Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:21, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yebbo Travel Agency[edit]

Appears to be advertisment/Vanity DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diminishing angle[edit]

Page purports to describe a "diminishing angle paradox". The only Google hits for this phrase (4 of them) are Wikipedia mirrors, and hence this topic seems to be original research (which is admitted in this VFD). Eric119 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not original research, but also not much of a paradox. This is just an example of division by infinity - it could possibly be merged into any article on that subject, but it's not really as clear or obvious an example of the problems with this operation as more classic examples such as:
1/infinity = 0; 
2/infinity = 0; 
therefore 1=2
Deletion is probably a better option. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Grutness. El_C 06:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another attempt by John Gabriel to promote his theory that 0.99999... is not equal to one. He's getting more subtle about it! Andrewa 15:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly trivial geometry. Jitse Niesen 15:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. original research. Gazpacho 22:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and the so-called "paradox" is flawed. The only way B and C would become indistinguishable from each other is if A is infinitely far away from B and C, which isn't possible; even if it were, you'd never be able to travel from B to A in the first place to worry about returning to C. (I know this and I've only ever taken basic high school algebra...) Ketsy 00:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belly cup[edit]

No google hits for "belly cup"+any of the key words. Good fake though. Samw 03:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Internet slang. Sjakkalle 09:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GBTW[edit]

Dic to the dizzef MessedRocker 03:07, May 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 all 3 articles. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badenhorse[edit]

Hoax. Nothing came up on Google or Encyclopedia Mythecaria. Plus, if this supposedly came from Latin, I just don't see how.--Mitsukai 03:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also, User posted the following on the Talk page: "Eerlijk was, maak dit een beetje streched zo zich niet drukke om het, okay?". I tried the only translation site I know of but they didnt have anything that looked like what that could be. Any takers/suggestions for other translation sites? EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Seems to be a joke. Agastache is a plant genus, not a horse type. Legestith and Cernierius are not found in Google. University of Van paarden translates from Dutch as "University of horses". Krubo 14:09, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke or test by anon with no other contributions. But I'd also like to know what the talk page says, as quoted above by EvilPhoenix. Andrewa 15:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At a guess, I'd say it's English written with Dutch orthography, so that it looks Dutch. I can't read it, though. 4.245.82.252 03:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Measures Federation[edit]

Non-notable. While they do score the top for their listing on Google, and it does have about 100000 hits on Geocities, the article feels as though it was written for vanity or advertising purposes. Plus, do we have a standard for roleplaying groups (even pro wrestling roleplaying "leagues" like this) for worthiness of entry? Overall, I'm ambivalent about it, but in the end I vote delete. --Mitsukai 03:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, they only get about 300 hits on Google. (All three words are very common, so you need to do a phrase search to get a useful result.) But that's enough to convince me that this RPG is more than a few enthusiasts. And "pro wrestling" is a popular entertainment, (though its appeal has always escaped me), so your "feel" only proves that you're not a fan.. The wording of the article is too much like an ad, but a little editing will fix that. ---Isaac R 05:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 82 unique Google hits. The organization's website is a geocities page. Their matches are fantasy matches between real people and WWE wrestlers, I'm not sure how that works, but it's not a real wrestling organization. You did see the part in the article that said Roleplaying , right? RickK 06:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. El_C 06:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly not influential, significant or notable. Average Earthman 10:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely non-notable 198.54.202.226 18:12, 2005 May 14 (according to history Uncle G 23:53, 2005 May 14 (UTC))
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus (which leaves the possibility of a merge wide open). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape gods[edit]

  • Merge with Runescape article if not already in there. Not notable by itself. --Chanting Fox 04:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sholtar 04:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft Stancel 16:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not quite sure what the proposer intended here. No, the material in this article is not already in the RuneScape article, and you could easily have checked this yourself. Merge and delete causes problems with the GFDL. But there seems a lot of information here; If it's accurate and encyclopedic, merging it to the already large parent article doesn't seem a good idea anyway. If it's not accurate, perhaps discuss it as the talk page, or link to the discussion from here if you've already discussed it elsewhere. See also Talk:RuneScape#RuneScape gods on VfD. Andrewa 16:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Nestea 18:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable fictional topic, best as a separate article. Kappa 18:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft, as such it can only properly be understood within the context of the source of the fictional content. I'd vote to merge to RuneScape but it looks like all the useful information is already there. Gmaxwell 21:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. -Sean Curtin 01:21, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruft. Megan1967 04:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Unfocused 05:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Dsmdgold 22:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with Gmaxwell, unless admin thinks any material not already in parent article needs to be merged there. Not clear whether it's really fancruft or can be found in the publisher's books, but either way it's game trivia with only a tangential effect on play. And it's quite an incomplete list, to boot. Barno 18:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I have to agree with Barno on the incompleteness of the article. --Infobacker 12:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with RuneScape →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep Information is accurate, and RuneScape article already too long without merging more into it. There isn't enough info for it yet, but ideally in the long run we would have a RuneScape_fiction article, of which 'gods' would just be one subsection. That way the info could be put into context, and it would be easier for non players to understand, and would also keep any fictional backstory to a single article. Runefire 05:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ko[edit]

Looks like a vanity page - Kyle Kinney

  • Delete, article does not establish notability. RickK 05:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Windup, please visit your talk page. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- author, User:Windup is probably Lisa Ko considering second Google result for "Lisa Ko" is wind-up.net. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If that's the case, and considering that it's the work of a newbie and that it's only just been suggested that she userfy the article, wouldn't it be better to give her a few days to respond before deleting it? Or perhaps, just move it to her user space and delete the resulting redirect? It's a few days since she did this, it may be a few more before she checks her messages here, and the VfD period seems a bit short for this. It's not an objectionable attempt at self-promotion, just a newbie. I recommend patience. No vote as yet. Andrewa 16:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • She has 5 days from the time of the VfD listing until the article gets deleted. That's plenty of time to move it to User space if she wants to. I'm sick and tired of all of the extremism that is dominating VfD lately. RickK 20:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Agree that she has 5 days to move it. Disagree, as I said above, that this is plenty of time in this case. Agree that extremism on VfD is not good, but surely, a comment (not even a vote) that we are rushing things a little here is not extremism? No vote still (doesn't seem necessary). Andrewa 16:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't usually like autobiographies. Harro5 21:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't matter how nice Ms. Ko is, how accurate this information is, who wrote it, and what the writer's intentions were. It is not in any way encyclopaedic or notable.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NicePop[edit]

Neologism. Pop music that is nice. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I don't know what neologism is, until I click on the link I just wrote in. Mwah hah. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. No pages link to NicePop. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This tastes like original research/neologism to me. Never heard of this "genre", any Google combination of the two words gets "nice" as an adjective in reviews of "pop" songs, plus (as defined in the article) it can apply to any artist in any genre where some people think that the artist is too nice to really belong in the genre. So it's a description, not a genre. Soundguy99 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, and "NicePop" sounds like some kind of word in Newspeak Stancel 16:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, seems to be part of the epic battle of the Avril Lavigne article. Astonished it survived so long. No evidence it's a recognised genre, even among her fans, or that anyone will ever fix this stub (or that it's fixable). Andrewa 17:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that McDonalds franchises their restaurants in[edit]

