contributer to the artistic and broadcasting community.
  • Above vote made by 67.183.18.143, not that it matters at this point. Almafeta 02:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable - Tεxτurε 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alphistia

A fictional country from a Geocities site. I'm afraid I can't see which part of this belongs in Wikipedia. Deltabeignet 03:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete Xcali 03:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete. -- Hoary 03:56, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, micronations cruft. Megan1967 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronationscruft. Note also that the original editor blanked the entire page, including the VfD header, and left us a profane comment. RickK 06:02, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Super 8-Bit Brothers

Advertising or band vanity, take your pick. Deltabeignet 03:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertising. Nifboy 05:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete --Xcali 05:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Sn0wflake 07:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tag T Champs

The article claims this team began comepeting in the WWE last month, but there is no record of them having won the tag championships, or of the team they supposedly beat having held the titles recently. Hoax. Harro5 04:05, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These tag "teams" change about as often as a typical person changes socks. --Xcali 05:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as hoax List of World Tag-Team Champions shows that neither this zero-google-hit tag team nor BOD (who aren't currently together, seeing as how they're on different shows) have recently been the tag team champions, and that only Two Man Power Trip and the Dudley Boys have beat BOD for the tag team championship. --EvilZak 05:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion Obvious hoax, no discussion needed -- Paulley 20:29, 30 May 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. Postdlf 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SHINE

No, not cinematic shlock this time: blatant advertising for some Singaporean jamboree. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 05:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Xcali 05:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D advertisement Fawcett5 04:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• If this is advertising, so is this "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2005". Then we should delete Expo 2005, shouldn't we? .... comment added at 06:40, 2005 May 31 by 160.96.97.251
  • Why should the claim that SHINE is advertising imply that Expo 2005 is advertising? (Incidentally, please sign your contributions to talk and VfD pages. You do this by hitting the twiddle key four times: "~~~~". Thank you.) -- Hoary 07:04, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Keep. Some googling establishes clear notability, it's a big event. I've started to try to remove the advert/promo tone. func(talk) 08:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. Sounds like a notable festival, worthy of an encyclopedic article. Hey, if I can write an article about a for-profit BDSM convention, then surely others can write articles about youth festivals? — JIP | Talk 08:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete still looks like advertising. JamesBurns 07:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Have a look at BoundCon (which I wrote) or Expo 2005. Wikipedia certainly seems to allow articles about organised public events, even for-profit ones. Perhaps the article should be edited to give a more neutral, less enthuatistic view? Maybe trim down the external links? — JIP | Talk 15:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. To those demanding its removal for being an advertisement, why dont you be bold and change its tone instead of simply voting delete?--Huaiwei 12:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. What is wrong with you deletionists? This is a very notable festival, will probably be annual, and even endorsed by the Government of Singapore in itself. It suffered NPOV problems, but what do you want to do. Wait I know! Lets delete Hari Raya Puasa, or Deepavali! Yeah! Excellent idea! Because its advertising! Heck, lets delete Culture of Singapore! Yeah! After all, if you don't even recognise the notability of this festival (which is quite a recent development and hence does not have elaboration of the topic by many editors currently), why would you recognise the notability of those articles? -- Natalinasmpf 15:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important event, significant to youth culture. Vsion 06:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For once I say keep. Although I've been out of touch from stuff happening in SG for a year now, experience (haha) tells me that any SG-government-funded/organised propagandafest is notable. :) -Hmib 08:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL!!!! :D--Huaiwei 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — Instantnood 15:16, Jun 12, 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, could be mrged - SimonP 02:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Stopped pipe

I doubt that this could ever become encyclopedic. It's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, also. — A.M. 04:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• RedirectVorash 04:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this is important in the acoustics of woodwind instruments, where a stopped pipe produces a sound an octave lower than an open pipe of the same length, and contains only odd-numbered harmonics. I can't find a page that covers this: it's neither at musical acoustics nor at woodwind instrument. I would be glad to write a section about this, but I'm not sure where. platypeanArchcow 04:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's at Resonance#Music. — A.M. 04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to musical acoustics; I agree with Platypean's comment above. This is an important item in the science of musical acoustics. The clarinet, the pan pipes, organ pipes and other instruments demonstrate this behavior and it needs to be expanded somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, keep and expand; I see Kappa is working on it. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Merging with Resonance#Music is also fine with me: I just want to make sure this topic gets written up somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough -CunningLinguist 06:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Resonance#Music. Agree that it's an important topic and could be expanded on the Resonance page, but doesn't need a separate article. If you do keep it, consider moving it to Open and stopped pipes rather than two separate articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. JamesBurns 07:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Austin Woulfe

Uncaught vanity platypeanArchcow 04:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vorash 04:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nateji77 05:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D - yawn. Fawcett5 04:22, 30 May 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. Postdlf 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disassociate

This had a VFD before that stated keep; although it's mentioned in Allmusic.com (according to User:Wyllium), the article itself is dead-end. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Vorash 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Mentioned in Allmusic; this page indicates they've toured at least from Providence, Rhode Island down to Maryland; seems notable enough per WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 05:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar's assessment. Kappa 06:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per what Meelar said -CunningLinguist 06:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Meelar. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hmmmm non notable. JamesBurns 07:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Frjwoolley 18:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very non-notable. Only 47 google hits [2] --MarSch 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gurl

