Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 27

[edit]

Bush family conspiracy theory

The Pillbugs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.


Looks like band vanity. Quite a few Google hits, but all except the band's website look like they are about insects. --BM 01:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment. The band are listed on allmusic.com and have released an album (so have achieved more than most of the band vanity that gets listed here). However, as the article seems to have been written by the band, and is horribly POV, I have to vote delete on grounds of vanity. Rje 02:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's not vanity, it's likely a copyright violation; the article mentions that it's copy/pasted from the band's website. Either way, they don't seem especially notable. Shimeru 02:34, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If not 'band vanity', then 'not notable'. utcursch 12:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, on account of crummy grammar. (nn) Wyss 22:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:14, 30 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Fancruft with no potential to become encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 01:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge it into a Worlds of Star Trek type article. Otherwise: delete. Rje 02:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What little information there is here is already covered in the Vulcan (Star Trek) article. Shimeru 02:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 04:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 06:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). Gamaliel 07:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Trekkies could probably write a few volumes about it. Everyking 21:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I was a Trekkie once upon a time. I've never heard of it, and my guess is that the current stub contains all or nearly all the information on the subject in the official Trek canon. Of course, fan fiction is also real and verifiable, so perhaps some kind fan will write us something so we can fill out the stub. Isomorphic 09:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. Merge/redirect. Everyking 14:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this trekcruft. Wyss 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Shimeru said. I'm sure Trekkies could write volumes on it. They can do a lot of things. Until they do, phasers to maximum setting. JRM 00:35, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep - Star Trek info is already on this site. -- Judson 22:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, all it needs is information on the episode it was mentioned. -- Crevaner 00:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crevaner's point is valid, with time the article will grow. -- Old Right 00:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is subtrivial fancruft with no relevance outside of the Star Trek universe. If one is a Star Trek fan who has heard of this planet (ie, would be searching for information on it in an encyclopedia), one already knows all that the article contains. If one is not a Star Trek fan, then that person has probably never heard of it and will never search for it. This makes for a useless article. Any important information about the planet as it relates to the Vulcan species can easily be merged into more useful articles. Indrian 23:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. To all those who want to document Star Trek trivia: there is a wiki for this, and it is not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 09:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: starcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; being fancruft isn't a valid reason for deletion. Dan100 10:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • No potential to become encyclopedic is, though. ➥the Epopt 01:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rob hurley was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.


  • Apparent vanity page -- Karada 01:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The user has created an account, and tried to remove the vfd notice. I will warn him.-gadfium 02:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Userfy if the user has created an account. Otherwise: delete. Rje 02:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 02:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 06:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. utcursch 12:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible new user mistake. Wyss 22:23, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The Oxford was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

A greasy-spoon bar in Missoula, Montana. Is this notable? --BM 01:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Bravest clientele in the world? :) delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, advertising. Rje 02:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Szyslak 04:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch 12:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not the Luna Lounge, almost an ad, nn. Wyss 22:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An ad? I'd be more inclined to call it an insult page. :-) JRM 00:32, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it is really popular among University of Montana students and forms a significant element of campus life, there could be a paragraph about it in a "student life" section in University of Montana. No way is it notable enough for a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "More seedy" than a U of M student? Is that possible? Delete. Edeans 05:16, 30 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

A substub article consisting only of an external link and a link to List of record labels, which doesn't include this one. Was marked as speedy because advertising, but that's not a speedy criterion. This has potential to be an article, but isn't worth keeping in its present form, so I vote Delete.-gadfium 01:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Simax Classics seems to be somewhat notable. Maybe we should ask some wikipedians belonging to Norway about its notability.. utcursch 12:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless further developed as an article. Falls under Very short articles with little or no context for speedy criterion. --BesigedB 13:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although a stub like this could be speedied until someone cared enough to make more effort. Wyss 22:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 02:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparent hoax, no google hits for kitty tigon charmines or "The Grandchildren's Fate". Can't do math either Kappa 02:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very poorly written hoax. Rje 02:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of such books on Amazon either. LostCluster
  • Speedied as patent nonsense. "Died of choke poisoning"? Gwalla | Talk 02:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Gwalla. No relevant Google hits for Kitty/Katherine Charmine/Charmines/Charmaine. Full content of article:
    Kitty was the author of "The Grandchildren's Fate" epic novel books. She was born in Tuscon, Arizona and March 27, 2002. She got her nickname "Tigon" gotten by her grandmother and grandfather. She died of choke poisoning after an arguement with her friends at the age of 105 in 2003. Otherwise, Audrey Charmines, her sister, were known as the Charmines Sisters.
    JRM 02:20, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

