Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 26

April 26

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of dog breeds. Postdlf 04:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

List of dog races

I was tempted to speedy this, but decided not to, since it doesn't technically meet the requirements. There's only on "race" (I think s/he means breed) listed, and it would be redundant with List of dog breeds even if there were more listings. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as fundamentally incorrect. A redirect to List of dog breeds is a possibility, but when most people refer to "dog races" they mean a track sport, not breeds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though dog racism is a serious problem in this country. Postdlf 01:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete or turn into what the article says - surely there are notable greyhound and whippet races the same way that the Grand National and Kentucky Derby are notable horse races? Grutness|^hello? 01:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "race" is misleading. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: I knew what they meant when I saw it because in French it's "races des chiens" or something similar. So I also immediately knew that they meant List of dog breeds. And then I thought, no, maybe they *are* talking about famous dog races (if there are any like the kentucky derby), but noooo. So--my first inclination would have been to delete it, but if there are others with ESL coming here, they might in fact look under this name and shd be redirected to the proper list of breeds. Elf | Talk 06:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, misleading article. Megan1967 08:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm now favoring a redirect, in light of what Elf pointed out. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for the moment to greyhound racing; like Grutness and Elf, surely there must be some notable dog races, and a list of them may well be worthwhile, either under this title or in the greyhound racing article. What's here, a single link to sharpei, is not worth keeping, although a sharpei race might be fun. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of dog breeds. "Race" is equivalent to "breed" in this case even if it's rarely used, and somewhat confusing. If a list of dog races is created then it should link to the list of breeds. I too initially thought of races as meaning breeds. This is because Swedish is my first language and that it being a list of breeds would make more sense. It's not that unlikly that I would search for race before remembering that the proper word is breed. - Jeltz talk 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the disambig idea sicne the name of the artcile is quite ambiguos. Jeltz talk 16:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Cahnged my vote back to "Redirect to List of dog breeds". Jeltz talk 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I actually thought race=breed first before racing of dogs. As there's some disagreement over what we would redirect to, I've changed this to a disambig page pointing to both List of dog breeds and Greyhound racing (this link could be changed to a list of race tracks if there are enough notable ones - I don't know much about dogs let alone greyhound racing so I'll leave that to someone else). Is this the best solution? SteveW | Talk 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it's a disambig page, shouldn't the title be "dog race" or "dog races" rather than 'list of...", since it's not an actual list? Lachatdelarue (talk) 16:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• redirect to List of dog breeds. If a list of dog tracks appears, we can deal with it then. Dsmdgold 21:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of dog breeds. Agree with Dsmdgold - create the disambig when you need it, not before. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of dog breeds, and create a separate article for List of dog racing events if there are enough to justify one. -- 8^D ^gab 03:41, 2005 May 1 (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. – ABCD 00:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Freeadom in the Country

• Article was created by a new guy who doesn't realize the way Wikipedia articles are meant to work -- he created it to be a clickable "legend" that'd be used in several articles where he'd use the Freedom House ratings. When I was adding the vfd notice, I advised in the edit summary that he should simply explain where the ratings come from within the article, and link to the Freedom House page instead. As for Freeadom in the Country, please delete. Even spelled correctly the title's meaningless. Aris Katsaris 00:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Aris Katsaris. Also isn't "freedom" a subjective concept? — JIP | Talk 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for poor title alone, before even looking at the content. Agree with Aris Katsaris. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this is a neat idea. Looks like he was looking for a sort of template. The "modular section" concept is good. It's not an "article", but it's not supposed to be.
• Delete as nonencyclopedic, original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a travel guide may also apply.  ; ) Postdlf 08:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - misleading.--Prem Vilas Fortran Rara 17:08, May 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 00:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Windu

This is not a "real" Star Wars character, but rather the name used by a person playing Knights of the Old Republic. The biography of this fictional fictional character is totally false, and is not even featured in the game. — Jon Hart

• I say: Delete. It's not a real Star Wars character. — Jon Hart
• Delete as MMORPG character, also non-canonical, non-notable, vanity... oh, and if that's not enough, 1 Google hit from a forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This name that is used by a person playing a video game is not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs, CRPGs, and pen-and-paper RPG campaigns. android↔talk 03:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 03:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete all non-canonical, not officially licensed fan characters. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote emphasised because of the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity MMORPG characters. Not official canon means not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Michael Windu is a well-established Expanded Universe character. Allenalb|^(talk) 10:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (Improperly signed comment by 66.82.9.43.)
  • Given 1 Google hit (per Starblind), the fact that the article clearly reflects that this character was created for a playthrough of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, your impersonation of a nonexistant user, and your vandalism of Mgm's vote, I find that very hard to believe. android↔talk 15:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not a nonexistant user, and I don't see how I vandalized anything at all. I am confused by this personal attack, all I have done is vote my conscience.Allenalb↔talk 12:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (Improperly signed comment by 12.153.112.11; note that this IP address was previously used to sign as DVSMiC and not Allenalb.)
      • I was mistaken; it was not vandalism, but impersonation, since you copy-and-pasted Mgm's vote and changed it to Keep. Furthermore, User:Allenalb has made no edits, and thus does not exist; if you are truly this user, then log in and sign your posts with ~~~~; otherwise, refrain from using a signature that indicates that you are him. android↔talk 16:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Impersonation is also an incorrect choice of words, it would be better to say that I plagiarized Mgm's vote, however I did so only to easily facilitate my response. For what it's worth, I am not the 'disputed' Michael Windu (I fully accept that you likely won't believe me). Allenalb 16:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the sheer nerve of this guy warrants keeping this interesting character. DVSMiC|^(talk) 11:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (Improperly signed comment by 12.153.112.11.)
• Keep. I can't believe that so many "serious" Star Wars fans have not heard of this character. KommisMar|^(talk) 11:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (User's first edit.)
• Keep. I agree with DVSMiC on this one. If someone has the balls to submit this, it deserves to be kept! Keep it!. Tagbishop|^(talk) 11:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (User's first edit.)
• Luuuuuuke... I am your deleter. Delete per WP:FICT, fancruft. Barno 15:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Anonymous users: you would do well to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. android↔talk 16:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any character that only exists as one user's character on a MMORPG. Average Earthman 18:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN. The answer to why everyone has odd socks? Cue rubbish jokes about turning to the Sock Side or something. Stop that thought now... SteveW | Talk 20:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The Force is weak with this one. - UtherSRG 21:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - until now, sock puppets have not made an appearance in Star Wars. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No legitimate internet presence, doesn't actually exist in official Star Wars canon, completely non-notable, sock puppetry. -LtNOWIS 02:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Use the force, you know my existence to be true. Michael Windu|^(talk) 12:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) — (Unsigned comment by 68.235.135.203.)
• Luke - I am your delete. Radiant_* 08:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• It's a traaaaaap! Delete. A Man In Black 10:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sigh. Quale 21:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Use the Delete, Luke, use the Delete. Come, join me... come to the Delete Side. ...I sense a great disturbance in the Sock... the Sock Side clouds everything... Master Thief Garrett

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 00:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Theanism