Useless list. Unless I miscounted, the page at http://app.mcdonalds.com/home4.html has a list of 62 countries with McDonald's franchises. So, are we going to have a list here which contains nothing but the names of 62 countries? RickK 05:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • By the time this gets through VFD, it'll probably be 63.—Wahoofive (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interests of good health: Delete El_C 06:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless list lacking supersizing. Megan1967 06:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete - Poorly titled. Should be List of countries that McDonalds doesn't yet franchise in :/ -- Longhair | Talk 07:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also mention the date first opened, and be ordered by date. That would be very interesting indeed. Kappa 07:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, don't ruin our fun! Good point though. I'm certainly willing to reconsider if I see some improvement to that effect. El_C 08:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think it's fun mocking good-faith contributions... Kappa 08:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hah! Yes, I most certainly do: McDonald's "good-faith" contributions to humanity! El_C 09:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anyone ever feels the need to have this sort of information - if you can call it that - they've eaten too many McDonalds ice-cream cones...Harro5 08:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: McDonalds is correctly described as an "emblem of globalization" in the McDonald's article. It's only rival in these terms is Coca-cola. Whether an economy has reached a sufficient level of prosperity and openness to attract this kind of franchise seems like an extremely useful piece of information. When McDonalds opens in large countries like Russia and China, it makes international news, and I'm sure it makes national news when it opens in any country. Kappa 09:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, citing the above comment.--Commander Keane 13:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if expanded as suggested by Kappa, and retitled in proper English. 23skidoo 13:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Kappa pointed out, this could be a useful article. It is also verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In The Lexus and the Olive Tree: "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" Thomas L. Friedman. Admittedly this is a controversial proposition, but it still seems like a very useful list to have. It would probably be useful to note what year they got their first franchise. --Arcadian 14:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand per Kappa. ✏ OvenFresh2 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE in the interests of universal good health Stancel 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very useful information, for the reason mentioned by Arcadian. -- Decumanus 16:59, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful information, especially given Friedman's Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention. Year of first franchise and (rough/estimated) number of current franchises would also be nice. Also, what's with using "health" or the like as justification for deletion? Ought we just delete the McDonald's article then, for the health of everyone? -- Jonel 17:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, Maccas is a convenient and wholesome substitute for food, and you never know when you'll need to find one. Lots of good ways to expand this, some information on international menus is already in the main article but it's going to get too long if we put all the useful stuff in. I hope there's a better name for this article (list), but that's not a VfD matter. Andrewa 17:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The Golden Arches conflict prevention theory justifies its inclusion, would help to have the years of opening and number of outlets included (particular for Serbia in the late 90s ;))--Jjcarroll 19:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crap. Neutralitytalk 19:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This vegetarian votes keep per Kappa, DoubleBlue, Jonel, Andrewa and Jjcarroll. But rename. Samaritan 19:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely at a loss. This extreme inclusionism has gotten totally out of hand. What is there to keep in this article? It is nothing but a list of countries, and incomplete at that. Should we have List of countries with KFC franchises, List of countries where Pepsi is sold, List of countries that have never invaded the United States? This is ludicrous. RickK 20:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's quite important and useful as pertains to McDonald's Corporation, one of the most important consumer product companies in the world, but would be too long to merge into that main article. Samaritan 20:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RickK this article is a start. This is a wiki pedia, things are supposed to be able to grow, someone has an idea, someone else adds more content, someone else suggests a refinement. That can't happen if growing articles get squelched just because they aren't complete. Those other lists you mention would certainly be relevant to the companies in question, but as has been explained, McDonalds is probably the most significant. Kappa 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly useless. Delete. Edeans 20:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and insert a paragraph into McDonalds listing the countries. Otherwise, Move to "List of countries in which McDonalds franchises their restaurants" - if it has to stay, let's at least give it a grammatically correct title. Otherwise, add to catagory "Article titles ending with prepositions" :) Mgw 21:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are voting to keep this, I concur with them. Also, I like the idea of putting the date first opened on the countries listed on this article. --SuperDude 21:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, one of the countries listed on this list denotes that it was the first country to have an outside-of-the-US McDonalds, that is another reason to keep it. --SuperDude 02:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless list Gmaxwell 21:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - emblamatic of the frightening reach of this corporate giant! BTW, isn't KFC now owned by Burger King (along with Taco Bell) or something like that? If so, there should be a single generic list for national market penetration by that conglom. as well. This ain't your grand-dad's encyclopaedia! -- BD2412 thimkact 22:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally pointless. Why not just put the link on the bottom on the main McD's page? Mcfly85 03:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cultural icon, useful list. Also, Rename --Unfocused 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic List. Klonimus 05:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's the problem with inserting this list, in paragraph form, into the main article, McDonalds, and getting rid of this page? Mgw 06:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are hoping to annotate this list. Kappa 06:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The Economist has a Big Mac index to look at exhange rates across countries. Also look at number of restaurants in each country. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the info is relevant to McDonald's. I don't want it to become a focus for anti-globalist agitprop though. Gazpacho 21:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons given by Kappa, Arcadian and Samaritan. Rename to List of countries with McDonalds restaurants. 22:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomplete, insignificant list. Maybe a weak keep if it even attempted to be reasonably informative, but this is just sad. Gamaliel 08:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with McDonald's and delete - Skysmith 08:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is surely more informative than many other lists. Perhaps needs a less unwieldy title, though; maybe List of countries with McDonalds franchises, maybe? Smerdis of Tlön 14:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find years for most of the countries. Also, I put in a section about Friedman's theory, along with some counterexamples. I might resort the list chronologically (it is currently alphabetical) if no one objects. I support the rename recommendation of Ihcoyc. --Arcadian 15:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. It is possible to make the point that Maccie D's has its arches everywhere without this. In fact, a short sweet statement (or even paragraph) to that effect, garnished with some choice examples (like Fiji. Can you believe I saw one in Fiji?) will make the point better than an incomplete list. It's a simple case of presentation, what's easier to read, a journal article with twenty tables or a concise article in New Scientist?" Sabine's Sunbird 01:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sabine, you may want to read this Snopes article. --Arcadian 02:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of the countries I've been too in the last five years, Belize, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Namibia, Uganda, Kenya and Botswana didn't have Maccie D's. Fiji, Thailand, South Africa, etc etc etc did. Did your eyes glaze over when I listed them? The Snopes article in a way made my point, it's better to discuss a subject than just quote lists.
  • Keep. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll drop my delete vote and change it to a keep vote if the word list is dropped from the article title (change it to MacDonalds around the world or something like it). We can then have an article, which can discuss the worldwide reach (and limits thereof) as well as mention the myth, and the business paradgim, resistance to MacDonalds in certain settings (like the Spanish Steps). The list, with dates, can then be part of an article, like each biological family article has an article and then a list of the species in that family. (Calling something a list, to my mind, discourages anything but listing.)
(P.S. Puerto Rico is not a country)Sabine's Sunbird 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand with the raison d'etre for the page. I.e. "This list is important because it represents... etc." Gotta keep it distinct from the History of McDonald's page on the main McDonald's page--MatthewJ 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 13:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (and find a better name): All of RickK's suggested lists could be useful for research. Wikipedia will benefit by accommodating such material. As many have pointed out the value of the article has potential for improvement, is NPOV, verifiable, and McDonald's expansion around the globe is supremely notable. Dystopos 21:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and List of countries with Burger King restaurants too. I do not see why we cannot just talk about the size of these companies in their own articles, these lists are pointless. The spread of these capitalist countries is bad enough in the real world, without their inexorable spread happening here too. If this article does get kept the title really should be changed to something that represents English. Rje 00:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to List of countries where McDonalds sells goatburgers. But, should this be a Category. Why not put a McDonalds logo on the front page of the "Culture of..." article for each country on this list? --Wetman 01:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Voters are reminded that Wikipedia seeks to maintain a neutral point of view. The article should be judged by how it contributes to the world's use of information. As previous commenters have pointed out, a listing such as this could be valuable (though it should be expanded). It MAY EVEN be valuable to researchers making a case AGAINST the expansion of McDonald's. Moral opinions about the subject of the article and sarcasm are not warranted here. Dystopos 01:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP' - If there is a [[List of countries with Burger King restaurants

]], then why can't this article exist. Moreover, there is a famous urban legend that no country with a McDonalds ever attacked another country with a McDonalds - and this article helps to show that the urban legend is wrong. Kingturtle 02:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. I moved the artice to List of countries with McDonalds franchises to be consistant with the syntax of List of countries with Burger King restaurants.[reply]

  • Delete. See my entry at the BK VfD for reasoning. -- Grev -- Talk 07:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge with McDonalds. It wouldn't be too long if multiple columns were used, or something. --Berkut 07:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, although retitling and writing an extensive article about McDonalds' breadth as a multinational corporation is the best course of action. Subject is quite notable. — Phil Welch 16:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lest we be bogged down in List of countries that a X lists --JiFish 12:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Change my vote to Rename in line with Arcadian's comments. Hiding 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Hiding 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we should keep it real! - Darwinek 19:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I'd like to change my previous vote. I think we should keep the data in the page, but rename the page to Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, since that seems to be the most encyclopedia-worthy interpretation of the data.--Arcadian 19:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Countries or delete. --Carnildo 19:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mcdonalds - while this article does have some importance, I see no reason why it shouldn't be merged with Mcdonalds.--Sophitus 20:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Primarily, this is a source of info for those seeking to use Mcdonald's as a point proving or disproving the spread of American culture, globalization, etc. It's also useful if somebody simply want's to know if a country has a McDonald's or not. Furthermore, "McDonald's ain't healthy for you" and "McDonald's is yet another example of America destroying the world's culture," while they're pretty true, are not valid reasons for deletion.-LtNOWIS 00:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with McDonalds, then delete . I have nothing against McDonalds (in fact, I just took a bite out of a Sausage Egg McMuffin. Mmm, breakfast grease), but this is merely a list. Expand the list, if possible, within the main article, then if there's actual content break it out. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the article? It's got content now. Dystopos 03:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is different from List of countries. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:17, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Comment Besides the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, I'm surprised no one else mentioned the Big Mac index. This list is useful for at least three articles, McD's (which I hate with a passion), book/peace theory article, and the economic index. --Unfocused 13:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have got an introductory paragraph as well now, and there is more to the article than a list of countries. Encyclopedic. Sjakkalle 08:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey trophy[edit]

A band formed in late 2004, already on "indefinite hiatus", never appear to have recorded. Ruthless Records's own website at http://www.ruthlessrecords.com/ appears to be on hiatus as well. RickK 06:19, May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Avenue[edit]

Possible band vanity. Most Google hits for this phrase turn up a song by the Scorpions, not the band described in the article. Firebug 06:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonsyna Miaczynska, Jadwiga Dzieduszycka, Witold Leon Czartoryski[edit]

Article does not establish notability. All of those red links in the infobox are also scary. Are we planning on having articles on all of the non-notable children of every non-notable Polish nobleman and -woman who ever lived? Witkacy (talk · contribs) is creating tons of these. RickK 06:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. How do you know who of them is notable and who is not? Is Mr. Spock more important that someone who was a Prince? --Witkacy 07:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Witkacy, as I tried to suggest on your talk page, the issue is about what the article itself states. If you feel that a person is notable enough to deserve an article, go ahead and write the article, but please include information in the article about why that person is notable, as well as providing references for your research. Simply writing that a person was notable, with no way for other editors to verify it, is less that helpful. It seems you're doing a lot of good work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Poland, and we would like to help you make your work on Wikipedia even better. EvilPhoenix
I don't know if they're notable or not, that's why I said Article does not establish notability. But is every single child of every single Polish noble notable? It's up to you, as the writer, to tell us if they're notable, and what makes them so. Just having a title isn't enough. Note that I didn't vfd Jan Franciszek Czartoryski, because he's a saint. RickK 07:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
What makes (for an example) Prince Witold Leon Czartoryski notable is: He was member of the Czartoryski family, he was grand-grandson of Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski, grandson of Konstanty Adam Czartoryski, father of Jan Franciszek Czartoryski, he was a political activist, member of the Sejm, member of the House of Lords, General Commissar of Regency of Polish Kingdom, there is a short entry about him in the PWN (Polish) Encyclopedia. He is mentioned at:

[1], [2], [3]

Countess Jadwiga Dzieduszycka was the daughter of Count Wlodzimierz Dzieduszycki and wife of Prince Witold Leon Czartoryski. The connections between Polish artistocratic families (and to other european artistocratic families) are also interesting. In my opinion more important than the information who was Astro Boy ;) --Witkacy 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on that family line of the Czartoryski family (from 1674 until today):

--Witkacy 18:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duck. It looks like user is interested in covering Polish geneaology pretty heavily. I left a comment on user's talk page asking for more information on notability in articles. User has been enthusiastically editing away on all things Polish, so let's hope that the user is just really fond of Poland, and contributing useful things, but maybe needs encouragement to focus on notability for articles user is adding (which is a lot of articles). Tentative Keep. EvilPhoenix
  • Comment - articles need to establish notability. At present, these do not. However, Czartoryski at least appears to be notable due to position in government. I've attempted to put that into his article, but I'm not really sure I understand the politics of post-WW1 Poland all that well. -- Jonel 17:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Witold Leon Czartoryski certainly looks notable. IMO there's some room for merging some articles in Category:Czartoryski, for example maybe Princes Czartoryski Foundation could redirect to Czartoryski Museum, and I'd guess some of the people could be redirected to the more notable figures to whom they are related. But even then the redirects should probably stay, so it's not a VfD matter. Wholesale deletion of good content by a good contributor is certainly not the way to go. Andrewa 17:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes an article about some saint's grandmother "good content"? Just because it's veifiable? Then I can have articles on every one of my ancestors that are verifiable by reference to genealogy pages. RickK 19:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Um, I really don't see the relevance of the first question, and it seems to presuppose that an article about a saint's grandmother would ipso facto be good content, which is I think nonsense. The second question can be answered {after Ronald Reagan) in one word or two; The two word answer is Hell, no. The conclusion is irrelevant, by false antecedent. I think what you're trying to say is that you disagree with me (and a few others) that this is good content. I think everyone knew that already. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Witold Leon Czartoryski, delete the other two. Nobility does not automatically imply notability. Martg76 20:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same as Martg76 just above. Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are real people who played some real role in history in the real world, and real and accurate information is being provided -- I agree that they're more important than Mr. Spock's grand-nephews. Ben-w 23:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To formalize my position, I say that I agree with Martg76. Witold Leon Czartoryski is the only one of the three that is sufficiently notable. The other two have no better claim, as the articles stand so far, than that they are related to someone. Those two should be deleted. They're certainly far less notable than the first anime (Astro Boy) or someone who appeared on the cover of TV Guide's "50 Greatest Characters Ever", has an asteroid named after him, and whose name, used by itself, nearly always refers to the fictional character rather than the individually quite notable real person who shares it (Mr. Spock - asteroid is 2309 Mr. Spock, real person is Benjamin Spock). Obviously there's a lot of room below those articles and the notability bar, but the Dzieduszycka and Miaczynska articles currently do not establish themselves as above that bar. -- Jonel 01:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Countess, Countess, Prince. That's enough. --Unfocused 04:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members of Polish aristocracy at senior level. We would keep articles on British aristocrats of similar rank for the same period. Capitalistroadster 10:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aristocrats are exceptions to the general rule that a bio is notable because of what the subject did rather than who the subject is. Aristocracy are inherently notable, despite the fact that they often lack notable accomplishments. Quale 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I politely disagree with the above statement. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:24 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?) 17:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Discussion Groups[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. RickK 06:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, with Shakespeare. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Do not merge, these aren't particularly useful links. Gamaliel 07:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. El_C 08:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a web directory. --W(t) 14:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Merge. Shakespeare fans can remove if not useful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not dmoz. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mere list of links. Merge as we use the term here means including cut-and-paste text moves, which then gives GFDL problems unless a redirect is kept to preserve the edit history, and this redir would be useless. If you find the links useful, add them to an appropriate article; They are information and don't give GFDL problems. Andrewa 17:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a web directory. Megan1967 04:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stated above.--Sophitus 20:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Granger[edit]