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

Probably vanity, or a personal essay disguised as a "theorem". There doesn't seem to be any philosopher named "Timothy Clarke", and a Google search turned up various Clarke Theorems in mathematics and computer science, but nothing resembling this. --BM 02:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. nonsense. Even if it existed this theorem wouldn't be original, just add a bit about base and superstructure and you have pretty much what Karl Marx postulated over 100 years earlier. Rje 02:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original (using the term very loosely) research, vanity, hoax. Shimeru 02:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. utcursch 12:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, deep thoughts, which Orwell articulated better. Wyss 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems legit to me. -- Judson 22:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, article hasn't been proven a hoax. -- Crevaner 00:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with above, reasons for deletion haven't been proven. -- Old Right 00:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Megan1967 02:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete utterly unsourced, unreferenced nonsense. not a shred of evidence for it. how else can you prove a hoax, than to point out there is nothing whatsoever in its favor? Google search Can anyone voting keep make an affirmative argument for this? Is it a coincidence that the 1st three keep voters all demonstrate right-wing affiliations on their user pages? Serious question. I'm not sure what one's political affiliations have to do with whether this is a hoax, but there does seem to be a correlation. Michael Ward 05:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sysops evaluating vote: please note that Judson, Crevaner, & Old Right have voted on exactly the same 5 or 6 vfd's on this page in exactly the same way in sequence. Would it be wrong of me to suspect these votes may not be exactly independent? Michael Ward 07:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Funny, there typically used to be an interval one to six hours between Crevaner and Old Right's votes and sometimes Crevaner would vote first and sometimes Old Right... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Antandrus 05:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly suspect article. Indrian 23:39, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good verifiable source provided. Probably hoax. Googling on "Timothy Clarke" power perpetuation yields only two hits, neither relevant. Unlikely that a philosopher would call such a thesis a "theorem." (And: irrelevant to deletion debate, but I think everything here can be summarized in Lord Acton's dictum, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Dpbsmith (talk) 02:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verification materializes. Sounds bogus. Josh Cherry 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