Nonnotable religion about a neopagan goddess-centric faith (yeah, that's unique) with no external evidence of its existence. "Theanism" gets about half a dozen entirely unrelated google hits; "theanism" + "goddess" gets 0. Delete. Postdlf 01:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable, vanity, non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• This is not correct. It exists. It is a newly developed form of Dianic Wicca. We are currently attempting to set up a web page. Please do not delete!!!! (Note: Unsigned comment by User:172.132.30.33, the article's author.)
  • I'm sorry, but a religion has to be much more established than that to merit an article. I wish you luck and perhaps some day, if you gain enough followers and outside attention, you may have become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That day simply hasn't arrived yet. Postdlf 01:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Recreate if this changes. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Wishing you people luck in developing your religion, but it must first become famous enough to merit an article, and only *then* we include it. Not vice versa. Aris Katsaris 04:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • And as a sidenote, I'm Greek and I can tell you that your usage of Greek is flawed. Brother and sister are "Adelfos" and "Adelfi", not "Aldefos" and "Aldefi". Also the names of your months have a mixed usage of cardinal and ordinal numerals (i.e. "pente" means "five" and "endeka" means "eleven", but "proto" means "first" and "ekto" means "sixth"). Aris Katsaris 04:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it must be known before an article is created. Please note that Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly. I get 9 google hits, 2 of which point to this VfD, and one of which is a typo of "prometheanism". If at all verifiable, perhaps a note on it could be dropped in pandeism. -- 8^D ^gab 02:01, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • Never mind the last part, apparently it's out of vogue. -- 8^D ^gab 22:03, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • At most it would get a bare mention in Dianic Wicca, but this would amount to nothing more than "one group of practitioners, in an undisclosed location, have invented new names for the days and months and call their version 'Theanism'." It would be like naming individual Bible study groups in Protestantism. Postdlf 23:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless this is a horrendous misspelling of "Theism" or something like that. Master Thief Garrett 11:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete, this is a a real religion. It has 5,000 adherents many of whom reside in the New England region. It is not known in wider circles, even most neo-Pagans are not aware of its existence. I must say that just because a religion is not well-known or "popular" doesn't mean it should be ignored or written off.

Note: unsigned comment by 172.172.49.228; first contribution ever by that IP. Postdlf 21:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. – ugen64 04:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Terry Griffiths (Australian policeman)

Not convinced of the notability. Surely could be merged with Sydney Hilton bombing. Grutness|^hello? 01:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or delete not notable outside the event. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Sydney Hilton bombing. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, per Andrew. This is one Australian article that doesn't need to be kept. Ambi 12:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- and merge any valuable information into Sydney Hilton bombing. - Longhair | Talk 17:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir as above. Radiant_* 08:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• m/r as above. Alphax ^τεχ 14:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - As it presently stands, it needs to be merged into Sydney Hilton bombing, but I am familiar with the event, his investigations and claims, and at some future time an entry may be warranted.--Takver 04:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Darth Traya. Postdlf 04:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Darth Trayus

Superfluous article, misspelling of the pre-existing Darth Traya. Delete. - Jon Hart

• Redirect as below, it's an exact copy. --Dmcdevit 02:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Don't bother redirecting this one, not a likely misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Megan1967 08:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Andrew suggests. I really can't see someone failing to spell so spectacularly.-LtNOWIS 02:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Darth Nihilus. Postdlf 04:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Darth Nihilous

Superfluous article, misspelling of the pre-existing Darth Nihilus. Delete. - Jon Hart

• Just...redirect to the correct spelling. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as reasonable misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Megan1967 08:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. For some reason, this made me think of Darth Millhouse. -- 8^D ^gab 03:48, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Penguinize

• Doesn't look like a good article. Has several external links and no Wikipedia links, and appears to start with a dic-def. Georgia guy 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think this one should probably be merged and redirected, not sure where yet though. JYolkowski // talk 02:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wrote the article, and showed it to one of my friends who then vandalized it. He isn't my friend anymore. I've been working on more examples, etc. I believe that it is worth the 2-3KB it takes up. I wrote the "dic-def" that Georgia Guy was wiki-ing about, and I thought that it explained the basic idea of "penguinizing" something. The Vandals Name is Kyle and can be reached at spetznas67 (aim) and kyle@xugle.com (hoasted on my domain... I'll be deleting his email in 2 weeks so get your rants in now). I beleive that with a little chance to gorw, the penguinizing article could have potential. I only had it up for about 10 minutes before it was vandalized. plz let it stay for the time being! (thx) JimXugle 03:02GMT, 26 APR 2005
  • Update: I have added more infromation to the article as of 03:17GMT 26 APR 2005; Please revisit the penguinize article. — (JimXugle forgot to sign.)
• Delete. Neologism. 41 unique Google hits for penguinize. android↔talk 03:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. What's the policy for re-creating deleted articles? If this gets big (which, in all fairness to JimXugle, it absolutely might), then, sure, let's have an article for it (or at least a wicidic entry). Right now, though... Marblespire 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary iff Linux users (I'm not one) can verify that this term is a genuine slang term among them. Otherwise delete as a neologism. --Angr/_comhrá 10:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Marblespire. JimXugle, try urbandictionary.com - they let you make up words and try to get them into the vernacular. Johntex 17:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to refute what Johntex said. I know many people, not just my close-knit friends, who use the word "penguinize" in normal conversation. These people range (Geographically) from Birtish Columbia, Canada, to Virginia, USA. It may be a "made up word", but thats how a language Evloves. the word "digital" was unheard of in the early 1900's, but is now commonplace. I don't claim that the word "penguinize" will become as popular is digital, nor do I claim to have "made up" the word. JimXugle 20:26GMT, 26 APR 2005
  • That's all well and good, but the word is still a neologism. android↔talk 20:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whats wrong with a recently created (or coined) word/phrase? Like I said before... It's how a language evolves.
    • Perhaps the fact that Wikipedia has an explicit policy against including neologisms? I quote: A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is: [...] it introduces neologisms. (Note that, above, I linked this policy page from neologism; I should have made that more obvious, perhaps.) android↔talk 20:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Please sign your comments by putting a ~~~~ at the end.) In Wikipedialand, "neologism" means "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." (See WP:GVFD.) In the ordinary sense of the word, sure, there are lots of articles whose names are neologisms. But those articles are about the concept behind the word, not the word itself. If you want to write about the definition and origin of a word, you need to contribute to contribute to our sister project, Wiktionary ---Isaac R 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 22:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Aight. I give Up. If it's against Wikipolicy, get rid of it. My Vote: Delete -JimXugle 02:09GMT 27 APR 2005
  • Change in vote: After reading Tony Sidaway's post, Merge and redirect to Linux -JimXugle 20:26GMT 27 APR 2005
• Merge and redirect to Linux. Penguinizing wouldn't apply to BSD, that would be Daemonizing! :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway; hence the idea behind wiki! edit it (while it's still up)! :-P -JimXugle 20:23GMT 27 APR 2005
• Keep it. At what point does the term become legit enough? A quick Google found an article from year 2000 in PCWorld that uses the term - albeit they seem to have a different understanding of the term -- newbie lurker 47.234.0.52 18:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Retain User:SteveBaker I'm a Linux user - and I've definitely heard this term used in the way it's defined on this page. I wouldn't say it was wildly popular - but it's definitely not something this guy just dreamed up. As such, I think it should stay. (I like 'Defenestrating' as an almost-synonym!)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 00:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Bishops