non-notable. Information about author already mentioned in Harry Potter article. suggest Merge and Delete. EvilPhoenix 06:45, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. More info may be added later about the author and his views. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable author, however he may well lose the article name one day to one of several other notables by that name. {Also note that merge and delete poses GFDL problems as I've often pointed out.) Andrewa 18:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 06:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of[edit]

This article has limited potential for growth (it's a relatively minor song), and there seems to be very little interest in expanding it anyway. I intend to merge the useful information here with the All That You Can't Leave Behind article (the album from which this song is drawn).

--typhoon 07:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mergeing would be a wonderful thing to do. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep separate, no point nuking a decent song article like this. Kappa 07:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a single Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, one normal-sized article is better than lots of single-paragraph ones. --W(t) 14:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a single with some back-story I hadn't known before. There is some potential for more info in the future on the song's history, charts, and covers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh2 16:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singles R Calvete 16:46, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. A significant single. Acegikmo1 16:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the title's grammatical incorrectness (it should be "Stuck in a Moment of Which You Can't Get Out"), it is a notable single. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "...Out Of Which You Can't Get?" Kappa 18:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable single, #2 on the charts might even scrape in on its own but it's also a very relevant song to two notable biographies. I hope you're joking about changing the title. Andrewa 18:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it weren't released as a single, it would still be a notable enough song on its own. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 18:53, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any widely released U2 single is eminently notable. Samaritan 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Gmaxwell 21:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article for All That You Can't Leave Behind isn't so long as to be unwieldy. No information would be lost, and we'd have the song and its album-context together in one place. Joyous 21:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Don't make two pages instead of one when it creates two stubs. Harro5 21:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • A stub about a single has more chance of growth if it isn't stuck in an album it can't get out of. Kappa 23:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with All That You Can't Leave Behind - plenty of space there for this song. Megan1967 04:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of space on Wikipedia for this article and this stub will encourage more detail on the single than would be appropriate on the album page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good stub on hit single by notable band. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alone, good song article. Grue 18:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The song hasn't done anything to distinguish itself from the album. Dystopos 21:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I love U2, but I don't want articles on every song they wrote. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:21, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DoubleBlue. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:22 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?) 06:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Schneider[edit]

Not notable in any way I can tell. -- Longhair | Talk 07:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 07:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you are the author of the article, please visit the articles discussion page. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, non-notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant vanity. Edeans 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, and the [[4]] has been behind several such pieces on this college recently. Harro5 21:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Transwikied, per VfD). Master Thief Garrett 11:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Korea[edit]

Yes, I'm nominating this for VfD again. Yes, it's less than a day since the old VfD closed. However, circumstances have changed significantly since then. The images on this gallery page have been moved to Commons, with a gallery page set up there: commons:Historical Maps of Korea. This page and the images that are on it are now redundant, as well as being an example of WP:NOT, and should be deleted.

The results of the old VfD were 10 (or 11) in favor of "transwiki to Commons and delete", with five (or six) in favor of "keep". The closing admin interpreted that as a decision to keep the article. The previous discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maps of Korea/Old. --Carnildo 07:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, redundant. El_C 08:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. Kappa 08:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Already Transwikied) and delete again Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an image gallery, but I should say that User:SimonP was right in closing the debate as a "no consensus"-keep, and the anon vote was properly counted. Sjakkalle 13:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. - SimonP 14:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though there wasn't anything wrong with the handling of the previous VfD. --W(t) 14:29, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect all links to it to the Commons gallery page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_* 16:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an article. —Xezbeth 16:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and others would start a real article sooner or later. --Puzzlet Chung 19:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an article. Martg76 20:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love maps, and even I cannot see the use of this. Edeans 20:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stancel 21:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and nothing will be lost by /dev/nulling it. Gmaxwell 21:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure image galleries belong on commons. Thue | talk 21:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already in commons. Megan1967 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to commons gallery. Tan 13:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keeping is pointless, and interwiki redirects don't work. --Carnildo 06:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikicommons, in my uderstanding, was not set up to be a substitute for galleries. It was set up so that the different wikimedia projects could all use images without the having to upload the image to each of the projects. Wikicommons is not English Wikipedia and directing readers away from Wikipedia has a high potential for confusing casual readers who might not be aware that they have left wikipedia. There is not yet a consesus on Commons wether or they wil use image galleries or categories to organize the images there, and it may happen that they will stop having galleries. Finally wikicommons is a multilingual project and would be a disservice to send anglophone readers to pages such as this. It is important to note that, as commons matures, more and more pages will becom multilingual. Dsmdgold 22:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The important point is that the images are available in the commons; whether they are displayed in a gallery is irrelevant. Mark1 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful page.--Heathcliff 13:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Wrestling Alliance[edit]

More fantasy roleplaying wrestling. No more notable than a fantasy football league. See also Extreme Measures Federation. RickK 08:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Be fair -- Even if you're ambivalent or simply not a fan, that should not be enough of a reason to delete the entry. That's like me voting to have Infinity or Entercom's entries deleted because I work for Clear Channel, or I want bird watching taken out because it doesn't interest me. jrgnyr
  • Until there's an informative article on "Fantasy wrestling" that persuades me otherwise, this seems extraordinarily trivial stuff, written up in a somewhat breathless style that has a presumably unintended comedic value. So, what is "fantasy wrestling"? Google led me to this, which suggests to me it's a bit like betting on wrestling ... but without actually betting. So it's merely like a glorified pub conversation or similar. If I'm wrong, please write Fantasy wrestling to enlighten me. In the meantime, delete. (Yes, I'm watching this page, and I may revise my vote.) -- Hoary 09:41, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
    • Well well, the red link for Fantasy wrestling has now turned blue. I learn that my previous picture of FW was wrong, but precious little else. How can you roleplay wrestling? -- Hoary 02:07, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fantasy football gets television programmes and newspaper article, fantasy cricket gets major newspapers running it, fantasy wrestling... well, as far as I know it doesn't. So if writing an article on fantasy wrestling is a complete waste of time that would fail to prove significance or inflence, what is writing one on one minor group that does fantasy wrestling? Average Earthman 10:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:30, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page is in horrible shape now, and is of questionable notability, but in the interest of eventualism, I propose to give it a chance to improve. I added a cleanup tag to the article, and if the page survives the deletion vote I intend to list it at Cleanup under Hobbies. I am watching it as well, and if it does not improve with time, then I would support deletion. EvilPhoenix
    • By extension, every single fantasy football or baseball league in existence should have their own article. There are tens of thousands of them on Yahoo! alone. RickK 19:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK is of course correct. Quale 23:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again agree with RickK. Mcfly85 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Fantasy wrestling has its own category (so i added it on there)... im sure someone will pick it up and have it looking ship shape in no time. -- Paulley 22:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity / non-encyclo. Radiant_* 13:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete --130.232.129.242 09:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chikmag[edit]

Not notable or encyclopedic -- Longhair | Talk 08:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Purdy, Kaya and The Brothership[edit]

Three musical acts eliminated from Australia's The X-Factor. None progressed very far in the group, and will likely not be mainstream again. Now considered vanity pieces. Harro5 21:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Eliminated from a reality tv show and still in high school. Longhair | Talk 08:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not notable. Longhair | Talk 08:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Australian Idol maybe (as it was a ratings success and many of the people went on to record albums and gain notability), but not this - no one's ever heard of most of its contestants here. Ambi 08:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect to a related X Factor article.--Cyberjunkie 09:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Someone can pretty up this stub later. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Longhair, why did you mark vfd as a minor edit?
      • It's only 3 characters - 7 if you count the template markers. That's minor. Now why didn't you sign yours? ;) -- Longhair | Talk 01:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main article on the show. ESkog 15:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article on the show. ✏ OvenFresh2 16:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Merge/redirect. Samaritan 20:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The other articles on X-Factor contestants knocked out early can be added to this VfD too. They are all vanity. Harro5 21:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to The X-Factor (Australia). --bainer 00:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 05:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep per WP:FICT and/or Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Gmaxwell 01:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, frankly I didn't like any of these acts apart from the Brothership, but they still are vocal groups and might progress further. It seems pointless to delete them Cyclone49 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to The X-Factor (Australia)--AYArktos 22:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to The X-Factor (Australia) →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. --130.232.129.242 09:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nouns[edit]

This is appears to be a joke page, it uses complicated (but accurate) phrases to translate simple words which have English equivalents. For example: "傘 — this is a noun signifying a sort of device usually used to keep dry during a rainstorm". The normal translation for 傘 (kasa) is "umbrella". (wiktionary). It's funny though, could be userfied or sent to BJAODN. Kappa 09:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I move that the charges against my client be dismissed as he has just entered a rehabilitation program with the help of Mssrs Yamamoto Yitirou and Nathan Piazza, and most claims against him are no longer valid. --Node 00:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is most definitely not a joke page. The "complicated phrases" are intended as descriptive definitions so that there can be no confusion regarding meanings. "kasa" for example can also translate to any number of English words which are more specific types of umbrella. (note for example that Wiktionary includes "parasol" and "parachute" although I would disagree with the latter) "Umbrella" in English is also used in many cases where it makes no sense in Japanese. (on wikt:umbrella, the second through fourth definitions are not accurately translated as "kasa")

Also, I challenge you to find a single one of these that is incorrect. Some here who don't seem to speak Japanese have said the page is wrong, or that there is some factual error, with some sort of authoritative air about them, yet all I can think of is that they are making a conjecture based on the lies Uncle G has been spreading and the implication of your original nomination that the "complicated phrases" are nonsensical or incorrect. (fixed by Kappa)