At best transwiki to Wiktionary. Eixo 05:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Girl. --Sn0wflake 07:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV essay. Phils 10:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for too many reasons reasons to mention --Doc (?) 14:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect? Gurl is a common spelling of girl, and is only logical to redirect! --Sn0wflake 16:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• L33tspeak. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:01, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Too lame to be worth a redirect. Haikupoet 00:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Girl. JamesBurns 07:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete so this won't stay in the history! redirect could always be recreated. Grue 10:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete and only then redirect and only if you really have to. Mozzerati 19:57, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Delete This article is pointless and has no real value. Spacedude 02:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Girl. Harpalus 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) As stated before, pointless article, based on a term not commonly used. Unknown usage, biased POV standpoint, (such as the negative connotations towards modern punk bands, and the statement "Males of all ages should stay away from gurls at all times.". Editing is completely pointless, as that is essentially the entire article. Redirect recommended.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First cut studios

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 05:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Decius 10:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, possible hoax even since the website provided doesn't exist. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable/hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 29 May 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 - made into a disambig - SimonP 02:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Paul

No evidence of notability, see also. --W(t) 05:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Local studio seems to exist in Cleveland, although it looks like they have lost their domain name to squatters. Pass. — RJH 05:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, very short article with little or no context. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Decius 08:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• dab or write an article on the rugby league player. (not sure about the musician, but he links there)Dunc|☺ 16:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now disambiguation. Jeremy Paul is an international rugby player see [3] and plays Super 12 for the ACT Brumbies winning two Super 12 championships. I hope to write an article on him when I have time. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the disambig per Capitalistroadster, remove the non-notable producer that originally inspired this VfD. Quale 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an empty dab page, what's the point? JamesBurns 07:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Quale. Remove the nn producer, Keep the disambiguation. Frjwoolley 18:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the dab per Capitalistroadster, zap the producer. BTW, Dunc, the Aussie plays rugby union, not league. Dale Arnett 07:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I normally would say delete the DAB, but leaving it, even if all entries are red, keeps the old text out of that name space. Vegaswikian 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robb Thomas

Nice to have the vanity and fiction parts neatly separated out for a change. --W(t) 05:27, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Such a shame this article doesn't 'Conform to the Wikipedia Standards for Inclusion'. Transwiki to Source. - Lucky13pjn 05:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity & original essay --Xcali 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deas Dae’mar is a "Wheel of Time" character. This is fanfic. Do not transwiki. RickK 06:05, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Keep rewrite. RickK 09:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep new version. --Sn0wflake 07:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The page is saved, praise be Eixo! Or what? Eixo 08:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the new article. —Xezbeth 08:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nice new article Kappa 11:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - somebody turned vanity into a football bio article? I love it--Sophitus 18:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and encourage this sort of transformation in the future. — Phil Welch 23:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable football player. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Associated Students of the University of Arizona

Does this really deserve an article separate from University of Arizona? — A.M. 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — no substantive content. Doesn't every major university have a student association? — RJH 05:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with University of Arizona -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with University of Arizona, that's what we've done with similar articles in the past. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Entire content (other than the vfd and stub templates) is "The student government at the University of Arizona."; there isn't anything to be merged. — A.M. 07:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as there is absolutely nothing to merge. --Sn0wflake 07:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There really is nothing to merge. Quale 07:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete. -- Jonel 18:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to merge. JamesBurns 07:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Consensus has been achieved. There is essentially nothing to this article to merge, as long as the University of Arizona article mentions that there is a student government organization, which is pretty much a given at any large U.S. university. Why someone smart enough to attend there (presumably) somehow thought that was an encyclopedia article is beyond me. Deleted. Rlquall 11:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hoverdef

0 google hits, so I don't think this needs redirecting to trillian. --W(t) 05:36, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete makes no sense --Xcali 05:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as dicdef, other delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as notability-free. Alai 02:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. JamesBurns 07:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism with no apparent usage. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete wiktionary should not lis words which aren't in use. Mozzerati 19:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skaveman City Staff

I have no idea what this is, except that it seems to be the username of the person that made it (presonal vanity) and makes no sense. Nothing on Google except a few posts on some forum. Almost patent nonsense. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 05:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 05:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sholtar 05:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, zero Google hits for "skaveman city". RickK 06:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Double-U Tee Eff -CunningLinguist 06:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, likely vanity. --Sn0wflake 07:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:58, 2005 May 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 DELETE. Postdlf 23:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ourai

Does wiktionary want romulan? --W(t) 05:39, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

memory alpha might. Nateji77 05:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 05:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nateji77 05:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as is, but it's curious. Romulan isn't a notable language like Klingon; few words were created for it -- which means that Ourai means something in the Star Trek canon. A planet, a starship, a weapon? That might be worth keeping. Almafeta 06:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, otherwise delete.- Mailer Diablo 06:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. --Sn0wflake 07:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Romulcruft. Jayjg ^(talk)
• I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 07:27, 30 May 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 - moved to userspace - SimonP 02:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