Non-notable band—no releases, no coverage on allmusic or google. Delete -- JeremyA 02:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, doesnt meet wikipedia guidelines. Megan1967 08:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. Sjakkalle 09:23, 29 Apr 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 (Wiwaxia, I don't think those two are the same person). Marblespire 03:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve Downes

nominate for reasons of non-notability. The fellow's IMDB page shows only three credits and a comment about how he DJ's for a radio station. I'm a big fan of Halo, but, still. Marblespire 03:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) [EDIT] Oh yeah, I vote Delete. (Duh. =) )

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Stephen Downes who was arrested after wearing a "Give peace a chance" T-shirt at the mall. Wiwaxia 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Postdlf 04:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tokugawapants

Non-notable, probable vanity. Delete. JeremyA 03:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ""Delete"" Please use Rapid Delete for perfect nonsense, rather than occupy many people's time with voting. --Wetman 03:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as patent nonsense. I'll tag it. android↔talk 03:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge, and the content was "merged" by the creator to Identity document forgery. —Xezbeth 18:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Phony passport

Another useless pop culture article that should just be merged into Passport w/o the so called "pop culture" refrence added into it, written by our ******* friend SuperDude115 (talk · contributions) aka SamuraiClinton (talk · contributions), as it seems that the RFC was a waste of time, as he continues to just do the same thing over and over again. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

• Delete - Ridiculous. Duh. If anything, it should be merged into the Passport article, but it DEFINITELY needs to be deleted from where it is now. -- Cabhan 03:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. People do make phony passports in real life therefore this is Wikipedic. Many Wikipedians curious about law enforcement might want to know about this illegal practice. --SuperDude 04:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The pop culture reference has been removed! Anyone think this should be kept now??? --SuperDude 04:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SamuraiClintoncruft. RickK 04:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Press the clunky delete button. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to identity document or passport for now. Article about forged identification documents or something like that would definitely be useful, though, in which case this page could be redirected to that - Skysmith 09:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Might be more useful as a search phrase than as an article. - Lucky 6.9 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It is a self-evident definition of the two words "phony" and "passport". Even though redirects are cheap, I vote delete. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fake ID - which is, itself, a tiny stub of an article, desperately in need of expansion. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 20:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • On second thought, the Fake ID article was just created yesterday, and the syntax is suspiciously familiar.... hold the thought. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 20:44, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
    • I have just created a stub for Identity document forgery, suggest a merge to that title. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 21:05, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. Good start. - Skysmith 07:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• I just merged content from Phony passport to the identity document forgery article, should we redirect phony passport now? --SuperDude 02:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted as a copyvio. —Xezbeth 18:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Coprography

Text in full is: Coprography is writing obscene words or phrases, usually in public toilets.

Dictionary definition. Recommend transwiki to wikidictionary. (does not already have this word) RJFJR 03:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, has potential to explore the reasons for coprophagy coprography, its content and its consequences. Kappa 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons, content, and consequences of coprophagy are already discussed in our pre-existing coprophagia article (which coprophagy redirects to). I thought this was a misspelling at first glance, too, though. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Never mind, copyvio anyway. Kappa 11:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (if they want it). sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I take that back, now that we know it's a copyvio. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 22:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary doesn't want copyvios. (See google results.) If they want this word (and I'm not convinced it's sufficiently widespread use), they can make a better definition on their own anyway. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep graffiti made it to FAC, Coprography is a notable sub type. Klonimus 06:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There's actually a name for writing on a crapper stall? Well, I'll be damned. Technically, however, wouldn't the "copro-" prefix indicate the graffiti is actually written in feces? Iconoclast 15:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if copyedited (so there will be no copyvios). --Eleassar777 22:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Xezbeth 18:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Goh Tat Chuan

NN. Given that the team isn't big enough to register on the Wiki radar, why should one of its players? Then again, 570 hits, and he may be a Singaporean international player (not that Singapore are exactly Brazil...) Grutness|^hello? 04:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Alex.tan 14:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Adored by millions, most of which don't speak english or use a roman alphabet. SchmuckyTheCat 14:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ, he may be adored by thousands and thousands, but I would hardly put the figure at "millions". There are only 4 million residents in Singapore and I would venture that 3/4 of them won't even bother knowing anymore about him than the fact he exists (Singapore is, after all, well known for having many citizens who know more about the English Premier league than their own soccer league). I would bet hardly anyone outside Singapore is a fan of his. Alex.tan 04:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for the reason given by SchmuckyTheCat. --Eleassar777 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is actually in the Singapore national squard, as well as one of the extremely few ethnic Chinese soccer players here, hence that does raise his profile somewhat.--Huaiwei 09:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just its a substub and someone really didn't bother to type in anything distinctive when they created it, so I will work on this later. -- Natalinasmpf 11:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Footman Wars

Unencyclopedic. Delete. NatusRoma 04:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm quite positive I saw this on VFD before. I just can't find the exact spelling of the deleted article. Speedy delete as recreated deletia. Alternatively you can do a normal delete, it's a custom map and not official to the game --> non-notable. Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• You're right, it's Footmen Frenzy groundhog day. I don't know why that wasn't deleted, there was a consensus that it should have been. A speedy delete on that one and a delete for this one. Anilocra 14:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic and gibberish to boot. Leithp 15:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A custom map is not notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus' —Xezbeth 18:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Misetings

Non-notable website. I can't get an Alexa ranking for it, except "not in the top 100,000". RickK 04:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn forumvertisement. Alexa rank 549,864. —Korath (Talk) 09:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just another website. Alexa ranking shows it's not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been working on this article since its inception and I'd be irritated to see it go with as little behind it as "it's missing out of the top 100,000." --Mr Bound 10:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. android↔talk 12:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy: move to User:Mr Bound/Misetings and delete the redirect. Samaritan 13:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting proposition, Samaritan. What exactly would have to be done for this and where precisely can I find more information about it? Mr Bound 15:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe there's a help page on that around here somewhere... ah, here it is. If it's decided that this is what is to be done with the article, you'll want to list the redirect that's left behind at Redirects for deletion. android↔talk 16:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Since at this point the odds of the article being kept are pretty slim, I'll put my support behind this. Mr Bound 16:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Ouch, nice article. Wikinfo might be a more receptive host.Kappa 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. MTGNews has its own page... why shouldn't this? Also, there's some history for the MTG player interested in this unique community Sidar 0:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really. Non-notable, not encyclopedic. The tone of the article is horrible, and it's boring as hell too. Even MTG fans couldn't find this article or topic interesting. Quale 04:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You mention that the tone is horrible- regardless of what happens to this article, how precisely would you improve it? Mr Bound 13:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that, while Quale may not revisit this page, I have been working hard to try and improve the tone of the article as well as trim uninteresting and redundant material and add links of value. Mr Bound 03:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very notable website in the community. Grue 16:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Entries that need improvement should be improved, not deleted. No more an advertisement than the entries for SomethingAwful or MTGNews, even if the site is smaller. Basilisk128 22:33, 6 May 2005
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 04:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It's just another forum.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dolt

DicDef that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary and is unlikely to become an encyclopedia article. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, already transwikid. Megan1967 08:20, 26 Apr 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 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dwang

WP:WINAD. A dicdef and I see no potential for growth. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