So while it may seem like a joke, this page is entirely serious. To those who think I'm trying to make this page into a dictionary, the list is intended only to be illustrative and never to be an exhaustive list of Japanese nouns - whether that even belongs at Wiktionary is questionable (as a category maybe) - because that would really suck and stuff. As you can see, nobody has added or removed any nouns to or from the list since I created the article. I know plenty of other Japanese nouns (曇, for example, is a noun referring to a sort of formation of condensation which, when seen in the sky, appears fluffy. but did I put that on there?), yet I have not put them there. --Node 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't intend to imply the "complicated phrases" were nonsensical or incorrect, I have amended the nomination to correct this impression. Kappa 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This page serves a serious function. Linguistically, it is true that there is no exact semantic equivalent for any Japanese noun to any English noun or vice-versa. There isn't anything on the page that is non-factual, and it isn't unencyclopaedic. keep--Node 09:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your point at German modal particle has remained made for months, and since then we've had similar discussions on other articles written by Lost Lexicographers, concluding the same as you argued in November 2004. There's no need to perpetuate this article merely in order to keep making the point. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • It wasn't created to make a point. The fact that it was linked from the talkpage is meaningless. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it was created to make a point. The edit history speaks loudly and clearly. You created this parody page (from your original redlink) roughly 1 hour after arguing on the talk page of German modal particle that articles should not contain such content. Uncle G 06:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
          • Not only are you coming across as extremely hostile, you are claiming to know my personal motivations, thoughts, and feelings better than I know them myself. This is obviously a load of bullshit on your part. It was not - I repeat, was not - created to make a point. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has some poor information on it. Speaking from a linguistic standpoint, it's very base. It needs some work, but it should be an article. I'll see what I can do. - Barfooz 09:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some work, but is facinating. --Commander Keane 13:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and bad translations aren't useful anyway. Perphaps put it on Takl:Japanese to see if anyone can mine something useful from it. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is a dictionary article - it merely has a short list of examples of Japanese nouns, and provides correct definitions, if not so-called "Exact" translations. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics. Article should only exist if it contains linguistically notable content (currently none) that is too long to fit in Japanese grammar. This article was created as hyperbole to make a point on Talk:German modal particle. Samples of current unencyclopedic content:
    • Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than do English nouns
    • Nouns are common in Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Tibetan, Burmese, Yi, and Chinese. They are also common in the O'odham language.
    • There are perhaps one thousand nouns in Japanese, and a list is included below.
-- Krubo 14:43, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
      • I don't see how any of that is unencyclopaedic: it is all 100% true. And as noted above, the fact that it was linked from the talkpage of the GMP article is meaningless. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup would involve erasing the entire content of the article. There's no salvageable content whatever. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • I disagree. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the caveat that IANAL (linguist) - but given the comments on that other talk page, and the tone of this article, it sure smells like a joke to me. ESkog 15:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRANSWIKI and merge into the relevant Wiktionary articles. Perhaps it could be wholly transferred to Wikibooks? 132.205.45.148 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment betrays a profound lack of knowledge about Wiktionary. I recommend a visit to Wiktionary. A vast number of Japanese/Chinese articles were added to the English Wiktionary early on in its life. Its coverage of those languages is extensive. For your edification, I've interwiki linked some of the words in this list to the Wiktionary articles. I strongly suggest following them, and comparing the (deliberately) pathetic tripe that is in this article with the proper definitions that already exist at Wiktionary. This article is plainly a parody, created to make a point. Wiktionary has no need of it. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • 1) not a parody, 2) not created to make a point (if it were, would I be defending it?), 3) tell me a single definition in that list that is incorrect. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't there something about being nice to users? As for profound lack of knowledge (not nice), many many many articles on Wiktionary are not very good. There's no set standard for a Wiktionary article, so there's no consistent look to find a definition. Furthermore, doesn't the article under discussion provide nuances on the meanings of words? If you've looked in the OED, you'd notice some definitions akin to these. 132.205.15.43 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or just delete Redirect - Everything before the list is completely useless. The list is ridiculous - "this is a noun signifying a sort of sharp tool used to cut through things" for the word NAIFU, which if you can't tell comes directly from the English "knife" - as well as being unencyclopedic. Redirect as per Krubo, as people might look for the topic and the Japanese grammar article has the relevant information. -- Jonel 17:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (revised Jonel 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • The word "MANSYON" comes from the English word "mansion", but means "condo" (flat). Likewise, although "naifu" means "knife", it is not exactly the same semantically, and has different connotations psycholinguistically. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrous. RickK 19:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next? Manx prepositions? Edeans 20:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even funny! Gmaxwell 21:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a joke. Brighterorange 23:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But neither is this article. The text above the list of definitions is completely useless. (Krubo's selection above comprises, ironically, some of the tamer parts.) The list of definitions of words, even if it were sensible, wouldn't belong in Wikipedia. But the list is pretty obviously, from reading Talk:German modal particle and looking at [5] (the version of German modal particle prior to the changes made by Node ue), making a point. Node ue's point has been made, and German modal particle has stood without the analogous content to this for months. Delete. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • I don't see what's wrong with a list of words to provide examples of Japanese nouns, and I also don't see what's wrong with a single one of my definitions - is not "kasa" a sort of device used to shield onesself from the rain?? --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you do. You yourself articulated exactly what is wrong with this sort of article on Talk:German modal particle. When you entered an edit war with Dieter Simon over it you created this page, from your own redlink, as a section-for-section, if not sentence-for-sentence, parody of the version of German modal particles that you kept on attempting to remove. Your version of the article prevailed over the version that you parodied months ago. We can only guess why you don't want your parody to die. Uncle G 06:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
        • Again you are claiming to know me better than I know myself. I refuse to put up with that any longer. Your continued insistance that you are right about my feelings and motivations and that I am wrong is obviously a load of crap and on top of that is highly offensive. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense and even if it were true, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Megan1967 03:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also... what part of this article isn't true? Hmmmmmmmm?? --Node 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it /were/ a dictionary, there would be an article for each individual noun listed there. It isn't called "list of Japanese nouns", the list is merely a supplement to the article to illustrate the unique function of Japanese nouns which cannot be found in those of any other language - no other language's nouns sound quite as Japanese, and no language has all 1-to-1 correspondences with all of these unique function words. --Node 05:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant nonsense. Physchim62 14:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • いつまで日本語が勉強してましたか? If you can't answer that question directly without asking somebody what it means, I don't see what you base your judgement on. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, in case anybody asks, no, that really is what I meant to say. --Node 01:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 勉強していました, my vote (and comment) stay the same. Physchim62 22:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clearly you did not comprehend the question. --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Should this page exist? Should we have Japanese nouns about and with a list of Japanese nouns, or Bengali counting words? There is nothing different between the function of modal particles in German and in other languages. A list of German modal particles definitely does not belong here, any more than does a list of Navajo noun classifiers.
        And as noted above, a list does not belong here, even if this article does.
        Also as was said before, duplication of information at other, more generalised articles is frowned upon.
        And I will show you two policies, one that says Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for), and another that says we aren't trying to teach people slang or how to speak a foreign language, when combined they mean that a list in this article, at least at the length you have (two or three examples would be OK), belongs on Wiktionary or Wikibooks, and not on Wikipedia.
        • But I didn't ask that - Physchim62 said "blatant nonsense", not "should not exist". I disagree with both, but the former argument is practical whereas the latter is more philosophical --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with all of the above statements, which is why I would say "merge" to Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics if there were anything useful in the first part of the article ("Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than English nouns" is hardly informative or useful) and "transwiki" the list to Wiktionary if the definitions on the list were useful (a definition for naifu that could also be used for the English words "saw" or "axe", which are not meant by naifu, is not useful). -- Jonel 02:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly intended to be a parody. Or should I be more "accurate"? "Your collection of text which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead a humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text and while it perhaps may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear it is not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project." --Fastfission 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is indeed more accurate. "intended to be a parody" does not include the information: "which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead" (parodies aren't nessecarily "supposed to be factual", although they can be), "humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text" (this indicates that it is a text-based parody, and that it uses layout and sentence structure from the original, rather than having all-new text), "and while it may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear" (these alleged circumstances are not conveyed by "parody"), and "not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project" ("parody" does not imply that the content is nessecarily against the rules). That gave me a good laugh - what was intended to be sarcastic actually went the opposite direction than intended. Anyhow. It was not intended as a parody. If it were, I would've pointed out explicitly on Talk:German modal particles that "To show you just how rediculous this is, I have created blah blah blah blah blah blah blah", which I most certainly didn't. I simply changed my opinion regarding articles on parts of speech by language, and decided that Japanese nouns, a nonexistant page, should really exist in the interest of completeness, and so populated it with content. After all, if there are so many Japanese nouns and they are used by the millions on an hourly basis, doesn't that make them notable?? --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Radiant_* 13:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The page is a description of roles and connotations that many Japanese nouns carry, and is meant simply to illustrate that no word has a definite one-to-one correspondence with its English "counterpart" like so many people seem to take for granted. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all Japanese nouns, either. And to answer your question like someone who understands it would, 二千年までにほんごをべんきょうしています。--sébastien 06:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or sort of transfer to BJAODN. --Fenice 17:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article should be written in a more serious way, and be judged the article after it's well written before it gets deleted. --Yamamoto Ichiro 22:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - for a seriously written version of this article, see Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics. -- Jonel 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Comment" - That doesn't go into nearly as much detail. I also don't see what about the article is wrong or not serious. --Node 00:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. I reiterate Jonel's comment at 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC). That article is much better-written. - Barfooz 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's considered reiteration when you didn't make the original comment yourself. That aside, the article to which Jonel links touches on Japanese nouns in a different aspect, ie nominal morphology (and syntaxis), and the rôle they play in the larger picture of Japanese grammar more than in their own right as does Japanese nouns. --Node 03:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — mind you Japanese nouns could be a valuable article, but the way it is now, it is rubbish. Besides, it looks suspiciously like WP:POINT to me. Apart from ridiculous sentences like "Although English nouns include words which refer to a specific object, Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than do English nouns, at least most of the time", and "Japanese nouns need to be learned in daily usage as there is practically no literal translation for any of the nouns other than that they help form the phrase which on the whole conveys the way the speaker intends to sound", it is written from a limited point of view, contains many pointless comparisons to the English language, and is generally unencyclopedic. — mark ✎ 07:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

  • 15:19, 14 May 2005 Duncharris deleted "Wrenshall Images" (just external links)

Sjakkalle 08:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrenshall Images[edit]

Vanity, no text - Barfooz 09:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under criteria for speedy deletion A3 (articles "whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link"). Having three external links is no better than one. Sjakkalle 12:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, speedy deletion makes sense to me. Otherwise, delete. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. List of links does not an article make. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (sent to BJAODN :-)). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Goels[edit]

What can I say to an article that claims:

Born is Dunkles Holz, Goels’ early life was spent in the bucolic environs of his father’s successful fish ranch. A promising athlete as a youngster, Goels trained seriously at Das Institut der Beiläufigen Athletik in Kleve. His sporting career ended abruptly when Goels was badly injured in a freak trampoline accident that left him with a slight limp and a pronounced lisp.