List of interesting Google Maps satellite images

Wikipedia is not a… catalogue of interesting aerial views of the US? --W(t) 05:49, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Relegate to a user page. This is an incredibly cool page, but alas it is neither encyclopedic, nor very neutral (interesting is a value judgement). My commendation, however, to the compiler. It's quite interesting. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "List of Notable Aerial Images" and include links to other aeriel views, not just Google. -CunningLinguist 06:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable according to what criteria? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or, for the sake of reaching a veredict, concur with CunningLinguist. --Sn0wflake 07:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep concur with CunningLinguist. Klonimus 08:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is a interesting page. NSR 08:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the title and content is opinionated. Userfy. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Google Maps. - SimonP 15:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keepsta - it is da bomb page. it is da coolest thing in da hood these days, homies.
• Move to a user page per SocratesJedi. platypeanArchcow 16:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can be expanded to include Canada and elsewhere. Notable subject matter as the Google Aerial Photos/Maps have become an Internet phenomenon of late. If there is a Google Maps article, make sure it's well linked, but I don't see a need to merge as someone would probably suggest spinning the list off into its own article anyway. The list certainly needs expansion. If the title is at issue, simply rename it, though it should still be specifically identified as Google Maps images. 23skidoo 18:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to user space as it isn't encyclopaedic. Hedley 19:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. This is cool, but not very encyclopedic. Sarg 19:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why give Google any more free advertising? Kaibabsquirrel 20:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userpagify Kinda cool though. Fawcett5 20:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise rename to something less POV. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete. Cool, but not encyclopedic. Denni☯ 00:18, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Delete. This is encyclopedia and not link farm. Pavel Vozenilek 00:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep expand to include Canada and other places Revolución 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment not second vote. Use the {{coor dms}} template to add the coordinates given in the link to individual articles (google up a decimal to dms converter). I already did so for Hoover Dam as an example how to do it. Fawcett5 04:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete. Would make a damned cool personal web page, but it's not an encyclopedia article. I like it a lot. It belongs, but not here. --Unfocused 04:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is defunct - sites like perljam and google sightseeing are doing a much better job - why not just link there from the Google Maps page?
• Userfy. However cool, an article whose concept is basically one person's notion of what's interesting is fundamentally not encyclopedic. carmeld1 19:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. -- RHaworth 19:49, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - move site links to Google Maps, Aerial photograph, and similar pages, delete individual image links. akaDruid 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (original research as to what is 'interesting'), or move to user-space. James F. (talk) 09:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keepthis page, it's informing and interesting
• Userfy or delete - not an encyclopedia article, original research. Just being "cool" isn't a reason to keep opinion pieces. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, user can decide whether to delete it. — Asbestos | Talk 23:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We should be sure to remove the link at Google Maps if and when this page is userified/deleted/etc. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not encylopedic and interesting is completly subjective. Vegaswikian 06:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - This page is valuable in many ways, and is a good example of how great wikipedia can be. Maybe change title to reflect something less POV --The_stuart 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a good example of how people will vote to keep anything, even pages that are just "I like these pictures". The page violates "no original research", it violates verifiability (define interesting), it violates "not mere collections of external links" (WP:NOT), it certainly violates the spirit of "not collections of photographs with no text to go with the articles", violates "not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", and could even be interpreted as violating "not travel guides". People rail about arguments like "not notable" not being allowed reasons for deletion, but this time, it's the people voting keep that are ignoring the written rules. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Horseman 20:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reasoning? -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it is a list of places where satellite imagery is most interesting (whether Google provided the images or not) and as such may well end up being named and classified as such, but surely it needs to be kept - Bevo 15:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy - I created this page when its contents had made Google Maps painfully bloated. I'd proposed that the list wasn't appropriate in the article namespace but a separate article was the compromise instead. I'll volunteer to put it in my userpage if that's what the vote result is here... -Joshuapaquin 16:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Creeping normalcy

Dict def. Sort of. --W(t) 06:22, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup/wikify. Notable term -CunningLinguist 06:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Sn0wflake 07:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept/strategy. Kappa 11:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was sceptical, but google quickly shows that this is a significant usage. It appears that Jared Diamond uses the term in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. (Someone would have to verify this as I don't have the book.) This alone would probably make it encyclopedic and the ref should be added to the article if it exists. Quale 16:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roy Edison Jordan II

Doesn't make a case for notability; delete. Emiao 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN = Mailer Diablo 06:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Not notable person (for WP atleast). Feydey 09:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D Born, went to school, worked, died. Seems pretty NN. Fawcett5 20:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unable to verify. If he is verifiable as President of the "world's largest tile company", then I would reconsider. --Unfocused 04:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

North (band)

This band is, naturally, hard to search for, with no more information than this. artistdirect has a page for a band called North but no information about any releases, and this page also doesn't list any albums. allmusic says they performed in the 90s, not the 70s and 80s as the article says, and they also have no information about any albums. RickK 06:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Vorash 11:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain your vote. If my discussion above doesn't convince you, what are you basing your vote on? RickK 21:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing to Delete :) Vorash 22:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. I tried to google some of the name in the paragraph which was removed to the talk page, but no luck. Kappa 11:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone manages to verify if it passes WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sarg 19:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of compliance with Wikimusic guidelines or other notability. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Informational comments.
  • The text is a summary from a less sparse one, but to me no more helpful, that may be seen in the page history of North.
  • Some history, FWIW:
    • AFAIK the vanity or fancruft text i lk above was the first on the subject on WP.
    • I recently cleaned it with a harsh detergent & moved it from North to North (band) (subject of this VfD). (And created North (disambiguation), w/ a lk to it.)
    • 3 days later, someone created North band (note lack of paren) with the same or similar text (now in the merged history).
    • I turned North band into a redir as part of the merging it into North (band)'s history.
  • The nearly 2-year-old lk to North and later North (band), from Music of Poland#Black Metal Scene may be a clue, or an indication of hard-to-verify notability, or irrelevant -- i created North (band) without knowing that i was satisfying a red-lk by doing so.