subst

Looks like an attempt at (beginning) a list of people who were born on the same day. Luckily, we have articles such as April 9, already, so this is unnecessary and unmanageable. Tuf-Kat 02:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, this would be impossible to maintain. The date articles already list major birthdays, so this article would also be largely irrelevent. Rje 03:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's not your area of interest, DON'T maintain it. Leave it to those who find it interesting. Doovinator 16:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.TOR 04:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be controversial and say keep, not to be deliberately obnoxious, but because I genuinely think it's interesting enough to be recorded somewhere. Sure the information is stored on the individual dates, but I think it's useful for a list of these to be stored somewhere as an individual list. I'd move the article to a different name though, maybe List of people who were born on the same day. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 04:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But there's so many of them. If you try putting them all on one page, and you'd just have to split it back apart again due to size! -- Cyrius| 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Are there really THAT many? We're talking about the same DAY, not the same BIRTHday, which is some thing else entirely. And if there are really THAT many (which seems unlikely to me), couldn't they be categorized by month? Doovinator
        • Wait, the exact same date? Year and all? That's different, although I still think it's better-handled by the individual day pages instead of putting the same information in more places. -- Cyrius| 18:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, the exact same day, which is what each pair is, and would be, listed under. You can look to the individual day pages, but that way you have to look, and look HARD, for the info, when a single page can cover a long list of people. Doovinator 18:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary. This information can easily fit in both the date articles and the articles about the people listed. --Szyslak 04:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep It's possible to look up individual dates, but why make it difficult? I find it interesting when two persons are born on the same day, and I think it'd be very nice to have the info easily accessible. I don't find it "silly" at all. Besides, there's a huge war going on now over whether it should be mentioned on Charles Darwin's page that he was born on the same day as Abe Lincoln, and both of them are highly respected. Imagine if two wildly disparate people were born on the same day--say Madonna and the next Pope. It'd be very interesting, but also certain to cause another fight. Why not avoid that can of worms entirely? Doovinator 05:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete silly trivia. EventHorizon 04:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The individual date articles serve the same purpose. This article will never be updated enough to make it useful. Gamaliel 05:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given. DCEdwards1966 06:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of historical anniversaries iMeowbot~Mw 06:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like the idea, but I don't think the title works, and I'm not sure how you'd get to it. Deb 11:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 11:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly pointless. Icundell 12:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unhelpful, redundant, doomed to incompleteness. Wyss 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. List of people born on the same day as other people. 'Nuff said. JRM 00:28, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
    And just so I can't be accused of being completely facetious: List of coincident births. (Although even that list would be a trivia nightmare.) JRM 00:29, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
    • I think Sailor Moon is a trivia nightmare. Doesn't mean I want to shoot it down. If you don't want to know, don't go there. I'd like to know, and have all the info on one page. Doovinator 16:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      Sailor Moon has a single topic. Sailor Moon can be redirected to from minor topic titles. I don't know how you want to organize a list of coincident births (or list of famous people born on the same day, or whatever). By date? By names? Both? This sounds like something that should be automated, not created as a manually-maintained page. Still no vote. JRM 16:16, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
      • I'd organize it by dates, as the likelihood that anyone famous in particular shares an exact day of birth with anyone else famous is rather small, and if one wants to access a particular person's birth data on the list they can do it by the date of birth listed in the bio. And is there really a great need to redirect automatically? If the persons listed on the page are in wikipedia, they can be accessed with one click anyway. Doovinator 17:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - already covered, wouldn't fit in one big article anyway. -- Cyrius| 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But not covered in one place, which is the point. Doovinator 16:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant and repetitive, redundant and repetitive. --Andylkl 11:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • So don't go there, so don't go there. KEEP Doovinator 16:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • You only get to vote once. -- Cyrius| 18:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm being redundant and repetitive :-) Doovinator
  • Delete It's back to the old argument: who decides if both of the pair are famous? And if person X is a nuclear physicist and person Y is a serial killer - so what? Peter Shearan 13:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article would not show pairs of people. It would have to list each of day of the year and list hundreds of people who were born on that day. Sounds pretty pointless to me, but some people might have fun updating it. It might also appeal to people who want to discover famous people with whom they share their birthday. --Etimbo 23:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)Sorry, I've just spotted that the article is about people born on exactly the same day, not sharing the same birthday. --Etimbo 23:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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


Seinfeldcruft. I'm sure she's a lovely lady and all, but... If she didn't do anything notable aside from date Seinfeld for a few years, I don't see why she needs an article. Tuf-Kat 03:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete if she's done nothing else than date Seinfeld. Though considering the length of time, might be worth mentioning in his article. Rje 03:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Now the article has been changed, I'll switch my vote to Keep. Rje 14:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've made a major update and I think it now meets the standards for inclusion. Gamaliel 03:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the new article. -Ld | talk 03:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs further cleanup. EventHorizon 03:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the article still needs to be expanded on this point, she is considered a major fashion designer in America, to the point where her previous connection to Seinfeld is actually more of a trivia item. 23skidoo 05:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 16:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to keep. Is there a procedure to remove an article early from VfD? This is totally unlike what I nominated originally, and I don't foresee any delete votes in the future, much less consensus to do so. Tuf-Kat 22:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep only the second member of Category:American fashion designers after Donna Karan - props to Gamamiel for expanding, and TUF-KAT for recognizing the sea change. Samaritan 08:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. May the Lights of Wikipedia preserve that article from orphaning. --Phils 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep after major updates by Gamaliel. GRider\talk 18:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The name was familiar as soon as I saw it. Nelson Ricardo 01:35, Jan 1, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Article doesn't establish notability, googling turns up evidence that Nietzsche, the philosopher, had a bit to say about language, and that there is apparently a drummer by the name of Andrea Marchesini -- this could, I suppose, be the same one as the one mentioned in this article, but since most of this hits are in Italian, I can't get much out of it. Anyway... if it is notable, please explain why in the article in addition to this VfD page. Tuf-Kat 03:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 04:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. J.K. 08:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Wyss 22:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Naked Now (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