Or:

Goels’ most famous work Dank für die Probe Bitte – a sixteen panel work depicting the Board of Directors of Belgian chocolatier Sucrerie Chère – was a cause célébre at the 2001 Kowloon Biennial when one of the subjects of the work insisted his portrait be removed because it made him “look fat.” Schlammklappe is typical of Goels’ work in series, reflecting his tendency to make large numbers of discrete images on a given theme which, collectively, make up a single work. Goels’ willingness to allow a given work to comprise, in a particular context, all or part of a series has been seen as a radical attempt to destabilize the unity of the art object and to challenge the authority of the artist. Others have seen the practice as the product of lazy or sloppy execution.

Very well done joke entry that should be archived somewhere, but not in the main namespace.

There are several related articles from the same user:

I've stamped a VfD on all of them, linking back to this entry on VfD. --Diderot 10:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one: Dirk Endlos This too is a joke entry from the same contributor. --Diderot 12:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humorless bastards. Speaking of jokes, where does one get off calling oneself 'Diderot?" --Tsheeder 13:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kruijsen[edit]

There are no grades of vanity, there are only grades of ability in concealing it. ~Mark Twain --Doc Glasgow 10:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tomkr, please visit your talk page. EvilPhoenix

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 06:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOB Clan[edit]

Vanity, should be deleted. --Ajshm 11:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo De Sarro[edit]

No papers cited, no Google hits. Possible joke as it's unlikely a philosopy student has quantum mechanics papers. Samw 11:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schedule 1 substances (CWC)[edit]

This looks like some government instruction sheet copied from somewhere. In fact the first paragraph gets 53 google hits [7]. Anyway, I don't think this is an encyclopedia article. Is this something for Wikisource? Sjakkalle 12:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from author: The source is the OPCW. This page is meant to replace and expand material currently on Chemical Weapons Convention, though I agree that the introduction needs some work doing on it. The format and placement of the list on Wikipedia allow links through to the articles on individual chemicals, and a check-tool for editors writing new chemicals articles. Hope you'll keep it ;) Physchim62 13:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh2 15:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, let's make sure that good Wikipedia practices are followed. Physchim62, it looks like you've been doing a lot of contributing to Wikipedia, so thank you for that. Please make sure that you are within fair use requirements and are not directly quoting your source material, and that you are not duplicating material already found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am all for keeping this article, it seems to have valid information. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep, since it's on a .gov website [8] its not copyrighted. Should really explain where it comes from though. Kappa 17:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Samaritan 19:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. useful. Megan1967 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep similar to List of Poison Pokemon Klonimus 05:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page, particularly in these days of terrorism. I can imagine this page getting a lot of hits if there is a major chemical weapons attack. Walkerma 23:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:28, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has expanded past half a million articles covering practically all aspects of almost everything. With such a number of articles and many new ones introduced every day, the article topics are now getting more detailed. Considering the detailed nature of many of the articles in the half a million we have, I think it is consistent for Wikipedia to keep this internationally applicable and relevant list, although I concede it is not relevant to most people. Also, the list is not so exceptionally long that it poses a burden for Wikipedia to keep. As for the fact that it does not seem like an encyclopedia article, perhaps the explanation should be expanded so it is like one. H Padleckas 04:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator I'm shutting this down now, I see that I'm clearly in the minority on this one. Sjakkalle 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election '05: Timmy Turner vs. Tony Blair[edit]

Delete. Most probably fictitious. I tried Google on it and found nothing at all. In The Fairly OddParents, Timmy Turner is not a British citizen and isn't even old enough to become prime minister of the UK. Marcus2 12:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fiction by someone who doesn't appear to have the slightest understanding of the British political system. Average Earthman 15:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Stancel 16:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stancel, if you feel the article is an appropriate nomination for Speedy deletion, feel free to go ahead and add the speedy deletion tag to the article. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Hoax. The article's creator, 24.254.219.13 has a history of vandalising pages by adding in irrelevant references to the Fairly Oddparents. There is no evidence that this "tv special" has any basis in reality. R Calvete 17:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for nonsense. Nestea 17:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Tour ~ Informal Education Products[edit]

Blatant advertising - Algebraist 13:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Postdlf (advert by linkspammer). Master Thief Garrett 11:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Tour Catalog[edit]

Vanity -- Longhair | Talk 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't establish notability, wikipedia is not a web directory, etc, etc. --W(t) 14:34, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the same article as above but with a different name. NSR 14:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Uncle G 23:48, 2005 May 14 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

  • 14:05, 2005 May 14 ChrisO deleted Rachel Davis (Speedy deletion - Patent nonsense)
  • 00:40, 2005 May 2 Petaholmes deleted Rachel Davis (content was: 'Rachel Davis (dec. 12, 1991), A big fan of American Idol and Paula Abdul..loves to dance, play the key broad and gutier..also is an actor in small pla...')

Rachel Davis[edit]

Not notable. Thue | talk 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Uncle G 23:45, 2005 May 14 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

SA 8000 LEAD AUDITOR COURSE[edit]

Ad. Thue | talk 14:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. You shouldn't even need a vfd with this. -- Natalinasmpf 14:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Konedobu[edit]

A collection of irrelevant trivia. Thue | talk 14:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's hard to tell whether something article-worthy can be said about this, but this isn't it anyway. Delete. --W(t) 14:35, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. An anon. user's personal POV of a gov. building. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup considerably. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.EvilPhoenix

  • Keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination - keep new cleaned up version. Thue | talk 20:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-opened since there were three delete votes from people other than the nominator, and I see no evidence of a 'cleaned up' version since it's only one line with poor spelling and grammar. Also, Delete. Radiant_* 13:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:29, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 06:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RUMMEL PINERA[edit]

Is he notable? I only get 80 google hits, 25 with very similar entries omitted. Thue | talk 14:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference to many "'letters-to-the editors' of international magazines" allegedly written by the subject of the article is a pretty good clue that he is not notable, probably not even remotely. Delete. Edeans 20:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reads like a cut-and-paste job to me. Perhaps a copyvio... and in addition, the evidence set forth here suggests the absence of notability. Delete. --Chanting Fox 16:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:30, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete --130.232.129.242 09:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urshelf[edit]

Ad. Thue | talk 14:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to mention a copyvio, were it not being posted by the site owners. Delete. --W(t) 14:36, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, PoV ad. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:31, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 06:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freetechsupport.org[edit]

Not notable, probably advertising. --W(t) 14:21, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by ChrisO (nonsense article). Master Thief Garrett 11:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blues-Rap[edit]

There is no such genre as "Blues-Rap". The article is unencyclopedic and the subject matter qualifies as original research. Adraeus 14:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a what-if site. --W(t) 14:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, original-research-fiction. ✏ OvenFresh2 15:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nominated for speedy. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, silly, and inevitably a google for +blues +rap +influences disproves the article's only claim, that "nobody has started this, or even experimented with this." (And any article about such cross-pollination at Blues-Rap would still be mistitled...) Samaritan 19:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Främlingsfientlighet i utvalda europeiska regioner[edit]

A note in a Scandinavian language (presumably Swedish) about hostility towards foreigners. I don't fully understand it, but it says something along the lines of: these regions are in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria. They all have a tradition of hostility towards foreigners and [???] for relatively many years. The exception is the LPF [political party] in The Netherlands which arose in 2000. . I don't see how this can be made into something encyclopedic. Sietse 14:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
    • A note in some Scandinavian language about hostility towards foreigners in Europe. I'd like to hear what other people think: should this go to VfD or can it be converted to something encyclopedic? Sietse 16:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appears to have been deleted already. SteveW | Talk 10:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's still there. Looks like PoV in Swedish to me, but I'd rather have another viewpoint before VfD. Physchim62 10:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in Swedish. The title means "Hostility towards foreigners in selected European regions". The contents say "The selected regions are located in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. They all have a tradition of hostility towards foreigners and their parties are not new, but have existed for relatively many years. The exception is the LPF in The Netherlands which arose in 2000." Delete as a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable, PoV rant. Oh, and it's in the wrong language too. — JIP | Talk 14:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had my other viewpoints, I vote delete. Physchim62 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?) 06:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Voskuhl[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:51, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

  • Delete. High school principal. There are thousands and thousands of them, why does this one stand out? The article suggests nothing.Average Earthman 15:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Dunc|☺ 15:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article written by anon. user. possible vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.EvilPhoenix
  • Guillotine! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe on the bel air hs page it should be noted who is the currently principal --Howard547 20:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)~[reply]
  • Merge with the Bel Air High School page, which looks like it might live after its VfD is decided below. Harro5 22:02, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't pass the average high school principal test. Sigh. Fawcett5 03:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Air High School[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 14:52, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