  --Jerzy·t 17:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rehan

Vanity, hoax. The only Rehan mentioned on imdb is a Pakistani actor in a 1967 movie, several years before this one was supposedly born. The Raghu Romeo article has no mention of him. RickK 06:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity/hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 07:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently Mr. Vaid is the author. He's asking over at the Reference desk for the page to be deleted because he "FORGOT TO SAY THAT THIS PERSON WAS A CO-PRODUCER WITHIN THE USER NAME". Delete, unverifiable vanity hoax nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Toytoy 04:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehan article needs to be deleated asap, and people on top agree on this fact.delete article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehan from the wikipedia website.

This is the third time this has cropped up. Is somebody deleting it from the VfD page or what? RickK 21:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - un-notable, and for crying out loud, leave the page alone until this vote is over, so people can acutally see what they're voting on. Don't blank it or vandalize it with the copyright notice! Blackcats 22:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable/vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 22:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I nowiki'd the page rank booster in it while the thing sits here. It's just another piece of vanity. Geogre 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; for all the reasons above. jglc | t | c 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jbaber 20:30, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Craig Van Ravens

Possible hoax, Google returned nothing. Was marked as a speedy by someone else. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. RickK 07:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• D hoax. Fawcett5 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Xtreme Strike

• Non-notable gaming clan. Some flavour of recruitment advertisment too. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sholtar | talk 07:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Sn0wflake 07:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Martg76 08:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D vanity Fawcett5 20:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Unnotable clancruft. Nestea 11:44, 30 May 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 02:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rapid Deployment Forces

This is a duplicate of Rapid Deployment Force, which according to both articles, is the official name of the organization. - Amerika 07:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

NO DELETE Rapid Deployment Forces(plural) is the correct name. As creator, I inadvertently made a Rapid Deployment Force (singular) which is the duplicate that can be delelted. This pag, Rapid Deployment Forces is the correct and current version which needs to be saved. Thank you. Nobs 18:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - The plural form appears to be the correct one. The Congressional Budget Office uses the plural form ([4]). Recommend withdrawal of nomination, redirect of Rapid Deployment Force to Rapid Deployment Forces, and correction of article to use correct name. I will implement the second and third ones. -- Jonel 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Thank you. Nobs 19:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Nobs. Military units are notable in my book.Capitalistroadster 02:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep no duplication since there is a redirect. Mozzerati

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism

Where to begin? This is 1-sentence description of a term used obscurely as an invective by an obscure set of libertarians who call themselves geolibertarians. The same term is used much more commonly in a different sense, but the subject of the article as it stands hardly merits an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, this text might well be a copyvio from http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/neolib.htm , although I can't find anything on that page that indicates a copyright. - Nat Krause 09:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge in to libertarianism if it really deserves mention. Phils 10:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into libertarianism. Ive never heard of this before but if its deemed notable enough then merge unless it can be greatly expanded. -CunningLinguist 22:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Neoconservatism has a page... this can have one too... needs expansion... gren 10:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • By that logic, we could never delete any page that begins with Neo- and ends with -ism. - Nat Krause 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - self-admitted subset [Pedantic point: what's 'neo' - "new" - about it ?] --Simon Cursitor 07:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you want to merge where? This word in this sense is an extremely rare pejorative term. I'm okay with merging to geolibertarianism. - Nat Krause 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - and merge Neolibertarian with it. The term "neolibertarian" has two meanings, depending on who is using it. The so called paleolibertarians use it to mean libertarians, who aren't followers of Murray N. Rothbard. The so called geolibertarians use it to mean libertarians, who aren't followers of Henry George. It is, as said, a pejorative term, and that should be explained in the article, in both uses of the word. I have never met anybody, who calls him/herself a "neolibertarian". As I havent met anybody who calls him/herself a "neoliberal", either, but yet there is a long article about Neoliberalism. That, too, is a pejorative term, constructed by socialists to lump together things they opposed, no matter if those things didn't have anything else in common than the fact, that they were opposed by socialists. 213.243.154.41 13:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize there was a neolibertarian article. The two articles, as anon notes, are using completely different senses of the word, and the one used in neolibertarian is much more common in my experience. Incidentally, I don't think it's true that "neolibertarian" is never self-applied: check out http://www.neolibertarian.net . - Nat Krause 13:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, at least the group which self-applies the term is much smaller than the group of which it is applied by others. An article about "neolibertarianism" should however explain both uses of the word. anon 16:54, 31 May 2005(UTC)
• Keep, I have seen this term used numerous times. Afcassidy

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lebanon under Syrian protection

The title of the article itself is NPOV: a lot of lebanese think that Syria didn't enter to protect lebanon, that why there was a Cedar Revolution. There's an other article talking about the same thing: Syrian occupation of Lebanon. (If you want I suggest another article name: Syrian presence in Lebanon). 500LL 09:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Controversial title. Moving all relevant content from this article and Syrian occupation of Lebanon to Syrian presence in Lebanon, as the nominator suggests, might be worth considering, too. Phils 10:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge and rename - this title is wildly POV--Doc (?) 12:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; fork of Syrian occupation of Lebanon; move any content there, and do not redirect. Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Revolución 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Notable occupation. Klonimus 08:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — content is non-neutral and redundant with Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The relocation of the page to Syrian presence in Lebanon also seems to be a pasty, non-neutral white-wash. It was a military occupation, not a vacation tour. :) — RJH 18:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Under Syrian protection is a very POV title, but so is Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The move to "Syrian presence in Lebanon" was done by a Lebanese editor and there are many reasons for why this title is more neutral. The main reason is that no international organization ever called it an occupation, and that many Lebanese Shi'a (which make up 30% of the Lebanese population) are actually very much Pro-Syrian and never termed it an occupation either. Yuber^(talk) 19:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