• Keep, more than a dicdef. Could be expanded to give methods of construction, techniques used for installation, history of design etc. Kappa 2 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
  • Not that I didn't expect your vote, but aren't we voting on what it is now, not what you thnk it might become? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
    • Then why did you mention you see no potential for expansion? Anyway there is need for expansion here, but the current article provides a good start. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
      • Well, I didn't, and I'm still not sure I do, but I may be wrong. But my question was whether one is supposed to vote based on the article's content, or based on the potential of the article's title? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
        • The criteria for deletion generally point to the question of whether an article on the topic in question is inherently unencyclopedic, irrespective of content. A vanity page, for example, may never be encyclopedic even if the author manages to include 20 page of information about every detail of his life. A one-line article on a federal appellate judge (of which we have had a few), on the other hand, should clearly be kept because the topic is notable, and there is indeed potential for expansion. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly expanded before VFD ends. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
• Delete Should be moved to Wiktionary, as I believe as has already been done. The notion that this expanded and made to suit Wikipedia is implausible. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:39 (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 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 keep. —Xezbeth 18:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bikini line

DicDef that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary and is unencyclopedic. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, just being an informal term for a personal area doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Kappa 05:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You've got to be kidding me, Kappa. Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 06:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think a dictionary is the right place to discuss dipilatory methods and consequences, or trends in bikini design and social acceptance. Kappa 09:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote. We have an article on depilation. Merge and redirect this there. RickK 19:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteXmarkX 08:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems like a worthwhile stub but should be cleaned up. People come here to look up information on just about any subject, and "bikini line" is certainly a common topic. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to depilation, per RickK. CDC (talk) 23:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable body area. Concur with Kappa. Wiki aint Paper. Klonimus 06:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Somewhat notable but the article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per RickK. Wiki aint toilet paper. Radiant_* 08:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep Notable, important to many people. The real question is, will it be big enough for it's own page? I think we could fill it to a good size, but it could work either way. Merging to depilation would make some sense, but I think keep would be better, and allow for more expansion.-LtNOWIS 02:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is an irrelevant criteria. There is no minimum size for an article. Oliver Chettle 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Size of article is a legitimate consideration when deciding whether to merge or keep. I note that LtNOWIS doesn't propose to delete it. Kappa 18:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is not a dictionary definition. Oliver Chettle 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per RickK--nixie 04:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Someone should ad an image diagraming the line. Let us not be prude!!! Psychofox 23:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Bikini waxing. Remove Remington reference. --Marianocecowski 10:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the Remington reference? Kappa 11:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary reference to a brand name to exemplify a electric razor with an article that talks mainly about Computers? Just a comment --Marianocecowski 11:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest Version Game Player

Non-notable bootleg Famicom/NES clone. There are literally dozens of these out there; individually, the vast majority are simply not noteworthy. The article indicates that this one hasn't even been released yet. Delete. Firebug 04:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This article was moved from Latest Version Power Player game cartridge in an attempt to circumvent this VfD. android↔talk 12:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 15:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable. Nestea 01:01, 29 Apr 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Barefoot and pregnant

DicDef of an expression that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--nixie 04:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition + waffle != encylopedia article. -- The Anome 15:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Waffle"? What is that supposed to mean? 205.217.105.2 16:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it seems like a good article and is informative 66.0.121.112 17:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — encyclopedic subject, good initial research, plenty of potential to expand ➥the Epopt 18:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--Silversmith 19:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the deal with people voting "Delete" and not giving any rationale? 205.217.105.2 20:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Agree with the Epopt. CarsonDailyCity 20:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it has been expanded after it was placed here on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete waffling on a dicdef-subject, unencyclopedic, tabloidy.--Fenice 05:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously, has been expanded to go far beyond a dicdef. -- AlexR 05:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it's a potentially notable topic, this article is pure nonsense. Ambi 07:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I almost just changed my vote to keep, but then thought, is there anything this article says that is worth keeping, that couldn't be covered in the Human pregnancy article which already says: "Edema, or swelling, of the feet is common during pregnancy. For the sake of comfort, many pregnant women wear larger shoes or go without. This may have something to do with the origin of the phrase "barefoot and pregnant."? --Silversmith 08:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this article has validity and is informative and should be kept. Let me be clear in saying that you are the bane of wiki's existence, you so-called 'deletionists'- what makes you think your contributions are important and why don't you squander the fruitless hours of your lives somewhere else?

i didn't know about the merge option- i guess that would be fine also- as long as it will exist somewhere. can i just ask one question to wiki addicts: before the creation of wikipedia what did your lives center around? how forunate that it came to be, now i guess your existence will have some meaning.

• Selfless people do like to donate their time to worthy causes, whilst they also work very hard in their professions.--Silversmith 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

above is from user:Tparker393. They've been around since December but this was their 13th total edit and first to a VfD. Thryduulf 13:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the picture and the small amount of non-waffle into a (short) paragraph on Human pregnancy, then redirect. Thryduulf 13:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• fascinating, but I'm afraid it's a Delete for me Merge if possible, as above, otherwise my delete still counts. This is just a thing that some mothers decide to do. It's not article-worthy, it's just an "eccentricity", albeit one of those old wives' tales sort of things that a lot would swear by. But come on... what next, Nude in winter? Master Thief Garrett 14:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Bhai

DicDef of a non-English word that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete - "Bhai" is a Hindi word / also used in several languages of north India. As stated by User:Kevin Rector, this word has already been Transwikified to Wikitionary, and separate article is not required.--Bhadani 13:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Bacalhoeiro

DicDef of a non-English word that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:23, 26 Apr 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. sjorford →•← 17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Crack whore

DicDef of a slang word that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Firebug 06:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already transwikid. Megan1967 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no reason why a good history of crack whores cannot be written. Maccoinnich 13:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with crack. Radiant_* 14:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 80,000+ Google hits, even has several web-pages. Also, Michael Jackson's publicist testified that Jackson's representatives wanted to paint the mother of the boy he's accused of molesting as a crack whore. Oh, and Norm McDonald had this bit about the world's worst job was not "crack whore", but rather "assistant crack whore." -- 8^D ^gab 02:11, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Keep, pervasive stereotype. Kappa 18:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with crack. Examples of stereotypes are not independently encyclopedic. They should be discussed in context. Rossami (talk) 23:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Rossami--nixie 04:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mike H 21:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary. Quale 04:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep crack whore is a very common term. there shouldnt be a concern as to the language, as this is a part of society's vocabulary. 68.190.40.38 01:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. — P Ingerson - Talk - Contribs 02:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is more then just a slang term. It's a distinct concept. - Pioneer-12 09:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep SchmuckyTheCat 14:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep notable CoolGuy 20:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 04:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

List of songs about body parts

Come on. Rhobite 05:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Wikipedia contains a lot worse. - Longhair | Talk 05:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When a robber doesn't kill his victim we ought not to praise him because "bad guys could do a lot worse". Kevin Rector (talk) 05:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the beauty of Wikipedia is that it won't steal from you, or attempt to harm you. You have the full right of way to steer clear of this article. Your analogy is flawed. - Longhair | Talk 08:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems more like useless trivia to mention at a cocktail party than an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – (Obviously, I started it) While it is bound to be generally vulgar, that is the nature of the songs. There are songs about non-sexual body parts. Bottom line, I think it is just as relavent as List of songs about masturbation and more so than List of Pearl Jam songs covered by others. —BenFrantzDale 05:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