The page in question is about the second episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere syopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. Please read this. --NoPetrol 04:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. One of the most notable STTNG episodes. Gamaliel 06:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lots of kinds of encyclopedias: general, scientific, biographical, and also entertainment. There are entire encyclopedias about Star Trek, so this can clearly be encyclopedic. It's not Encyclopedia Britannica kind of content, but it makes good Sci-Fi Encyclopedia content. Wikipedia can be all sorts of encyclopedias. It doesn't hurt anything by its presence here. DreamGuy 08:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And I don't agree that only "critical analysis of art is welcome" since criticism would, by its very nature, be POV. NPOV synopsis-based articles are the best way for Wikipedia to handle individual episodes. BTW I'm a member of the WikiProject Holmes which aims to have an article for every Sherlock Holmes short story ever written. If you start banning the Trek articles, how long before we're next? P Ingerson 12:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't make the rules... --NoPetrol 12:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And there's nothing here that breaks the rules. Your point being? P Ingerson 13:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the episode is properly placed in context with reference to the original series - if that is not encyclopedic, what is? Dull as I found most of TNG, the importance of Star Trek within SF in general and television SF in particular is unarguable. Icundell 12:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in the sense that stuff cannot be moved over to Memory Alpha because differences in licensing. One is on GFDL and the other is on Creative Commons License. I am not a lawyer so can someone senior advise if this is okay?--JuntungWu 13:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let me give a separate reason for each of the related entries. First: m:Wiki is not paper. We can afford to have this. JRM 17:26, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep this and all the other episodes listed at the same time and for the same reasons. See Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Pages_on_Star_Trek.2C_TNG_episodes if you didn't follow the link before. Andrewa 18:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 23:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I admittedly am a Star Trek fan, so admins should bear that in mind when counting votes; however, I would like to make a few points. First of all, while I wish NoPetrol had only listed one article to "test the waters," I don't think he deserves such censure or has violated policy (although reading m:Wiki is not paper#No size limits would have been helpful. In general, I don't think "fancruft" is necessarily a bad thing. To respond briefly to the points he raised on the talk page:
  1. I don't think that having articles on episodes will destroy Wikipedia, nor do I think it will destroy the search function.
  2. No, of course Wikipedia should not and could not have an article on everything anyone has ever created. Yet is does include works that people have created, including an article on itself. Whether one is a fan or not, there is no denying that Star Trek has had a significant impact on society, whereas urine-writing and second-grade short stories most likely have not.
  3. In regards to "That article was deleted, and rightfully so, because it was about something that I just made up, and it was not relevant to anything. These Star Trek articles should be deleted for the same reason [because they were something that someone just made up, and are not relevant to anything]," I agree that it something that (many people) created, but one could not seriously argue that Star Trek episodes are not relevant to anything. That you fear harm from "rabid Star Trek fans" as you put it underscores your awareness of the large impact they have had.
  4. Your World War II analogy ("Yes, Star Trek is notable, but to warrant the amount of detail about it that Wikipedia has, Star Trek would have to have had a greater impact on society than World War II") is flawed. Star Trek and World War II are not in competition for a finite amount of space. Both can be expanded. I also think that it is hard to compare the impacts of two different entities. Additionally, sometimes one subject has more information that can be written about it, even if it less important. I could write far more about World War II than I could about the development of spoken language in hominids, yet I feel the latter is far more important.
  5. Going to high school is a notable part of many people's lives, as you mention, and yes, Wikipedia does have a page about high schools. Furthermore, I am unaware of the Wikipedia policy against specific high schools (and we do have a fair number of such articles that have survived VFD). I apologize for the length of this comment but I wanted to ensure all of the nominator's concerns were addressed. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll vote Merge into an appropriate season guide. This is the appropriate way to deal with such things in my opinion, although I can see there are far too many Star Trek obsessives to win this argument. Average Earthman 12:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, merge articles such as this into a season guide or similar. Hoary 05:35, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season one TNG episodes into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Its abhorrent the way that Wikipedia deletionist crusaders attempt to wipe out information about Star Trek, high schools and other controversial/political organizations they aren't interested in (or disagree with). GRider\talk 23:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Plain ol' keep, as with all the ST episodes below. Dan100 10:54, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Holodoctor1 11:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Newfoundglory 12:22, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:39, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The Last Outpost (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the fourth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. see other episodes' votes for reasons. P Ingerson 12:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Third, read all that's written at Wikipedia talk:Fancruft, and especially my basic conclusions. Prove that having this article harms Wikipedia. JRM 17:28, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:49, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy and VFD spamming - David Gerard 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into an appropriate season guide. Average Earthman 12:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season one TNG episodes into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:35, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Where No One Has Gone Before (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the fifth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:48, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the fourth day of VfD, my true love gave to me the following reason: Transwiki'ing to a non-Wikimedia wiki does not seem like a viable option to me. Perhaps it will be, one day. JRM 17:28, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy and VFD spamming - David Gerard 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles on TV episodes have been an established part of Wikipedia for a while. I don't see why we should change that now. Szyslak 07:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:16, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Lonely Among Us (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the sixth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:48, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the fifth hand, why is it that an encyclopedia topic would be required to "affect society in any observable way", if such a POV qualification can be made objective at all? What society would that be? How many would have to be affected? Is it one of those "we know it when we see it" things? It affected me, is that of any relevance? If not, what is? JRM 17:28, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And VFD spamming. - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 23:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season one TNG episodes into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:47, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Datalore (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the twelvth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not a stub. Notable episode as it's the first appearance of Data's "brother", Lore. Gamaliel 06:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:48, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sixthfully, I say: get me consensus on what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Bring me a vote, bring me precedents, bring me a big meeting where we all sort out once and for all why this article and others like it should definitely not be a part of our encyclopedia. Back this up with objective reasoning. Start from axioms I can accept. Then and only then will I have a reason to vote Delete. JRM 17:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:46, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:19, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