First, the dispute over "occupation" and "presence" should be in the talk page of the article. Second, I moved the "Syrian occupation..." to "Syrian presence...", as a step before this issue will be solved and to prevent POV. Personnaly I would prefer the title "Syrian occupation of Lebanon".500LL 20:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

How about the title "Syrian military presence in Lebanon"?Yuber^(talk) 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

All talk about the title of the article, Occupation or presence is moved and should be continued in Talk:Syrian presence in Lebanon. This page is only to discuss the deletion of Lebanon under Syrian protection. 500LL 13:01, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per RJH carmeld1 22:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 07:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV title --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 00:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Needle (chess)

Non-notable chess playing software. There are hundreds of chess programs but only several dozen are notable due to their historical or commercial importance, or participation/success in the World Computer Chess Championship. The article admits that this engine is of beginner strength. Website shows some software development in the first half of 2004 but nothing for over a year. Quale 10:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

D - no evidence that the algorithm employed has any special novelty or represents an advance in anyway. In fact, it's primitive and NN. Fawcett5 20:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn --Xcali 21:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even less notable than the Pyotr. Sjakkalle 07:01, 30 May 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, only an external link. Thue | talk 21:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Highly cited researcher

Useless topic. Seems to have been created just to insert one link, though I can't tell if it's an advertisement. Fredrik | talk 11:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Spam, no content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No content except spam link. Quale 16:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of deleted page with same content. --cesarb 17:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• SD as solely consisting of an ad. Fawcett5 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy --Xcali 21:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Borg (slang)

I believe this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:No_original_research. Etimbo | Talk 11:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I removed the last paragraph. The rest of it seems fine to me. – Pladask 13:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • The rest of it is wholly biased. In tidying up Wiktionary:borg, I did a Google search. Even in a few minutes of searching it was clear that the verb sense of Wiktionary:Borg is applied to far more than to Microsoft, and the meaning given in this article is at best very misleading. People use it to refer to the actions of Intel, Christianity, fundamentalists, Kevin "Captain Cyborg" Warwick, and even amateur photographers. One could tidy this up, but I'm not convinced that there's an encyclopaedia article to be had, here. The sole purpose of this article as it stands seems to be to duplicate content that already exists in Common criticisms of Microsoft. And correcting it to describe the actual use of the word in its title would yield a dictionary entry. We know where those go. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• This was duplicate content. You could have just merged from Borg (disambiguation) directly to Common criticisms of Microsoft rather than creating a new article with a VFD notice pre-applied. Delete. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Resistance is futile. — Phil Welch 23:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dict. def. of questionable accuracy. - SimonP 03:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 03:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Barton Hill

This is only one house out of a number in the school. The content contains much that is non-encyclopedic including names of individuals who are not notable. Any useful content can be merged with Marlborough College article. Dabbler 11:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment:I have put in a short section about the various houses at MC in the main article. Dabbler 00:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with dabbler, Merge what little content is useful and delete--Sophitus 18:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• M and D as suggested Fawcett5 20:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hello, my name is Bill.
• Hi Bill, how's it going? I'm Norris.
• Nice to meet you.

Comment: the above entries were made by the same IP address which created and made the Barton Hill entry and then deleted most of the material after the VfD was placed on the page. Dabbler 11:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The comments look to have been made from the same network, but not the same IP. Yeah, merge and delete, but Dabbler chill out. WikiWarden 23:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing left to merge. JamesBurns 07:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Votes by new users and/or likely sockpuppets were discounted. Postdlf 23:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index

Article part of user:Argyrosargyrou ongoing campaign on Wikipedia to attack Turkish people, article POV ridden, has no purpose on Wikipedia. Suggest it be deleted E.A 12:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There was a Holocaust against Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, Time for Turkey to accept responsibility, I was told hundred of stories from people that lost whole families, the racisms came from the Turkish side. Elias
  • possible sockpuppet- User:67.188.241.70 has made two contribs, both on the VfDs relating to the Turkey/Greece/Cyrpus dispute. Feco 16:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an excellent article that clearly shows how the Greek people of Turkey were systimatically terminated by the Turkish authorities. The Greek genocide was part of the big plan of the Ottoman Turkey to exterminate all of her minorities (look at the Armenian Genocide) ... and that is exactly what they achieved. Please do not allow them to keep on deniying these HORIFIC facts!
  • Yet another possible sockpuppet. Anon's 212.205.253.21 only contributions have been to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hellenic Genocide and this VfD. Sarg 20:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article contains usefull external links to many official documents, concerning genocedes, commited by Turkey. Tabib 07:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • possible sockpuppet: Dionis' only actions are votes to keep on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hellenic Genocide and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index, a revert to Argyro's version of the Hellenic Genocide and a comment in favour of Argyrosargyrou on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Argyrosargyrou#Outside_view (Special:Contributions/Dionis Dionis' contributions). - Snchduer 16:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This article is part of the Hellenic Genocide page and also ties in with pages on the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. It presents internationaly recognised facts and figures concerning the holocaust perpetuated by the Turks in Asia-Minor and elsewhere. This holocaust is equivalent to the NAZI holocaust and this pages deletion is equivalent to trying to conceal the NAZI holocust and rewrite history. E.A is a well known Turkish Cypriot nationalist and apologist and is responsible for repeated Vandalism of the Cyprus dispute page whenever anyone adds anything that shows Turks in a bad light and reveals the fact and figures about the atrocities it perpetrated.--Argyrosargyrou 14:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article which presents facts should be keeped, votes for deletion with reasons like "there were lots of similar cases in history" or "somebody was insulted in discussions" should not be treated as reason to delete information. Also, VfD should not be used as method to constrain some factually substantiated information. --Gvorl 13:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It can never be pleasing to read about such horrible facts, but ignoring or even denying them is even worse. The article must be kept. --Spryom 07:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article may be poor quality, but the persistent VfD requests look like an Assume Bad Faith campaign against Argyrosargyrou. This, along with the other articles he has contributed, should be revised to a higher quality of article. Equally, he should assume good faith in anyone trying to revise these articles. Phlogistomania 14:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I'm not sure in what form. It seems that a long-continued hostility between two ethnicities is worth noting, and a list of dates and pointers to individual events in that hostility is probably useful. POV as it stands, though, but should be improvable. Frjwoolley 18:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is POV, it needs a lot of editing but there are some very useful facts. If an article is just stating some facts that someone doesn't like, does not mean it is anti-something. —Geraki 2005-06-13 T 14:09 Z