You say just as relevant, I say just as useless. Tomato/Tomato let's call the whole thing off.Kevin Rector (talk) 05:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Come on indeed. It's articles like this take makes Wikipedia worthwhile. Keep.--Gene_poole 06:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 08:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteXmarkX 08:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way in hell this list could possibly be comprehensive or objective enough to be useful.--KASchmidt 08:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oy vey, again with the lists of songs. --Angr/_comhrá 10:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another stupid list. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was thinking that I would go the other way if there was some way that the list could be limited to actual body parts instead of metaphorical body parts (i.e. excluding all those songs about broken hearts, which are not really about the blood-pumpung lump of flesh known as a heart)... but "songs about body parts" is not a particularly notable theme, nor is the list limited to notable songs. -- 8^D ^gab 14:15, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep as clarified, refined and expanded. However, I contend that the AC/DC song, "Big Balls" is really just about large fancy parties. -- 8^D ^gab 03:40, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I think I'm starting to like these lists. They're interesting. And I think they add an element of fun to the Wikipedia. I say we should keep these kinds of articles here to pull in otherwise disinterested potential editors so they can get their feet wet. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Shrug — This list is too short by far; it doesn't even include Hot Legs. — RJH 15:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Kappa fixed that omission. Give it time. The fact that humans write songs about pieces of themselves is interesting. If it doesn't grow much larger at a reasonable pace, then I'll stand corrected. —BenFrantzDale 16:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Shhh! Don't tell Everyking or he'll make it all about Pieces of Me. :) Seriously, keep. (Might have been a weak keep, if some admins didn't apparently count those as half a vote, which is not my intention.) Samaritan 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, he'll make a new article List of body parts mentioned in Pieces of Me ;-). I think I'm still undecided on this debate, but i'll be watching it.--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Directly, the song mentions only the head, the face, and arms, but it also contains the phrases I hear you and I can hardly catch my breath, and it contains the word "bottom", but in the sense of being at the bottom of a long fall, rather than in the sense of being a person's bottom. I vote delete; not least because, despite the blurb at the top of the article, a lot of the songs aren't actually about body parts, they just mention them in the title (New Order's "Touched by the Hand of God" stands out in particular, not least because God doesn't have a body). This is Everything2 stuff, and I mean that in a good way.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If somebody wishes to develop these retarded non-encyclopedic articles, they can do it on their user page. BTW, do only admin votes count? --Frenchman113 16:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, all registered users (at least, with credible edit histories who aren't counted as sockpuppets.) Samaritan 07:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Stevie's thinking. Kappa 15:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meelar (talk) 20:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• A list of songs about body parts that doesn't include the traditional children's song "Heads, Shoulders, Knees and Toes"? (I've added it). Oh, just thought "Hokey-Cokey" (or "Hokey-Pokey" I believe for the Americans? "left leg in" etc.) A fairly poor list then. Do we include a "list of songs in the first person" (not creating tempting link) in this list because "I" and "eye" are homonyms? Was tempted to keep this at first but I've finally convinced myself: weak Delete (I think). SteveW | Talk 20:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. No way this could be made even remotely complete. --Carnildo 22:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The same was probably said of sexual slang at an early point. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. Klonimus 06:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Carnildo. Radiant_* 08:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting, encyclopedic, and potentially useful. Lists of songs generally should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I think songs about body parts are encyclopedically notable; and also, I kinda like songs like those. --SuperDude 01:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Naughty boy.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 07:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep muriel@pt 12:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as reasoned by others above. — Ливай | ☺ 05:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as Zzyzx11 and others. Pavel Vozenilek 20:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless listcruft, not helpful to readers. Clearly what wikipedia really needs is several thousand "List of songs about x" articles for all possible values of x. Quale 05:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably too hard to complete/maintain, and it's not necessary or particularly useful. If you want to read pointless song trivia, go to this site instead. --Idont Havaname 01:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is amusing trivia, but it is not a viable subcategory or alternate sorting method for songs. - Pioneer-12 09:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. --Eleassar777 22:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

• Now that the page has grown, I see that yes, people like writing songs which fixate on body parts. However, the lack of clear criteria for exclusion was leading to an open-ended list. I've clarified those criteria and removed some songs that failed to pass. If the list remains ill-defined, then it doesn't belong here, but if it can solidify into a clear list, then I maintain my position. —BenFrantzDale 03:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Keep if the criteria for inclusion are clearly stated. It is kind of fun! - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What, no Jim Stafford's "16 Little Red Noses and a Horse That Sweats?" Of course, the nature of this topic, as noted, is very plastic. You might as well do a comprehensive list of songs with cuss words in them, cross-referenced by severity of the swear. But then, when Bob Dylan said "goddamn" in 1964, it was a lot more scandalous that Ludicris dropping f-bombs every other word in 2005. So you'd have to take that into consideration as well. A thousand Wikipedians on a thousand computers could take a thousand years editing this topic and not see the end of it. The_Iconoclast 20:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If one were to want to do something like that, the correct approach would be to have a database of lyrics and query it. It would certainly be an interesting resource. —BenFrantzDale 21:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Byline

DicDef that has been transwikied already. Not much more you can say about it. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Cromwellt | Talk 17:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

A matter of fact

etymology of a phrase. It has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Rossami --nixie 04:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nitin

DicDef of a non-English word. It has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition, already transwikid. Megan1967 08:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep' or merge somewhere, if it's one of the 1000 names of Lord Vishnu. List of name of Lord Vishnu maybe. Kappa 10:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, interesting point. I would prefer not to have thousand name stubs about Vishnu though, so merging would have my vote. Radiant_* 08:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• What's the policy on given names? This is also a (common?) given name in India. android↔talk 12:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • No policy, I'm afraid. We do have WP:NOT a genealogy database, which may help. I believe consensus is to not have articles on most of them (i.e. delete or merge to list), unless they're 1) really common, or 2) something interestingly special can be said about it. Radiant_* 08:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, we do have a policy. They go to Wiktionary unless, as you say, there is something really special about it. Since this has already been transwikied, delete as the final step in a successful transwiki. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What's not special about being a name for a major deity? Kappa 17:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, if that claims of this very article are to be trusted, "Nitin" is not in fact one of the names. "Nitya" is a separate (though related) name. Nitya, however, does not yet exists and is not up for discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Good point. Kappa 00:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Rossami (again)--nixie 04:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pen-tip velocity

DicDef of a word that will most likely never expand (In case you were wondering, "Pen-tip velocity" is the velocity of a pen tip). It has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no real content and never likely to be any. SteveW | Talk 20:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cleotus Scott Sipe

Hoax? Zero Google hits for this guy under any name, and the aphorism is at best an urban legend. RickK 06:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless verifiable - Longhair | Talk 06:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Story appears in Best Little Stories from the Civil War by C. Brian Kelly, Ingrid Smyer. A little obscure for google - User:BatMan | User talk:BatMan 06:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment actually made by 66.152.52.229 who may or may not be User:BatMan.[1]
  • What does Andrew Jackson have to do with the Civil War? RickK 08:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking through the index of Best Little Stories from the Civil War (as mentioned above), shows no sign of a "Cleotus Scott Sipe". Not that I expected it to anyway. And, hey, if this ever is verified (haha) then it could be reposted... R Calvete 18:57, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete Cburnett 06:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Izziehugger