  • Merge with Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland article. Currently it merely states that it is a school, the name of the principal, and what size it is. And no, padding it out with pictures and details of the after school clubs won't make it notable, just bloated and overlong. Average Earthman 15:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no redirect. Merge the one sentence w/ the place where it is. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh2 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and NPOV but perhaps a poor title. There must be other Bel Air High Schools in the world. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.EvilPhoenix
  • keep and expand. Disambiguate if any other Bel Air High Schools show up. Kappa 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, echo Kappa. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- and expand. - Longhair | Talk 18:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by words "High School" in name. Oliver Chettle 18:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reasons as Oliver Chettle. --Unfocused 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article's already being expanded, and it's the oldest high school, amazingly, in the large suburban Washington-Baltimore division of Harford County, Maryland. Samaritan 20:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be expanded into useful article --Freyr 20:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 21:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 21:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Get the original author to encourage their friends to help expand the piece, because I'm guessing he goes to this school Harro5 21:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Will grow organically. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools. R Calvete 21:57, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful collection of specific facts about a significant school. This is an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are inherently encyclopedic and there is much to distinguish significant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. —TeknicTalk/Mail 23:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say "superficially similar" rather than "nearly identical" Kappa 14:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep high school articles. Brighterorange 23:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't not establish notability. --Centauri 23:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland article. --Carnildo 05:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every school is included in a truly great encyclopaedia User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 05:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you have to let the article survive in order to expect it to increase in quality, for goodness sake. -- Natalinasmpf 12:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It was nominated within 12 hours of creation. --Unfocused 14:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot possibly word it better than Gamaliel did. "Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world." My sentiments exactly. I'm beginning to think we need to launch WikiSchools to stop this angry "all schools are auto-notable!" idealism once and for all. Master Thief Garrett 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Master Thief Garrett, I don't see any anger in this discussion except in your perception of the comments of others. This is encyclopedic, NPOV, and verifiable, as are all school stubs. They belong here. Wikipedia is not running out of space! In fact, at the end of April, the database was less than 4 terabytes gigabytes, only a few thousand hundreds of dollars worth of disk space. --Unfocused 05:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, the 4 terabytes gigabytes is for ALL languages, not just English. --Unfocused 05:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correction: 4 gigabytes, NOT 4 terabytes. (3980 MB = 3.98 GB) --Unfocused 05:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was meaning "angry" in a purely symbolic sense. Many users have a viewpoint that boils down to "How *dare* people vote to delete?!? All schools are automatically noteworthy here, WP is not paper; I don't see how anyone can possibly think otherwise!" This view is not necessarily given in as many words, but that's the basic idea of it.
We're not at all concerned about running out of disk space--WP:WWIN openly encourages long, detailed articles, and if we were really Scrooges we wouldn't allow User pages to tie up said bandwidth--but the thing is the ultimate ungainliness of it.
OK, my mother came from Cabri, pop. ~500 and declining (the old people slowly die off, the children quickly move to Swift Current, and no new families move in). It is a town so obscure it doesn't even have an article of its own yet (if ever). Now would anyone from Cabri come here and search for the their one-and-only school (with a roll of ~50) and actually *expect* it to be here? Of course not, because they know full well they're insignificant to most of the world and are even missing on many maps. But, according to the Schoolwatch ideal, should that school be here? Oh yes, of course, it's instantly notable.
Now that is the problem. As I expressed it on my User page, "the Vfd ideal ... is, that people vote for an article to be kept because it is *actually* valid, NOT merely because it is a school." The schoolwatch program tells me nothing of a realistic minimum of (non)notability, and in the end we could end up with 500,000+ school pages that will never get hits!
Now THAT is my concern, that the Schoolwatch program has "legitimised" a precendent for the addition of countless useless pages.
Please understand this, I hold academic institutions of all forms in high regard (except for the Kohanga, which result in children having a great understanding of Maori but no working knowledge of the English language whatsoever, but I digress), but very, very, VERY few of them are noteworthy to the outside world. And, therefore, THIS one certainly isn't. Master Thief Garrett 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would love wikipedia to have a decent article on that school in Cabri, sorry about that. As to numbers, there isn't a huge flood of school articles coming in, and the nominations and votes on school "notability" leave no room for compromise on the validity of the article. Let's make a {{cleanup-schools}} tag to get the articles up to a certain minimum quality, and discourage people from dropping in substubs which others have to fix up. Kappa 07:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland and delete - Skysmith 08:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--AYArktos 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to improve. High schools should not have to prove notability.
  • Delete. Useless collection of trivia. If delete falis, merge with Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are inherantly notable -- delete them when we delete articles on individual tv episodes! --Zantastik 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a good deal of verifiable data to the article. The school dates back to 1811 and John Wilkes Booth once attended there, if some people are looking for notability. I'll let someone else calculate the BEEFSTEW if they want to. --BaronLarf 20:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia wants a boring, pointless article for every average school in every country. CDThieme
  • Keep. Good start. DS1953 04:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 13:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per BaronLarf's good work. -- BD2412 thimkact 15:21, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Move to include location in name - David Gerard 22:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lets keep things in perspective. Is this article less noteworthy, or less encyclopedic, than, say for example, some random article in category:Streetcar Builders or Category:Rolling stock manufacturers? Why VfD a school, and not, for example, St. Louis Car Co.? linas 00:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL Keep. Will Smith may have attended this high school. —RaD Man (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Samaritan. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:33 Z
  • Comment This has been on VfD for more than 2 weeks; is anything going to be done here? I see 27 keeps, 10 deletes and a couple merge votes. Doesn't seem like a consensus to delete to me. --BaronLarf 11:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Somebody will close it sooner or later, but I'd prefer it were someone who didn't participate in the discussion. Meanwhile, assuming your count is reasonably correct, I'm removing the VfD notice from the article as the discussion period is long over and it's an obvious keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tourneys in A Song of Ice and Fire[edit]

128.135.188.232 (talk · contribs) nominated this article for deletion on 2005-05-11, but made a botch of the nomination, forgetting to sign the rationale, to add a header, and to transclude onto the per-day page. I've completed the nomination. This is not a vote. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Irrelevant material for wikipedia. (Unsigned comment anon user 128.135.188.232)

  • Keep. (I am the original author.) I am cool about the VfD, but I would like 128.135.188.232 to at least try to give a reason for his implied deletion vote. On the other hand I worked to make this article conform to Wikipedia policy (or semi-policy), especially Wikipedia:Fiction. The rationale is that tourneys are a major concept of the books in question, and the article takes some time explaining their significance. So, depending on your perspective, this article is either a "major concept" of a work of fiction (and deserves its own because because of its length), or it is a "List of (minor and major) events", which makes it a topical, cross-volume plot summary. Both I find good enough reasons, but I certainly welcome the opinion of other editors. Arbor 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By the way, this page doesn't seem to be listed on the main VfD page at all. (In any case I cannot find it). 128.135.188.232, since you made the nomination, maybe you would like to finish the process by putting the page on the main VfD list, so that it can be found by others than me and you? That is the third step of the VfD proces. Also, I encourage you to expand you nomination in the first paragraph with a reason. (And next time, please don't forget to sign your contribution.) As it is now, this page is unlikely to be found by anybody and hence won't gather many votes pro or contra. No longer relevant. Uncle G kindly finished the proces. Arbor 09:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. is this even a valid vfd until some claims to have made it? Nateji77 08:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has made it. 128.135.188.232 made it, and even gave xyr rationale. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
      • Some has made it, not claimed to have made it, and gave the reflexive argument "we should delete it because it doesn't belong." Nateji77 11:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep. Kappa 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I trust Arbor's explanation of the importance of tourneys to what appears to be a very successful book, trading card game and board game universe. Samaritan 20:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 22:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Maltaran 13:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blame it on blondie[edit]

Band vanity. By their own admittance, have released 1 demo and are working on an EP. Dunc|☺ 16:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Written by User:Justinarama, does not appear to be vanity. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not terribly notable. Article is also currently an orphan. EvilPhoenix
  • Nope. (that is, delete) Way under WP:MUSIC, even for a "small-genre" band (they're a Christian band). I've got no problem considering bands notable enough in context, but 1 self-released demo CD plus shows only in northern Alabama equals non-notable vanity (even if written by a fan and not a band member). Soundguy99 20:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was inclined to vote "keep", until I discovered the article was just band vanity, instead of a Penny Singleton film. Edeans 21:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 22:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete --130.232.129.242 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sclerosponges[edit]

A VfD incorrectly submitted by Oberiko. I'm just listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Rather ugly substub but could be made better and is linked from Sponge. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "folded inner body" the right definition? From googling, it seems more to do with having coral-like skeletons. Kappa 17:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Megan1967 03:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's apparently a new (as of 1970) biological classification of sponges. LSNED. --Unfocused 04:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable form of sponge. I wonder if Sponge Bob is a schlerosponge, Capitalistroadster 11:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I will add a taxobox and straighten it up a bit. --DanielCD 15:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The beshears[edit]

No Google hits for "The beshears" + keywords. Other contribs by anon user were all vandalism. Samw 16:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lame joke. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm curious what an "industrial music version of David Hasselhoff" would actually sound like, but then again, I probably don't want to know. EvilPhoenix
  • Hoax, or actual art school wankers? Who cares? Delete. Edeans 21:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan D. Baxter[edit]

A VfD incorrectly submitted by Oberiko. I'm just listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 16:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wagonizing[edit]

No google hits uses this word with this meaning. Samw 16:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lawton[edit]

Vanity bio. Samw 17:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food addiction[edit]

Not encyclopedic, original research. I think it's safe to say that the entire human race is probably "addicted" to food. Yet another "addiction" article posted by this ip that needs to be deleted. - Jersyko 18:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment that works, but the main article would be Binge eating disorder - Jersyko 18:17, May 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon (disambiguation)[edit]

  • All but one of these links that are pointed to in this dis-ambiguation page are simply kinds of polygons defined by types of restrictions except one, POLYGON. Thus, is this dis-ambiguation page any different from simply a link to POLYGON at the top of the Polygon article?? Georgia guy 18:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well how about Polygon (computer graphics) ? The reason for creating this disambig was, I had a hard time finding that.

Well, isn't that simply an article talking about using polygons in computer graphics, or is it another use of the word "polygon"?? Georgia guy 18:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep. A perfectly acceptable disambig page, and certainly no less useful than many others we have. The fact that somebody saw fit to create this shows it's useful to at least one person. Oh, and if you really don't think this page doesn't need to exist, then you could have just merged and redirected it back to Polygon and saved us all a VFD. sjorford →•← 21:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per my minor edit to the article, mathematicians consider several things to be polygons which laypeople would not. "Simple polygon" represents what most people will be seeking when they look for polygon. ESkog 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dab page. Megan1967 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but desperately needs to be brought up to disambiguation page standards. Tag for expand/cleanup after VfD conclusion, if still necessary. (Why after? Because I don't think its fair to formally ask for assistance if you don't know you'll benefit from it.) --Unfocused 04:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd certainly rather use a disambig page to look for Polygon (computer graphics) than dig for it in the article, even if it was linked from there. Kappa 05:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love polygons. Klonimus 20:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 17:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Ju Babies[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, but they get 1,360 google hits, and they've released a CD EP. Not sure if they meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines though. No vote. Kappa 19:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I doubt it's vanity as the initial creator of article has contributed to other dissimilar band articles. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Band vanity. Gmaxwell 21:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stancel 21:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No releases?! Come again when you have some. Edeans 21:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, this is borderline for me - scores 1320 Google hits, see [9]. One EP. Needs formatting and expansion. Megan1967 03:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a cult Goth/industrial band with some following in genre. Se Google groups result. [10]

Capitalistroadster 20:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Grue 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has some notability. Leanne 06:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable group with underground press reviews. Iam 03:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence provided of notability per WP:MUSIC. Radiant_* 13:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a band that has a following in the Goth/Industrial metal scene. Also has an Artistdirect.com entry. JamesBurns 05:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:34, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 07:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver game[edit]

A car game where you shout "beaver" when you see guys with beards? Riiiiight. I call hoax. I could believe this was popular within one family, but Delete as unverifiable unless anyone can point to a reputable compendium of childrens games or something that confirms this.