When the Bough Breaks (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the eighteenth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with NoPetrol. I can understand having articles for the series premiere, the series finale, and maybe a few of the best-known episodes, but this is none of the above. Isomorphic 06:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:48, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep VFD rationale is from a very narrow reading of the rules. --LeeHunter 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seven, in number like the deadly sins: I want it here. That's not a valid reason, but it is a valid vote. JRM 17:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:46, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:37, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

We'll Always Have Paris was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the twenty-fourth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 06:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well written and we have many similar articles. I don't think this even qualifies as non-notable fancruft, as it is an actual episode. Rje 14:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 16:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Number eight: if a VfD like this passes, it sets a precedent that it's alright to list twelve related articles in one fell swoop, without trying to discuss it first, or condensing it to one entry. I wouldn't want that. JRM
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Indeed our personal points of view are necessary for these decisions. An episode guide, synopsis, in Wikipedia wouldn't bother me. A lovingly crafted, obsessively detailed, bug-eyed article on every episode does. It's a question of logic, not animaversion (although this particular episode was so awful as to deserve a great big stink pie). Geogre 13:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:46, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:37, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The Royale (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

The page in question is about an episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation, which, like most TNG episodes, seems to be a complete rip-off of The Twilight Zone. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way. Additionally, this article has a "Memorable quotes" section at the bottom, which is someone's opinion (one could quite easily argue that nothing from Star Trek, The Next Generation is memorable).

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 06:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. Besides, this is a good episode! P Ingerson 12:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well written and we have many similar articles. I don't think this even qualifies as non-notable fancruft, as it is an actual episode. Rje 14:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 16:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. On cloud nine, the angels whispered to me that one man's garbage is another man's encyclopedia article. "What was The Royale about, again? I vaguely remember that it sucked. Is there any place I could get factual, neutral information on it? Say, it underwent extensive rewrites. I didn't know that. And still it sucked. Amazing." JRM 17:30, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) In addition, I concur with other voters that the POV statement made in the reasoning for VfD renders this one invalid, IMO. 23skidoo 04:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 18:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:37, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Future Imperfect was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

The page in question is about an episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. The episode that this page is about is not notable, and is completely stupid, even for Star Trek (yes, I've seen it, along with all of the other episodes that I am listing here to be deleted). It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 06:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well written and we have many similar articles. I don't think this even qualifies as non-notable fancruft, as it is an actual episode. Rje 14:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 16:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ten, "this page has no potential to become encyclopedic" is a judgement not on an article, but on a topic. Let us put that first and foremost: that you discount that any page on this episode at all could be encyclopedic. Ah, but what's encyclopedic? See number six. JRM 17:31, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:51, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) The stated POV that an episode is "stupid" renders this VfD invalid, IMO. 23skidoo 04:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 17:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:37, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Conundrum (Star Trek) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this before voting.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the two-hundred fourteenth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 06:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is a general knowledge base. - SimonP 06:52, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Its not supposed to be. --NoPetrol 07:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep zen master 07:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it is a bit over-long and could do with more on character and story-arc development. It is properly disambiguated, so what's the beef? Icundell 12:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well written and we have many similar articles. I don't think this even qualifies as non-notable fancruft, as it is an actual episode. Rje 14:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 16:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eleven, this article needs cleanup. It doesn't even describe the whole episode, and is far too long regardless. Wikipedia is not a screenplay database. So I agree: this needs work. Oh, wait, you wanted it deleted? No, can't agree with that. JRM 17:33, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:51, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 22:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 23:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Do not make personal attacks. If you don't like the way VfD works, propose a policy change. Otherwise, stop talking about the nominators and confine yourself to discussions of the article. This article is properly named (unlike most of the others), but a single article with a short synopsis of each episode per season would be logical, while a separate article is a fansite's content. Geogre 14:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other season TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 17:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Newfoundglory 10:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:38, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Power Play was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans.