Article created by LevelCheck, based on an invented term authored by a usenet troll named Matt Giwer to describe people who like Israel. Google test returns about 6 hits, most likely related to message board postings by Giwer himself. [2] --Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Another disruptive article creation. Completely and obviously non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've dealt with Matt Giwer before on Usenet. He's an anti-Semitic Holocaust-denier, and apparently a prolific enough one to rate his own page on the Nizkor Project. [3] Giwer himself might be notable enough to rate an article (he doesn't have one currently) but his nasty little neologisms aren't. Anyway, delete. Firebug
  • In that case I vote to Merge into an article on Matt Giwer anyone who makes it to nizkor projects list of kooks is notable. Klonimus 07:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete orig research. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should really be a speedy delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. -- 8^D ^gab 13:35, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete — neither a particularly creative nor a historically-interesting expression. — RJH 15:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, original research, disruptive. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RJHall. Samaritan 17:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Should've been a speedy delete. No reasonable Wikipedian would have created this. Postdlf 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that this page is being used as evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration's case on LevelCheck, which I proposed today--please don't delete until that case is finished, if it is accepted by the Arbcom. Meelar (talk) 21:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would rather use the diffs as evidence: they contain more details (such as author, date, etc) and are more reliable because they do not depend on subsequent edits. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As someone who's dealt with Matt Giwer (or a good impostor) on the POV-RAY newsgroups, I can confirm that he uses the word. I can also confirm that he's just about the only person who does. The term isn't significant enough for Wikipedia, and I doubt Wiktionary would want it. --Carnildo 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Unless it qualifies as a speedy, in which case do that! Master Thief Garrett 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not every epithet is encyclopedic. And, someone wishing to CREATE a new epithet could simply salt the web with a few instances, then create a Wikipedia article like this.A2Kafir 16:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism whose usage is negligible. Delete. -- Hoary 02:56, 2005 May 10 (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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Castro's kiosk

Non-notable cafe, doesn't even deserve a redirect and merge into the university article. RickK 07:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 08:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no reason to assume it is notable, advert. Sietse 09:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fodera Bass and Fodera

Blatant advertising. RickK 08:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising it is. Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• keep why not just 'fix' the text? i didn't write it, just tried to make it less of a mess. Paster 16:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep/merge into Fodera. I think Fodera was supposed to be influential in developing the six string electric bass (will need to research). Atsi Otani 08:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There was originally only the Fodera article, but the only thing in it was a subcategory called "Fodera basses" where the text now in "Fodera bass" was in; i just tried to organize things a bit. and i'm planning on adding things to both articles, as soon as i have the time. if i recall correctly there's a story of fodera basses on victor wooten's website. Paster 04:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Agree with Atsi Otani. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Agree with Atsi Otani Johntex 21:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• While there is probably too much puffery here, Fodera did make the first 6-string electric bass with low B string (for Anthony Jackson) so has a place in the history of the evolution of this instrument.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (and nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle 11:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

On Photography

delete - I have no idea what this is CoolGuy 08:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok now that I know it's referring to a book, it looks good. keep - it looked to me before that it was just a comment 'on photography' CoolGuy 17:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's referring to the Susan Sontag work[4], but it's been a long time since I've read it. A TOC isn't much of a start regardless. Postdlf 08:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. The Sontag article actually links to it already and a number of her other works have their own articles. I've replaced the TOC with a stub but I've not actually read the book, so someone else will have to add to it. I've left a note on Talk:Susan Sontag in the hopes that someone working on that article will contribute to this one. SteveW | Talk 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand -- there might be lots of stuff in any good encyclopedia that would lead CoolGuy (or Christofurio) to say "I have no idea what this is." Still, this one is a notable and widely noted discussion of the ethical quandries inherent in photography. --Christofurio 21:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that it is a work by a well-known author that won a significant award makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Postdlf 01:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just added to the article an ISBN number, a one sentence book description, and an external link to information on Sontag's web site. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a hugely influential book in the early history of photography studies. --Ngb 14:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 11:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

International Chamber Music Festival of Cervo

This looks like a non-notable entry. Delete because I can't find anything about it on my own. CoolGuy 08:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks legit to me. The article helpfully provides a link to the town's website [5] which refers to the festival [6]. Article lacks details, though. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, ditto. If the festival is as described, it certainly appears noteworthy. Someone whose Italian is stronger than mine might want to add some details from the cited source. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Festival appears to be genuine and has been going for 40 years and has attracted well-known performers. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Forty years of tradition and debuts. --Eleassar777 22:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

SYZYX

Delete - the company is not notable enough for an encylopedia entry. CoolGuy 08:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertcrap. Postdlf 08:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Company is already covered on AJAX page. — RJH 15:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to AJAX--nixie 04:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Laconia. Sjakkalle 11:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Laconic

transwiki wiktionary CoolGuy 08:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not add the transwiki tag instead? Charles Matthews 08:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? (How does that work?) Let me know CoolGuy 08:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• First check if the word is already in wiktionary (this one is [7]). If it isn't, put a {{move to wiktionary}} tag on it. Kappa 10:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Megan1967 08:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Laconia where this word is mentioned. Kappa 10:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Kappa. --Angr/_comhrá 10:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kappa. Samaritan 13:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kappa. The word's usage is notable because the Spartans were famous for being laconic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 26 Apr 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. sjorford →•← 17:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Alban Towers

Is there enough here? I live in a historic building too, and it has some history, but I don't think it gets an article. CoolGuy 08:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - everyone is right. I just wanted a second opinion. To all: where is a better place to get an opinion on something without putting up a VFD notice. Let me know on my talk page? CoolGuy 22:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, presumably the National Register of Historic Places know which buildings are worth covering. Kappa 09:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the building appears to significant for its history more so than its architecture but its history seems notable enough. Andypasto 10:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing gained through loss. --Teknic 10:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, I can see keeping all of the National Registery buildings, though this needs expansion. RickK 19:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its history and distinct architecture, if enough for the National Register of Historic Places shoudl also be enough for Wikipedia.Washingtonian 16:02, April 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • User has four edits.
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me and the original author seems to be busy cleaning it up. SteveW | Talk 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable building in notable city and the article is a good one. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Kappa said.--Gene_poole 02:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any building, or site, on the NRHP (or its equivalent in other countries) is notable. Dsmdgold 14:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable architecture. Quale 21:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

JEM Management Corp.

non-notable - although the Wendy's finger-in-chilli incident is notable, this company is not involved in it in any really interesting way (as yet). The article was written by someone with a personal connection to the company and originally contained vanity comments about himself.XmarkX 08:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Truly outrageous! Mike H 21:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. psssssssssssh
• Delete. Inclusionism only takes me so far; an article on every little company in the world is over the horizon. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An article on "every little company"? No. An article on a company that owns 23 restaurants? Yes. Original article was quasi-vanity but at least it didn't contain the kind of puffery we often see in vanity articles about business, and the author's self-reference has been removed. JamesMLane 04:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Shah. – Rich Farmbrough 18:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Shahanshah

delete. dicdef. Any encyclopedic value this entry might conceivably develop would be more appropriately included under Iran-History. --KASchmidt 08:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Respectfully disagree that it has no potential for development outside of other pages. Personally, I'd be quite interested to read about the history and development of the title, independently of a broader history of Iranian politics and culture. If something must be done about it, though, I'd recommend merging the content into Iranian monarchy, and redirecting Shahanshah to that article. -- Vardion 09:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with Vardion. Historic titles are encylopedic. Kappa 10:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - title used for thousands of years and of significance in Iranian history. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shah (which is another stub article). Megan1967 04:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Megan. Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shah. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Shah. DmitryKo 15:45, 29 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Desmond

Non-notable; blood-relative of user who wrote the articleXmarkX 08:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:04, 30 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sherilyn chan

Vanity or nonsense. Andypasto 10:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Carnildo 22:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense, vanity, non-notable. Quale 05:05, 30 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Abak Ahmed Hussain

No Google hits for 'Abak Hussain +Bhutergoli'. Unverifiable. Delete. Angela. 10:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:07, 30 Apr 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.