• Delete user:Argyrosargyrou has created or manipulated a family of articles bordering on racism towards Turkish people: Hellenic Genocide (up for deletion), Cyprus issue (deleted), Cyprus problem (deleted) Cyprus dispute (currently protected following his ongoing reverts which earned him a 3RR ban) as well as contributing to a host of others which show only contempt for Turkish people, Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index being one of them. And now i am being insulted as being a "well know Turkish Cypriot nationalist" --E.A 14:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is yet another anti-Turkish rant. A lot of peoples may be guilty of similar histories of genocides, or killings of whole populations. This is no reason to include a thing like this in an encyclopedia. Simply racist. - Snchduer 18:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Revisionism and racism have no place in Wikipedia, except as articles. This seems to call for a RfA. Sarg 19:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons others have stated. --Xcali 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there has now been an RfC filed on Argyrosargyrou. RickK 21:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this type of biased entries serve hatred propaganda and racism nothing else. -Cansın 23.47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - information about verified events can be merged into other articles. These events can be addressed in neutral manner - Skysmith 08:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - having a chip on one's shoulder is not good for creating NPOV... gren 10:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons as for Hellenic Genocide. --Kiand 21:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles like this are sprouting left and right. Hopefully the RfC on the primary contributor will address the problem. Feco 04:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. -- ChrisO 07:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov. Grue 11:04, 3 Jun 2005
• Delete Reeks partisanship. Imagine seeing this in a printed encyclopædia. Adoniscik 17:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Qotpp

This term is a neologism. It should be deleted. Edward 13:10, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• I concur. Almost nonsense, definitely nonsensical. Delete. Mr Bound 13:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I infer that there was a change in management at 24.83.225.248's place of employment back in January. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. — JIP | Talk 14:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D concur nonsensical neologism. Fawcett5 20:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Mostly harmless joke, so move to BJAODN; if not, userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:50, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• BJAODN. — Phil Welch 23:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleteable. Denni☯ 01:31, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 07:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anuvind

I can't tell what this is meant to be, but it certainly isn't notable. --Canderson7 14:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• According to this, Vind and Anuvind are minor characters in the Mahabharata. I've removed the final two paragraphs (attempt by a 12-year-old to use Wikipedia as a chat room). Uncle G 16:39, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge to Mahabharata. -- Jonel 19:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor characters in the Mahabharata would be better, I think. 4.245.77.63 14:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be fine with me as well. - Jonel 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Query - is there a policy on minor figures in religious texts? -- BD2412 ^talk 20:48, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would think they would get at least the same coverage as minor characters under WP:FICT, which suggests a "list of..." either in the Mahabharata article or a separate list of minor characters in the Mahabharata article. - Jonel 15:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable minor characters. JamesBurns 07:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Something on this person should be in the encyclopedia but the present text is not of any value. - SimonP 03:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This article went through several versions during the discussion period. Despite the revisions, the general concensus remained a decision to delete the content as original research. To be honest, the current version strikes me as more dictionary-definition than original research but dictionary definitions are also listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I believe that the current version remains a "delete" decision but without prejudice if someone wants to contribute the current content to Wiktionary. I also note that the article is an orphan. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childlike mentality

POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Possible Merge? I would like to make it clear that I only created the article because I could not think of a proper context for the material: if people do have an idea as to how to merge content with more appropriate articles, that'd work better for everyone. Cwolfsheep 15:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Context isn't the problem. This would be a perfectly good article if "childlike mentality" were an established concept and you were just writing about it. But you're trying to establish it. That's what makes it "original research" and thus inappropriate for an encylopedia. ----Isaac R 17:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Keep: I believe I've resolved the issues at hand and have implemented Tomer's suggestions. Cwolfsheep 23:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Jayjg. The references don't support use of the term "childlike mentality" for most of the behaviors listed in the article, so it's essentially a neologism. Article appears to simply be an excuse for a laundry list of humanist criticisms of religion. Humanist criticism of religion is encyclopedic, but this article isn't. Quale 16:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. <tongue position="glued to cheek">Or redirect to Examples of childlike tantrums.</tongue> Tomer ^TALK 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Keep. The article in its current form could use some fleshing out and probably needs a {{cleanup}} and appropriate {{stub}} attached to it, tho. I'd also like to commend User:Cwolfsheep for his patience and willingness to compromise in this process. Tomer ^TALK 22:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Solution? Actually, there's some valid criticism here. I've had my friends suggest its well written, but I keep thinking that maybe it'd belong more in a different wiki. If I just strip out or minimalize the religious content, would that resolve the conflict (Leave up the pop-culture & insult portions and/or migrate it to Wiktionary as defining the phrase?). Would it also be allowable if I just deleted it myself? I really don't want to end up banned or with talk pages that argue I should be: there's plenty of other stuff I write that isn't so "blaise." Cwolfsheep 18:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• The problem really isn't with the discussion of religious content (see secular humanism, rationalism, et al.). It is that this article is original research, and therefore doesn't really belong in the Wikipedia. Not sure about other wikis (this is the only one I work on, so my knowledge is limited). I don't think anyone is even remotely suggesting that you be banned (and if they do, they ought to be pointed to WP:BITE). Even though this article isn't encyclopedic, you are a helpful and welcome editor (good work especially on early voting) and I hope you stay and continue to improve our encyclopedia. -- Jonel 19:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• If you try to migrate to Wiktionary, you'll still have to convince people that the phrase "childlike mentality" isn't your own invention. As for putting the material in other articles: there's nothing to prevent you from doing that, but you'll have to deal with other contributors to those articles, who might think your contributions are POV or out of place. As long as deal with such disputes in an orderly manner that's respectful of the concerns of other contributors, there's no reason to fear getting banned. In any case, that's all beyond the scope of a VfD debate. ----Isaac R 19:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested a ban: but I did not know if getting a article pulled would raise any flags or not; its kinda embarassing, but I half suspected this was a shaky article based on subject matter. If you check the "uses," the term is definately not my invention. The only thing that was "invented" was the religious context: I was describing a set of behaviors that I could not directly assign to any other term, and was hoping someone had heard of one. The religious material should go there (probably under a fundamentalist article); the rest of the stuff can stay put, but at that point is more gramattical & would probably belong in Wiktionary. Cwolfsheep 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Your categorization of what you (and I have no doubt others of like mindset, including your aforementioned friends) call the "religious content" is worded in a strongly judgmental tone (read "POV"), and I don't see how that tone can possibly be extracted from the article without extracting all the content. In other words, it sounds like an opinion piece, an expression of an opinion which you're certainly entitled to hold, but which has no place in wikipedia. Maybe you could start Wikipolitics. :-) Tomer ^TALK 21:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Some person's POV rant against Christianity/religion in general. I might even go so far as to say that the article itself shows a childlike mentality. --Xcali 21:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my vote after the change to the article. It seems that this article would better titled "Childlike," and even then, it isn't likely to be much more than a dicdef. --Xcali 16:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not hearing anyone offer any solutions besides just deleting it. There seems to be a tie between "something can be done with it, just not here" & "delete the humanist rant". Bias is for delete. I'm not going to waste 4 more days on getting skewered: I know people get banned for pulling stunts, and I don't want to come across as having done so. If this was a stunt, I assure you I wouldn't have attempted to document it online or without linking to related topics. Cwolfsheep 21:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's really jumped on you. It may be unpleasant to have an article you clearly spent some time compiling almost immediately get slapped with a VfD sticker, but I don't think anyone's really railing against you for it, I just think the consensus is that its material is unencyclopedic and/or inappropriate for wikipedia...and I certainly don't think anyone has even thought "ban". Some of my comments may have sounded like skewering, and for that I apologize--I sometimes don't word things very diplomatically.  :-p I don't think it's a humanist rant, I think it's an antireligious rant. Like I said tho, you're entitled to your opinions, they're just not appropriate for WP article-space. You're certainly free to cut and paste the content to your userspace. User:Cwolfsheep#My views on religion or whatever. :-p Still trying to get my tongue unstuck... -t Tomer ^TALK 21:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. — Phil Welch 23:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Article "gutted"

I've removed the portions that seemed to offend people & moved that content to my user page as an "exiled article" (for lack of a better term). Cwolfsheep 22:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even after the above-mentioned removals, it's still POV and original research. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay, original research, and neologism, unless convincing references are provided that show that this specific phrase is in widespread use with a specific meaning that is not simply the ordinary meaning of the word "mentality" modified by the ordinary meaning of the adjective "childlike." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I appreciate the effort to improve the article, so I looked at it again. As an article, it's better, but the subject remains the problem. Dpbsmith succinctly points out why this subject is not encyclopedic and can't be made encyclopedic without proof that the phrase is used the way the article claims. I don't see that demonstrated in the provided references. No change in vote. Quale 01:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a change in vote. Should I just go ahead & delete the article now? Cwolfsheep 03:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't delete it yourself, only an admin can do that. I think you should wait for the VfD to run its course, and then an admin will come along and process the result. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Not great as it stands, but encyclopedic enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice against the re-creation of a valid article by the same name. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Frankish

Rant. Denni☯ 15:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete as a POV rant. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D Rant? Original research? Both? Who cares! Delete! Fawcett5 20:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. Desacration of the Buddha is covered under Taliban. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:43, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Comment: the content here is a rant and needs to be purged, but Kevin Frankish is a notable Toronto-area media personality who works for the ChumCity corporation and hosts Breakfast Television. So there should be a legitimate Kevin Frankish entry. –DeweyQ 23:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: DeweyQ is correct about the real Kevin Frankish. I would also like to add that Talk:Kevin Frankish and Talk:Speakers' Corner (television series) be also deleted. They contain the same content — it was a copy and paste job by the same IP. —Markaci 2005-06-3 T 01:47 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew House