(Nomination by User:24.116.19.250 —Wahoofive (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. The originator of the article has many edits to his credit. I have asked on his talk page to comment on his source for the game. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify. if verified, move to Wiktionary, otherwise delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BEAVER! Delete Stancel 21:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the culprit - I put the article into wikipedia. It's just someting I remember from my childhood - beards were very rare then. Certainly not something worthy of debate. Do whatever you want. Too Old 01:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • I believe Too Old but I don't think it meets the WP:V standard. Delete but I shall have fun trying this game anyway :) DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:36, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 07:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Aled Keferson[edit]

Renowned Talmudist, African freedom fighter, 18th century Pope etc., this guy would be quite a fellow if he weren't an idiotic joke.--Pharos 19:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, then adjust medication. C W Merchant 20:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but it is hilarious --Doc Glasgow 20:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 20:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominated for speedy. Admins, please note that originator IP [195.93.21.5] is blanking pages, replacing with nonsense. Please suspend IP. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though it's rather amusing. Ganymead 03:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 03:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is patent nonsense; posting it on vfd merely wastes time and space. - Jersyko 15:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete not even particularly funny... Physchim62 15:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezkimo[edit]

Quake II clan vanity. Stephen Compall 19:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep (after it was rewritten). Deathphoenix 17:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_Sakolsky[edit]

  • Delete, Vanity and Spam The article is only one sentence on topic of non-notable author of "Surrealist Subversions", another article that was already Voted for Deletion off Wikipedia. Ron Sakolsky is a professor and author in the small independent press. Recommend a user page for this man. Google brings up around 963 hits.Classicjupiter2 20:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Edeans 21:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as claims made in posting are patently false. Ron Sakolsky cannot be the "author" of Surrealist Subversions (an article only posted on VfD in the first place because of the "surrealism deletion account" Classicjupiter2's well-documented anti-surrealist vendetta), as it was an anthology. Talk about a shoddy standard of research! --Daniel C. Boyer 19:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I have rewritten this article, including references, citations and links. Sakorsky is highly notable and influential in the field of Pirate Radio, is a published author and anthologist of several texts on music, pirate radio, and surrealism, and is a regular contributor to popular magazines within these fields. The stub may have been very minimal but 965 hits would indicate a certain importance within his fields of expertise. --Takver 08:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: after doing some further research, I believe this listing for deletion is vexatious and trivial and has been done to pursue a personal agenda and debate between Classicjupiter2 and Daniel C. Boyer over entries on surrealism. This is not a debate over whether Sakolsky is an expert in Surrealism, but whether he is at all notable or influential in any area for inclusion in Wikipedia. I note that Classicjupiter2 stated above that Ron Sakolsky was a "non-notable author of "Surrealist Subversions"", yet failed to mention that in their opinion Ron "is a pirate radio expert", which surely should be enough for his inclusion in wikipedia, which my update to the article now details. See Daniel C Boyers talk page where Classicjupiter2 stated on 21:26, 18 Mar 2005 in detail her opinions on Ron Sakolsky. --Takver 04:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Lolz Sauce"[edit]

neologism, the "world renowned" Joseph Zullo gets 54 google hits. Thue | talk 20:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 0 Google hits [11]Stancel 21:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An odd vanity article for his odd neologism. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lol. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOLZSAUCE, non-notable. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Add it to the lollerskates article! It's interesting either way as it sheds light on true modern internet-age linguists like Mr. Zullo. Capt. Snuffy
    • CaptSnuffy has 10 contribs, all of them to the "lolz sauce" article or this VfD. Rhobite 22:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is legitamite and backed up by primary sources Fuzzyslipers75
  • Delete. Rhobite 21:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! you have a page for "ZOMG" but not this? FOOLS! Capt. Snuffy
    • CaptSnuffy has 10 contribs, all of them to the "lolz sauce" article or this VfD. This is his second vote, btw. Rhobite 22:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • A significant amount of what is in ZOMG (pronunciations, usage notes) is dictionary article content, note. Uncle G 02:22, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep - same reason as Capt. Snuffy. Scott Gall 21:56, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. Add it to the "loller skates" article. Nazism isn't cool 22:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 22:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I plan to link to and/or expand this article to include other terms coined by Mr. Zullo and possible some of his art. Individuals like Mr. Zullo are the ones responsible for the formation of internet culture and slang and should therefore be respected in a historical document such as this wikipedia article (remember, wikipedia is a result of this internet culture as well). Capt. Snuffy
  • delete remember folks - zero googles - whereas ZOMG gets 28,400 slight difference --Doc Glasgow 22:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not slang if nobody says it. --EvilZak 22:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just becuase you don't say it or haven't witnessed it used doesn't mean it isn't said or significant. Capt. Snuffy
      • So now this term, with zero Google hits, is "significant" Internet slang? I call bullshit. --EvilZak 07:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, non-notable. Quale 00:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • lolz and sauce are words, with dictionary articles (in the dictionary). There's no such person/place/concept/thing/event as "Lolz Sauce" for an encyclopaedia article in the encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 02:22, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for ALL the reasons above. --Unfocused 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the love. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete, never heard that. Grue 18:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per dleted above --nixie 02:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, the famous world-renown A Man In Black, think that this article should be deleted. A Man In Black 07:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --130.232.129.242 10:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funk punk[edit]

  • Substub, and I suspect that the term is a neologism. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, funk music and punk do not mix! --SuperDude 06:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apples and oranges. Radiant_* 13:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:37, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, The fact that funk and punk are very different does not mean there was not a specific sound given that name. That is just how people talk about it.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 performed the deletion; I'm just doing the closeout. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vitamin T[edit]

The substance seems not to exist. See the discussion and citations on the talk page. Joyous 21:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, certainly not remotely scientific and apparently not notable within pseudoscience or any other field either. Joe D (t) 21:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vitamin T is not real unless the scientists say it is. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{NazismIsntCool/sig}}

Nazism isn't cool]] 22:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It IS real. Scott Gall 22:08, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Scott Gall, the article itself says that it's a fictitious substance.EvilPhoenix
  • Comment This link says it's a real vitamin [12] However, this site [13] says that it's status as vitamin is "questionable". Furthermore, this site [14] says this: VITAMIN T was originally isolated from termites as a complex growth factor, and from there found in yeasts, fungi, and egg yolks. Very little is known about Vitamin T, except that it seems to ward off certain forms of anemia and hemophilia by helping the blood coagulation and the formation of blood platelets. It is reported to promote excess growth in insects and improve the protein uptake in rats. However, the accuracy of these sites is questionable. Stancel 23:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having weighed the evidence, I think it's pretty safe to assume that this "Vitamin T" does not exist. Stancel 00:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. Scientific consensus points to it as not existing (materially), but there is a chance for notability as such nonetheless. El_C 00:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about nothing. Gazpacho 04:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN nutrition-cruft. This does not exist, and "growth factors" can be isolated from virtually any crude animal protein. Klonimus 06:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. But do we have a policy on vitamins? Maybe we should, or maybe it will be too hard. It's a fascinating subject, with lots of POVs; Some people seem happy to take drugs if and only if they have an obsolete historical name starting Vitamin (I think you can see my POV), and this is the whole basis of a large and powerful international industry. Andrewa 15:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite - I take a bit of a different tack on this; it's not notable as a nutritional factor, as it clearly isn't one, but it is notable as a health food hoax. A Man In Black 07:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to change my vote if that can be demonstrated. Joe D (t) 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:38, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. "Vitamin T" is mentioned in Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible, which is a standard health-food-store reference on the subject, although Mindell himself says not much is known about the substance. "Vitamin T" seems to be one of those health food hoaxes that gets promoted periodically as a new "vitamin", but it's not a particularly notable one. It may or may not be notable enough for an article; I can think of several "vitamin" hoaxes like Vitamin B17 that are far more notable and don't have articles yet. Kaibabsquirrel 07:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Creswick[edit]

This article is also listed for peer review. I found it with a VFD tag and sub-page but not apparently listed on a deletion page. I'm putting it here only for that reason. I personally would just merge it with no further debate. Mozzerati 21:29, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

i myself have never heard of big fun, there is nothing on the "big fun" page to suggest that they are notable, so therefore this guy shouldnt be notable. --Sensation002 22:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User 80.184.158.133-creator of the article- removed the vfd from the article's main page at 22:51, 9 May 2005. Sensation002 03:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Fun sold over 1 000 000 records all over the world and had many top 10 hits in Europe and Asia and Phil Creswick wrote a lot of songs for many artists. Try to use Google to find the answers you need (before you place the VfD tag on an article):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22phil+creswick%22&btnG=Google+Search

  • Keep. It doesn't cost extra to have a separate article, and his songwriting and other musical efforts outside the group (including with Vince Clarke of Erasure) merit a separate article. VfD as cleanup again. --Unfocused 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable collaboration with Vince Clarke mentioned above. Kappa 05:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Big Fun had hits back in the 80s in the UK and

subsequent work with Vince Clarke indicates ongoing musical career. Capitalistroadster 11:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Fascinating stub. Anyone who gets to collaborate with Vince Clarke on a 2001 soundtrack is encyclopedic IMO. Another fascinating thing is that, although this article doesn't even say what he plays, it took this long for anybody to put a stub notice on it. Andrewa 15:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept.

AwesomeFunny[edit]

Delete - self-promotion NAF 03:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self promotion for a non notable website. JamesBurns 07:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flashcruft. Alexa traffic rating over 600K, not significant. Friday 13:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't believe that the article is self-promotion, and I would like to mention that the article previously came up for Deletion in May (see archive), with no consensus. EvilPhoenix talk 22:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • AwesomeFunny was well-known because of an internet fad, and has been steadily losing popularity. Thus, it is useful to reconsider deleting the page now, as the site is all the more nn and the Alexa rating is low. Mimsy Borogoves 13 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
  • Ah, but its supposed major claim to fame, How to Kill a Mockingbird, looks likely to go. Delete per Friday. Dcarrano 01:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is no big deal (although I admit I did vote keep last time). But there's also a principle here: If this content was ever encyclopedic, then it still is. Maybe we should tighten up our practice on Internet phenomena generally, that would wash. But deleting an article on the grounds that it was once significant but isn't now is a very dangerous precedent, and that seems to be the sentiment above. The article itself might be considered a candidate for redirect and merge, just so long as the content is preserved, and the redirect makes it still accessible. But that doesn't need a VfD discussion. Food for thought? Andrewa 00:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a big "if." It never was encyclopedic, and half of it was wrong until my recent edit. (Check out the history for references to the fictional legal battle between Awesomefunny and its "rival," Funnyawesome.) Awesomefunny is not an internet phenomenon, even if "How to Kill a Mockingbird" was. And you will notice that the HTKAM wikipedia entry has been deleted. There is no matter of dangerous precedent here. The article should be deleted, not because it was once important but is no longer popular, but because it was never important, because it is self-promotative (which it clearly is, as it contains references mailing list content), because it is unencyclopedaic. Now that HTKAM is gone, Awesomefunny should follow. Mimsy Borogoves 16 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree with some of this. If this survives VfD (and to me it looks close) then I'll be nominating HTKAM on VfU to make it a redirect to AwesomeFunny, I think that's the correct process and I can't see how we can have it both ways. Agree that if the argument is that AwesomeFunny was never really encyclopedic, then there's no dangerous precedent. But that's a big if itself considering previous Alexa rankings, surely? This is just the sort of content that it's important to preserve, otherwise it will be lost. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: HTKAM was tried on number of hits rather than its actual quality, and the site's responsible for other good productions too.
Comment: Please sign your votes, and don't remove the VfD notice, it's considered vandalism. Your vote will count largely according to your contribution history, and that did not help it at all. Andrewa 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to remove comments by other users. Its looked at as bad form. Also, I don't believe anonymous votes even count for deletion debates. Further, articles may be brought up multiple times on VfD, so there's no need to remove the tag just because it has been on VfD before. EvilPhoenix talk 21:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to break Wikipedia, but the comment was addressed to me so I felt I had the right to remove it. I'm also sorry I don't sign my posts, but that's my style. I don't see why I have to sign them, I've seen other people vote anonymously. Also, I'd rather people didn't sign them for me: you can check the history page to see who the editor is.