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Time Cube
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Time Cube (7th nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

For the January 2004 and February 2004 prior VFD discussions of this article, see Talk:Time Cube/Delete.

Patent nonsense. Not only is it an article about fringe original research, but at least one of its anonymous proponants has been using it as a platform to insert Time Cube nonsense into other sensible and useful articles like Greenwich Mean Time. Consider this image caption: "The unique harmonicity of the 4-corner quadrant division proves the supremacy of the number four." This is not encyclopaedic. Evertype 10:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

• Keep I'm impressed that somebody took the time to read and could actually construct a coherent summary of it.
• Comment There have been many votes to keep with a clean up to better reflect Time Cube as an internet phenomenon and remove the "original research" in line with Wikipedia. I have attempted such a clean up which has significantly slimmed the article. Could anyone seeking a clean up of the article please review my version and edit or expand on it as necessary. Thanks. Cheradenine 22:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has a cult following. VfD is not vandalism control. Gazpacho 11:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I will admit, though, that 90% of the article violates the original research policy. The article ought to be about a funny web site, not the secrets of the universe. Gazpacho
• Keep! We must not allow Evertype's obscurantist agenda to silence the Cubic Truth of the Universe. Time Cube is a well-known theory, with Gene Ray having guest-lectured to packed lecture-theatres of university students at MIT in January 2002, and again at Georgia Tech just two weeks ago. Furthermore, the Time Cube article in question is a well-established one, containing many useful contributions by various users and having also previously withstood the VFD test not once, but twice. I urge other users to stand with me on this and to thus prevent their children or great-grandchildren from resorting to cannibalism in future 4/16 rotations of Earth. Time is Cubic, not Linear, and 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe. You Must Seek Time Cube! 211.28.114.30 12:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is, surprisingly, the user's first edit. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Gene hasn't yet used all 65536 possible IP addresses in that range. See below. Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
      • To my knowledge, Gene hasn't used any of them at all. See below. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
• Delete. Borders on patent nonsense, notability not established. Martg76 12:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ignore the trolls and vandals; this is a well-known web phenomenon. Gene Ray was invited to speak at MIT on his "theories." android↔talk 12:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and clean up. Concur with Gazpacho; the article needs to be more about Time Cube as a web phenomenon and less about the actual "research," perhaps with just a summary of the claims rather than a blow-by-blow analysis. android↔talk 12:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, even though people will probably find this theory laughable in all, um, corners of the planet. (Or should that be all quarters?) Grutness|^hello? 12:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gene Ray is a notable Internet crank; however, for his Time Cube theory, Wikipedia:No original research should apply here as it does anywhere else. Move it to Wikibooks, or redirect to Gene Ray, or drastically alter the article to talk about the Internet phenomenon and not the original research (which could just as well be done by redirecting to Gene Ray). We have an article about Sollog, but no long separate article on "Sollog Theory"; why would this be different? -- Curps 13:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gene Ray. There is enough about the time cube theory in the Gene Ray article; we don't need to expound every deranged detail. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep in the strongest possible terms. Here are archives of the past two times this article has been nominated for deletion and kept. There has to be an end of this sometime. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there will be, when this crap is deleted. I can't imagine anyone with serious NPOV "fixing" this monstrosity. Evertype 17:37, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete as lawful stupid. DS 15:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ...whoa. I am impressed by the work Nunh-huh have done in fixing what I thought was an inherently unsalvageable article. Keep, I guess, as long as it stays a neutral article that doesn't try to propagate Gene Ray's schizophrenic glossolalia. This may require protecting the article.DS 13:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep Someone needs to take a hatchet to the text. It's wrong in so many ways. Anilocra 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A well-known Internet phenomenon. Keep, but trim drastically - at the moment it is a promotional of crackpottery. Alternately, merge some of the contents to Gene Ray, and redirect. - Mike Rosoft 16:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that the trimming has gone a bit too far. If this is to be the final version, it should be merged to Gene Ray. (And, please, keep the pictures, so that they can be preserved on BJAODN.) - Mike Rosoft 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (because of previous VfDs). Do a cleanup (it is way too big and too hard to read). Block the 211.28.xxxx vandalizing Greenwich Mean Time and related articles. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent nonsense. Ben-w
• Keep -- and rewrite. - Longhair | Talk 17:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You volunteering to rewrite it? Good for you! Evertype 17:41, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
    • Comment: Keep and cleanup is a perfectly legitimate vote, even if the voter is unwilling and/or unable to do the rewrite. Please don't disparage it. Meelar (talk) 20:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, I'm voting on keeping the article, and suggesting a rewrite. I'd heard of Time Cube long before I'd heard of Wikipedia. This site has gained some notoriety, even if the content is considered a notch above or below crankworthy. If I had the time or inclination to rewrite the article, I'd have done so. As is stands, I'm simply letting others know I feel it's worth keeping, once improved. From there, the community can muster up all the improvements it likes. I never said I'd come back to visit the article at all. -- Longhair | Talk 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - or shorten it down very much so only essence would remain and thus removing original research.DeirYassin 18:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gene Ray. Average Earthman 18:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up this article about some very orginal research. Kappa 19:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, but maybe shorten Only because this poor, sorry soul and his bizzare ramblings have developed a cult following ('Cult' as it would apply to the Rocky Horror Picture Show, btw) Roodog2k 19:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and let people know on WP:AN/I if this guy starts getting too frisky with the reverts on the Greenwich or other articles. No reason to let this crank violate the 3RR and endanger legitimate articles. Vfd is not vandal control. Meelar (talk) 20:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While the article as it currently stands is by no means an ideal article (or even a decent one), Time Cube is definitely a worthy topic for inclusion within Wikipedia. Definitely needs to be cleaned up. R Calvete 21:18, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well-known internet kookery, gets 22,000+ Google hits. --Carnildo 22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No original opinions. -- Kizor 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Gene Ray. —Ashley Y 23:28, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Merge perhaps a few sentences to Gene Ray, if that article doesn't already have everything important about this nonsense. CDC (talk) 23:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly informative article with a lot of references. A lot of time was put into creating this useful article. --Timecop 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 25 edits.
    • (Removed personal attack by Timecop.)
• Keep an eye on it for vandals (to other articles). It might be nonsence, but people believe it. humblefool® 23:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Time Cube is maybe the best known "Internet crank" in existence. Definitely encyclopedic. Nightwatch 00:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Time Cube kicks ass. AngryParsley 01:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gene Ray kicks ass. Shltping 01:30, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
  • Anon votes are generally discounted on VfD.
  • Shltping (talk · contribs)
• Keep. We rightly have an article on Flat Earth Society, and we should similarly have an article on this and other popular crank theories.--Gene_poole 02:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. -- Dave C. 02:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gene Ray. Tannin 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Gene Ray. Nonsensical original "research" Josh Cherry 04:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notoriety and notability. Megan1967 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and add a disclaimer at the top. All such bullshit articles need a proper disclaimer. 05:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 69.106.186.1 05:22, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