Simple college student vanity. Fawcett5 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As an up and coming individual, this is a feasible stub article. --216.37.82.89 16:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• NN, feasible is to delete it. User please read which people are notable for inc. to wikipedia. Feydey 16:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 16:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete When he gets here, then write an article. We don't need to know who's coming. --Xcali 21:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant vanity. — Phil Welch 23:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if possible, otherwise delete obvious vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spencer Stoddard

I'm glad his parents were able to be ther for his birth. It's so hard being born alone. Denni☯ 16:16, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• delete BeBop 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Feydey 16:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. --Sn0wflake 16:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• D could have been speedied. Fawcett5 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, probably speedily. (You know you're getting old when you think: "Wow! Someone old enough to edit Wikipedia was born in 1996! That's like... really recent.") — Trilobite (Talk) 20:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesBurns 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seventh Strike, Driven To Violence, Alex Barclay, Special Air Mission 28000

Not notable, most probably vanity. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kyle Devies and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BubbaTek Productions also. —Xezbeth 16:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've also added three more related articles; I was too lazy to make individual VfDs. —Xezbeth 16:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Blatant vanity. Nuke'em all. Sarg 18:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Self promotion. JamesBurns 08:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. According to the 'article', this individual was a CEO before 20. Dubious Greppsie
• Delete I think I saw that movie, and it was called Air Force One. . . as for the rest not notable/vanity Hohokus 23:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge with Frederic William Henry Myers. Deathphoenix 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Methetherial

Insubstantial dicdef for a term which yields 100 results in Google. Delete. --Sn0wflake 16:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The vast majority of those 100-odd hits are Wikipedia mirrors, or random lists of words. If it's relevent, it could be added to the Frederic William Henry Myers article, but I don't personally see the need. — Asbestos | Talk 19:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. The wisdom of the world is not to be found exclusively on Google. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

  Who's going to expand it? No-one's heard of it, and no-one's touched it in over a year. — Asbestos | Talk 20:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Expansion is not only unlikely, but seems to be pointless, since the term is, apparently, used by that author alone, and thus is not notable enough to have an article on the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 22:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters, where was the term used by Myers? In a book or an article? Either way the original text would now be in the public domain. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:59, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with BD2412, Interpellation Klonimus 08:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Frederic William Henry Myers. The term doesn't appear to have much relevance beyond his writings. (Or perhaps BD2412 or Klonimus can show us some.) --Dcfleck 17:02, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Merge unless relevance outside Myers' writings can be demonstrated. carmeld1 23:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Frederic William Henry Myers. JamesBurns 08:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basava Premanand

• Delete. Delete this uninteresting article. No notable things found in this entry.

non notable 198.214.51.1 18:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't contain any interesting/additional info and also "non notable". Vorash 18:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep clearly notable. Publisher of the magazine the Indian Skeptic and chairman of the Indian CSICOP. prominently featured in several BBC documentaries amomg others the one hour documentary Secret Swami, broadcast in the UK and BBC World in 2004. Andries 19:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - First of all interesting is not a factor in whether an article should stay or be deleted. And how is this non-notable in any way? It is extremely notable, the man has been featured in BBC Documentaries and other news media and has a prominent role in Indian society. -CunningLinguist 22:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anon seems to be a POV warrior placing numerous VfD's on articles related to Hindusim, Gurus, et. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like Anon has an axe to grind. --Jävligsvengelska 19:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 5 "deletes" to 1 "keep" (anon and sockpuppet votes discounted) to 1 "merge". Rossami (talk) 03:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Embo

A night club in Tamworth isn't encyclopaedic. 8 or so hits on google for "The Embo" Tamworth. Hedley 19:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. If kept, it should be moved to The Embassy, Tamworth, or something. A search for '"The Embassy" Tamworth' finds over 1000 hits, most of which are related, however, the article seems to be straight advertising, so I vote delete. — Asbestos | Talk 19:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity for a non-notable business. Martg76 21:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep!! This is in no way a vanity article as it seems to provide a balanced view of both pros and cons of the establishment. At very least move to The Embassy Tamworth
• Keep!!. This is an informative article about an important and relevant venue in Tamworth!!
  • Sockpuppet votes crossed out. Both by the same anon IP user (very similiar IPs). Hedley 16:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, the IPs are different but the range has been used on VfDs for articles such as Mishing recently to sockpuppet the voting. Hedley 17:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, no need to delete this, a well written article (allbeit about a fairly non-notable place). If the need be, move to The Embassy, Tamworth. Ensure it's sufficiently well-linked from Tamworth pages etc too. Not vanity/advertising. UkPaolo 16:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Usual disambiguation title would be "The Embassy (Tamworth)", or maybe "The Embassy (club)" (though this is more likely to clash some day). I deleted a cut & paste copy made at the location suggested above. There was nothing at The Embassy at the time of writing, but I took the liberty of redirecting that to World Professional Darts Championship, as "The Embassy" without context is most commonly used as the (former) nickname of this event. JRM · Talk 20:26, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert and non-notable. A well-written advert would still be an advert, and I personally don't find this article well written. Quale 01:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Obviously not an advert as contains negative comments. Maybe move to The Embassy Tamworth. Linking well from Tamworth page is a good idea I agree.
• Merge with Tamworth#Nightlife. This page can become a disambig page - there is an Embassy night club in Redhill, Surrey about which its clientel might wish to make similar comments. -- RHaworth 20:03, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if Merged or Kept, it could use a cleanup and some context. Vegaswikian 06:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaczyzm (Second nomination)