The page in question is about the two-hundred fifteenth episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 06:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep. Complete and well-written; not a stub. Gamaliel 06:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Did you even read the reasons why I am listing these on VfD? It has nothing to do with them being poorly written or stubs. --NoPetrol 07:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Did you even read Wikipedia:Deletion policy? You know, the policy referred to in LARGE PRINT up the top of the VFD page? - David Gerard 22:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did read it, but I disagree. Gamaliel 20:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Wikipedia can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See other episodes' votes for my reasons. P Ingerson 12:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well written and we have many similar articles. I don't think this even qualifies as non-notable fancruft, as it is an actual episode. Rje 14:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Twelve, and finally, these votes coming cheaper by the dozen: m:Wiki is not paper, m:Wiki is not paper, m:Wiki is not paper, and Jimbo agrees. So there. :-) JRM 17:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:51, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Delete but not to worry, my vote won't count for much here. nn. Wyss 22:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    So, you consider Power Play to be a particularly bad article, then? It looks like you're short 11 delete votes, otherwise. :-) JRM 00:27, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
'Tis a futile gesture, but comforting to me ;) Wyss 03:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - this nomination shows utter disregard for Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, the one linked in LARGE PRINT at the top of VFD. - David Gerard 22:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if you think it's perfectly clear that a whole class of article should be deleted from Wikipedia, post a test case first for crying out loud. Bryan 01:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Specialist encyclopedias take content known only to specialists. In a general encyclopedia, this is fancruft. Merge to the series article, at best. Otherwise, a summary and evaluation of a single episode, and not a groundbreaking one, of a show is not encyclopedic. Geogre 00:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    You know, Geogre, I can see the case you're proposing. And I might agree with it, if this were a different encyclopedia — and with that, I mean an encyclopedia with a different user base. You're basically asking for people without a primary interest in meeting these encyclopedic standards to weed out their fancruft, which seems hopeless, or you're asking people without a primary interest in the topic to weed out other people's fancruft, which, given the first group, seems equally hopeless. The Wikipedia ship may never sail between Scylla and Charybdis, I'm afraid. Not without being rebuilt from scratch, and then it won't be called Wikipedia anymore. JRM 01:13, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Well, the purpose of the back end of Wikipedia is to clean up, somewhat, the messes created by eager authors. The question is whether we exist to serve any author, no matter what, or to serve readers. For example, why no exquisitely detailed per episode article on "Diff'rent Strokes" or "Eight Is Enough" or "Lassie?" The answer seems to be, "Because our authors think Star Trek is kewel, and not those other shows." That, to me, makes us Everything2. This is not, so far as I see it, the Internet palimpsest. It's still an attempt at an encyclopedia, and what I consistently argue is for the logical organization of this information. In some cases, I think the information is utterly worthless, but most of the time I'm thinking of how and where the information can be retrieved and do some good. We do need to do the work that authors aren't doing, I'm afraid, and that's why I vote "merge and redirect" only if I think the information is vital and/or not written elsewhere. Geogre 14:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent quality articles. Trash the trash, keep the goods. Leave those episode articles alone. --Phils 19:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge this and all other TNG episodes in its season into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." All. Keep.Dr Zen 04:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 17:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For any admins reading this, count this as a vote to keep any ST episode page. I can't be bothered to vote on all of them. Dan100 10:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Holodoctor1 11:38, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Probably vanity. 18 google hits. Gamaliel 06:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, author wants it gone, probable mistake. Wyss 22:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is the above the author? Looks like page got blanked, that's a speedy. All that's left are the messages. hfool 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Wyss. GRider\talk 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the article says it all. Deb 10:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I doubt there's much potential to expand this in the first place, but even as a stub, the writing... does not inspire confidence, to put it politely. Shimeru 11:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The character is worth mentioning in MADtv's article but this writing is not worth saving. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing can be saved to be merged into MADtv. Rje 19:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Wyss 22:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft.
  • Delete - this does not look-a-like a article. -- Cyrius| 06:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I edited out the most offensive reference, but the article is still non-notable nonsense the subject of which could be covered at MADtv if anyone really thought it necessary. Fire Star 20:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only pointing this out to those more experienced. Seems as though a child wrote this. 131.137.245.200 11:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even the article admits this is "a band... who are not known very well." [sic.] Maybe at some point they'll be noteworthy enough to include, but they're not there now. Shimeru 11:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. --Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, poorly-spelled vanity. Rje 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, poor things. Wyss 22:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next, an article about the orange I ate three weeks ago? Let that grotesque page vanish into oblivion. --Phils 19:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Prime material for the Special Filing Cabinet. Trilobite (Talk) 19:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a short page about a series of adverts for an American airline - are the adverts of notable cultural significance? Here in the UK some American adverts have been famous enough to become well-known - Ridley Scott's 1984, Joe Isuzu and perhaps the phrase "Where's the beef?", albeit shorn from the adverts - but I suspect that this particular series is, even in America, just part of the background noise of daily life, neither notable in itself nor in its field.