Comment: I think they do count, but I don't think they count for much. VfD is a bit different to national elections and the like, in that it's difficult to police someone creating a new userid each month, for example, and contributing (and voting) under each. So the admins in practice weight the votes in a quite subjective (and I believe intelligent, fair and reasonable) way. And it works quite well enough. Part of the theory behind this is that borderline votes like this one don't really matter a lot. The credibility and integrity of Wikipedia are not at risk at all here either way, regardless of what some may think. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidence for the article's claims of notability is lacking, and those claims are weak even if they were established. WP is not a web directory. Quale 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has already passed through vfd (no consensus, but I still feel it should be kept. RickK, in response to your last comment: I find it unusual that I would have heard of it since I don't cruise the 'net for humour. It's not the best reasoning, but I figured if I've heard of it, it must be at least slightly notable. How to Kill a Mockingbird was pretty popular.). ✏ OvenFresh² 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glom[edit]

Factually questionable dicdef. Kelly Martin 22:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • The etymology is totally false, but it's apparently a real word of some kind. See [15]. But only a word, and only a dicdef. Transwiki and delete. Postdlf 22:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't transwiki in the current form. I've hear the word glom fairly frequently, well before 2002 and far from South Dakota, and not meaning this. Samaritan 22:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entry is inaccurate as to the word's origin and its examples of usage are jokes, and Wiktionary already has an entry for glom. --Metropolitan90 22:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a dictionary article about a verb (and, as noted, a bad one at that), not an encyclopaedia article about a person/concept/place/thing/event. Nothing appears suitable as a target for a redirect. Delete. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 03:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, it's already in Wiktionary. Disappointed that neither article mentions Carl Barks, GLOM was one of his favourite and most effective action tags. Andrewa 14:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And I also find it a little bit disappointing that this article was the first attempt by a new contributor, but it was listed on VfD one minute after creation (which would of course create an edit conflict if the contributor was trying to expand it from the dicdef), and all the above people voted to delete without offering the contributor any discussion, welcome or advice. The problem is not just that many people, faced with an edit conflict on top of all the rest, won't stay and join the project, perceiving us as an unfriendly and unapproachable lot. The problem is also that those who do stay after this sort of treatment will tend to be biased towards the ones who are going to troll, promote vanities and POVs, and generally waste our time. Food for thought? Andrewa 14:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my defense, I listed this on VfD not because it was a stub dicdef (I would have marked that differently; I spend a lot of time on RC patrol) but because it was pretty obvious bullshit, but not quite obvious enough to be a CSD. It is difficult to assume that the original author of this article offered it in good faith, WP:FAITH notwithstanding. I will not lose sleep over whether my janitorial activities are chasing away new editors who start out their Wikicareers by offering us cruft in bad faith. Kelly Martin 19:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: No need to lose sleep, or to defend yourself. But you might have a look at the pages on wikilove and personal attacks (that's regarding the allegation of bullshit), and I disagree with your interpretation of assume good faith. We all find it difficult at times, but the idea is that we should want evidence of bad faith, not just negative feelings which can arise from all sorts of personality clashes. No change of vote. Andrewa 16:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 2006[edit]

Only one very uninformative sentence. No potential to become encyclopedic until this game is relased. Any information on this game should be posted to FIFA Series. --EvilZak 22:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nestea 22:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it doesn't take a crystal ball to predict the numbing inevitability that EA will milk one of their cash cows again, this article is useless, and frankly the game is unlikely to be a particularly significant improvmement on the previous incarnations. It'll also be available for GameCube, XBox and PS2, I'll wager. Average Earthman 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 03:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. Sounds like we could write this article already, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. I've restored the VfD notice, which had been removed. Andrewa 14:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FIFA Series. Redirects are cheap, they prevent recreation and point the readers to the right article! All problems solved. Grue 18:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus to delete). Renaming to a less POV title may be in order. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Cypriot Genocide[edit]

POV rant, POV title, nothing to merge anywhere. RickK 22:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • 'agreed -Irredeemable delete--Doc Glasgow 22:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV rant. El_C 23:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC) —[reply]
  • Keep. El_C 10:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 03:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. Not factual. Tobycat 05:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken a look at the revised edits and agree that the new text improves the NPOV but I still have very strong reservations about the title of this article. I believe it is best resolved by deleting the article and merging its improved content onto either the Cyprus article or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article. Both articles seem a more appropriate place for this content rather than a stand alone article. Additionally, I believe it will be easier to maintain the NPOV if this content is integrated into one of the above articles as there is more context available.Tobycat 01:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EvilPhoenix
  • Delete. A sequence of yucks ran 'round the table. Andrewa 14:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, while there may be a valid concern for the persecution of the Cypriot people and the need for an article of some sort, this article's POV and content don't fit the bill... Chiacomo 20:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, article is shaping up nicely. Well done, editor. --Chiacomo 13:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expatkiwi This article needs to be edited though to be more detached and free of overt bias. Removal really does not solve anything. I did edit it the best way I could so to keep things as matter-of-fact as possible. 20:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You can delete this page from here because the passion for greeks might have turned your eyes blind, but you cannot delete the unescapable reality of the Turkish Cypriot Genocide from the history.

We'll make you an offer. If you can bring back the thousands of innoncent Turkish Cypriot men,women and babies murdered between 1963 and 1974(the peace operation of Turkey) back to life, the Turkish Cypriot Nation will be absolutely happy to forget about the genocide.

Can you do so?

If not be respectful to the memory of the victims of the Turkish Cypriot Genocide.

  • KEEP The Soul of Thousands of Turkish Cypriots Murdered Until the Peace Operation of Turkey

Article is renewed, prove that the Turkish Cypriot Genocide is not a fact or withdraw your offer of deletation.Article can no more be classified as a page for deletation due to the fact that Armenian Genocide which is not on the list of deletation uses absolutely the same wording. If you'll delete this page, delete that also.

  • Comment: Please sign your contributions here, user 85.99.30.204, otherwise they will probably be simply ignored. They will also carry more weight if in the standard format, and if concise and to the point. Andrewa 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Expatkiwi's able edits. This is a good start for expansion. A Man In Black 07:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paffka Article can use some editting and expansion, however. No significant bias appears. 14:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --130.232.129.242 10:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • this article is much improved and if the info isn't elsewhere it should be kept. But I have grave concerns about the title's NPOV. Genocide is a very strong word. The article admits it is what the Turkish call the incident - not the Greeks - and apparently not other parties either ('Turkish Cypriot Genocide' yields only 4 sites on google and all are strongly POV). I'll change my delete vote for a strong rename - but unfortunately I don't know enough about this to make a suggestion.--Doc Glasgow 14:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Agree that it's much improved, but I still don't think it's encyclopedic. The article itself now states that this genocide claim is used by one side of the conflict. To me the title still seems to be more a political slogan than an encyclopedia topic. My suggestion is that we delete this and invite those who've done good work on it to add their material to the articles we already have on the conflict. I also notice that the talk page has now been blanked. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Lacarno[edit]

An unlikely misspelling of the existing Locarno Treaties that also appears to include information that should describe the Kellogg-Briand Pact. NatusRoma 22:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. Delete. Would have voted redirect had it not been for the mis-spelling of Locarno. El_C 23:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and also delete Lacarno Treaty that redirects to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I missed that. Good catch. El_C 23:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Locarno Treaties. This misspelling doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, rather it's an obvious phonetic possibility. I don't think there's anything to merge, the existing article is pretty good. Andrewa 13:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above and delete the Lacarno Treaty redirect. — RJH 17:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rasüur[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. Google only finds one site that has ever heard of these beasts (and the text of this article is almost word-for-word identical to a forum post there). The other participants in this forum seem skeptical of the claims made there, too. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax (especially since elsewhere on the same site rasüur are described as funeral poetry for Malaysian nobles) and as such should be deleted. Kelly Martin 23:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The folks at poetry.tetto.org (the site Kelly Martin linked to) decided that Rasüur is a hoax, who are we to gainsay them? FreplySpang (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and appears to be a hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. El_C 00:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gotta admire the effort people go to in order to be funny with their hoaxes. Harro5 00:21, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Weak BJAODN candidate, the hoax gets less and less likely as the text progresses, and ends up with a quite ridiculous statement, which is pretty standard "gotcha" technique but quite well constructed here. That's not to say that fact is not often stranger than hoaxes, that very fact is what makes this sort of hoax funny. Andrewa 13:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night sun saga[edit]

Two Yahoo! hits. Delete non-notable web comic. Gazpacho 23:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One Google hit. The two claimed above are both from buzzcomix.net. Nn, delete. RickK 23:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. El_C 00:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Äyer[edit]

Non-verifiable, appears as part of the Rasüur hoax. ISBN phony and Kristjan Äyer has zero hits on google DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 17:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing extremism[edit]

  • Delete POV Stancel 23:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be more POV to delete this article and allow other articles on political extremism to exist than to keep it. I will put requests for expansion on the articles for both left- and right-wing extremism in an attempt to improve both articles. Harro5 00:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extreme just means the farthest reach of something. In this case, left-wing ideology. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is an actual form of political extremism, just like all the others (see also right-wing extremism. The fact that calling someone an extremist (of any flavor) is based on the point of view of the person doing the naming just means that we have to take special care to keep our article neutral, as in "Neutral Point of View", not that we have to delete the article. -- Jonel 02:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- BD2412 thimkact 03:19, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this one goes, so should Right-wing extremism. If it's not written in neutral-enough POV, then someone ought to fix it. Donutz 03:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to a section under Left wing politics. This is nothing more than an "even more" POV of an existing article. I don't think that's a good basis for an article. If Left wing politics is too large, this is NOT an appropriate splitting point. --Unfocused 04:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly Left-wing extremism is quite common and notable. Klonimus 06:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite what I think of the term (and I'll spare everyone that except to say that Klonimus is wrong!), it's notable enough. So... sigh... keep. El_C 06:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. EvilPhoenix
  • Keep. Real and notable phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 13:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great stub! Pray that the team who have created it have the courage, wikilove (yes I do think it helps), thick skins and everything else they will need to keep it that way while still alowing it to grow, judging by some of the appalling political content and battles we host from time to time...! Andrewa 13:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pov, pure and simple. Same goes for Right-wing extremism. --Zantastik 20:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has POV problems that don't seem likely to be solved. It claims that left-wing extremism is an "objective category", when clearly it's subjective. It uses "these people" in a sneering fashion. Anything that could go here belongs in Left wing politics instead. Quale 04:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Lethe | Talk 21:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with left wing politics →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:41, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Harro5. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 17:32 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?) 19:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Emmerson[edit]

Non-notable, with only 91 google hits [16] for "Kyle Emmerson". --Canderson7

  • Delete or userfy. Vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. ✏ OvenFresh2 02:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though the note about being "faced with the problem of teenage pregnancy" is amusing. Ganymead 02:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eklypsin for his band, and now Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KORE for a group vote on five more Kyle Emmerson-related articles I'm putting up. Samaritan 02:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_14&oldid=1081092775"