Perhaps it could be transformed into a single line on the page for Southwest Airlines - "since (year), television commercials for the airline have used the phrase Wanna get away?" or something similar, although I am unfamiliar with either the adverts, the airline, or the market. The article's creator seems an enthusiastic fellow, if sometimes a little misguided. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge with Southwest Airlines, perhaps as a separate section, then delete. It is somewhat interesting in its own right. But I don't think the phrase itself has significant cultural recognition to warrant its own page. Shimeru 11:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, standard ad agency plotlines Wyss 22:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Southwest Airlines and redirect. hfool 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable advertising slogans. Geogre 00:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Some funny ads have come out of this campaign, but this ain't exactly Where's the beef?. Szyslak 07:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Southwest Airlines and redirect. --JuntungWu 07:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)hfool 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here. Google returns no relevant results. Delete. utcursch 11:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I lived in north-west London in the late 1990s; to talk of "the youth community of North West London" is nonsense, like those episodes of 'Star Trek' where entire planets have one culture and language. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete utter, utter drivel. Icundell 13:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Rje 14:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. VFD tag was removed by an anon user. Now restored. --LeeHunter 16:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely nonsense. Wyss 21:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First AfD

[edit]

Thank god this was kept, because I needed to know. LOL! Etoile 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep should be an article!!
  • I think I may receive death threats for putting this on VFD, but it seems like an armed extermists propaganda to me. =P - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe even speedy. Google shows ONE hit for "United Liberation Front Of Tibet", and that is a comment in a public forum with the same text as the article for deletion. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be good if there were a way to get rid of these faster. --BM 13:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a recognized group. --LeeHunter 16:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not listed in List of active autonomist and secessionist movements or List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements. No useful content at present. If verifiable content is added (and I'd recommend the article be stubified as the first step) I'll change my vote. Meanwhile please send any explosives by email only (you do it by attaching it to your computer with the email client running and lighting the fuse.) Andrewa 17:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably not notable and not a useful basis for an article anyway. --fvw* 19:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed that patent political tracts such as this should be speedies. They may become notable later, so an article can always be started again. nn, ad. Wyss 21:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's an ad, Wyss? :P Delete as... revolutioncruft? hfool 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heh heh. Politcal ad, sure (I'd consider propaganda a subset of that etc). Which is to say... wiki is not a soapbox. Wyss 03:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if an article could be written on this group, there is little or no useful information to start from here. Revolutioncruft is as good a term as any. Tuf-Kat 23:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hah! "Revolutioncruft", is it? Such comments will ensure you're the first against the wall when the revolution does come! (And have you noticed that you can join up by mailing the address at the bottom? Let the good times roll for the rebels, I say.) JRM 00:22, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless trash, no corroboration or proof that this group exists. Lankiveil 12:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) (oops, wikinews != wikipedia)