  • Anon votes are generally discounted on VfD.
• Keep. Needing cleanup is not reason to delete a valid encyclopedic article. Time Cube is kook science, but it is notable, well-known and oft-reported kook science. (Or maybe I have been educated stupid...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable XmarkX 06:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Time Cube is a cute webpage, but not that notable an covered by the Gene_Ray article which is the sensible place. Make it a redirect to Gene_Ray if you need to keep it. 65.95.133.197 07:01, 2005 Apr 27 (according to history Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC))
• Keep but with reservations, nedds some serious cleanup, puls addtional views from outside sources on the subject, ie to why it would not be pratical from some kegit sources, if any would be nice. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote Withdrawn
• If this cannot be cleaned up, delete. But the topic clearly is worth an article, this article just is not good enough. --Jannex 07:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --SPUI (talk) 07:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I smell a sock. Nevertheless this seems a notable enough hoax to be kept, but requires heavy cleanup. Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep GNAA Popeye 14:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Completely noteable. I've seen Ray on Tech Tv. Even if the Timecube theory is fringe and quack physics, it still is a noteable theory in that it is popular. An encylopedia's purpose is to provide a summary of a certain noteable piece of information, and this article does that. --vetta2
• Keep but cleanup. Sam Hocevar 14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Cleanup I know many here simply want the page to be cleaned up, but I suggest those people read the archived discussion. There is someone who apparently has vast amounts of time on there hands, who will fight any attempted cleanup at all turns. This page has been edited away from a page about Gene Ray's Time Cube website into a troll for parody sites like CubicAO, and it will stay that way without considerable devoted attention from someone. I suggest that unless you personally are willing to cleanup and maintain the cleaned up page, that you vote for the practical choice under the circumstances. Cheradenine 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The practical choice is to allow the article's NPOV to remain, and not make baseless accusations of auxiliary sites being parodies and other such prejudiced remarks. Maybe you're talking about the choice that is practical for censoring Truth and forcing Academian beliefs upon readers.
    Note that Cheradenine has only 10 edits total. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
• Strong Keep but cleanup. We'd be lax not to have this. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and Evertype needs a new hobby. His persistence in banning Time Cube from Wikipedia is beyond reasonable. Methinks he doth protest too much. Franc28 17:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, Evertype is only responsible for this VfD, not the previous two. Seems like a perfectly reasonable action to me. android↔talk 00:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Reminds me of Sollog. We have no article for his "Temple of Hayah," but that is not nearly as discussed as this "time-cube" seems to be. As long as it's a fair article and not a fanboy piece or a hatchet job, keep. The Sollog article is an example that shows this can be accomplished even with articles dealing with people who apparently have not been taking their meds regularly. A2Kafir 23:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If you look at the (long) edit histories of this article and of Gene Ray, and the comments on the talk pages, you'll find that several editors share the suspicion that 211.28.*.* is the dynamically-assigned IP address range that Gene Ray himself uses. For the months prior to this article coming up for VFD (for the third time), many edits to these two articles have followed a pattern: Gene would edit the article from a 211.28.*.* IP address, and another editor would then either neutralize or revert the added content. Interestingly, it was Gene himself who removed the first VFD notice on 2004-02-01. Uncle G 23:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, why is it that you are engaging in unfounded "ad hominem" attacks instead of addressing the actual content of the articles? As I have pointed out many times, I am not Gene Ray; and it seems to me that contrary to the conduct that should be adopted by a useful and productive Wikipedia user, you are intent on taking sides and fighting against users whom you dislike. This results in the quality of the actual content being overlooked and compromised. Again, you need to focus less on conspiracy theories against users such as myself, and more on the actual content of Wikipedia articles. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
  • Comment as far as I can tell (reading he archived discussions etc.) 211.28.*.* is not Gene Ray, but rather the author of the parody/troll site CubicAO. Read any of the interviews with Gene Ray and this ought to be clear. Effectively this Wikipedia page has been overtaken by trolls who are using it to promote their own parody/troll site for their own amusement. Anyone who cares to read the discussion page and use the Wayback machine can trace the development of this particular trolling effort. I've attempted to clean up the article. Please edit or extend, or at the least drop a word of support for the edits into the discussion page. Cheers. Cheradenine 00:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Cheradenine, CubicAO is a serious site; and if you have legitimate objections to the content of article Time Cube, you will need to explain the specific flaws, rather than making up conspiracy theories about the writers being trolls. 211.28.24.43 08:42, 2005 Apr 28 (according to history Uncle G 09:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC))
• Keep, but only if we all pitch in and maintain an encyclopedic, cleaned-up verison. Mgw 08:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: 211.28.24.43 [Gene?] has already started the edit war over the cleaned up version by Cheradenine. It would be helpful if those of you who voted to keep but clean up could help maintain a reasonable version of this page until this anonymous troll looses interest. Mgw 09:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "started"? It has been going on for over a year. Speaking as one of the editors who has from time to time over the past months neutralized or fixed 211.28.*.* modifications to Time Cube[8] and to Gene Ray [9][10], I think that it is highly probable that 211.28.*.* will not lose interest. Xe has, after all, been doing this (adding text which has to be neutralized, reverting other editors' changes to xyr own version with edit comments claiming it to be the "NPOV" one, accusing a wide range of other editors of "POV" and "ad hominem attacks" on talk pages) since at least January 2004 (where 211.28.*.* was even then commented upon in the VFD discussion). In fact, xe has outlasted at least one editor (Talk:Gene Ray#It.27s_hopeless). Xe is the reason that Coordinated Universal Time, Greenwich Mean Time, and Time zone are all currently protected (WP:AN/I#Time_Cube_vandalism). Talk:Gene Ray and Talk:Time Cube are still listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, by the way. Uncle G 10:37, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• keep. Time cube is an exemplary crank page (I ought to get round to adding time cube to slashdot subculture) and by definition worthy of note. Of course, we ought to be vigilant about maintaining NPOV here.
• Strong Keep - While Time Cube is kookery, it is extremely famous kookery. Just because it attact trolls does not detract from its fame and consequential notability. --Bletch 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and Keep I think the clean up that's been done is good, and as long as there is a good watch set on the article to keep trolls from messing it up again it is worth keeping. 129.100.75.73 17:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Gene Ray. Notable kookery. -Sean Curtin 00:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious and strong keep Definatly notable enough. Two previous VFDs people! Gkhan 02:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very relucantly, but only if the article is made much shorter. Gene Ray is a notable crank, but the article is far too long relative to the very minimal importance of his kookery. Quale 05:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? Are we running out of paper or something? If the article is kept then I don't see why it should be made shorter.
• Keep: The article was repaired nicely and should be kept.
• After reading the article, I still have no idea what the damn thing is, other than some sort of website with some unusual content. Gzuckier 23:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep as an article on a kooky website (Category:Internet culture, not Category:Pseudo-science). dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep already survived two vfds, let it rest. N-Man^talk 09:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let it rot, uh... rest. Phils 10:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, you must establish a Chair of Wisdom to empower Wise Men over the stupid intelligentsia, or perish. --iMb~Meow 12:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Famous internet crank. If this deletion request is according to deletion policy, then deletion policy needs fixing - David Gerard 19:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable on the Internet. A distinction needs to be made between whether an article is patent nonsense or the article's subject is patent nonsense. Bryan 15:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie:the wind in the grass 19:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as trolltrap -- I don't put out a baited mousetrap because I want to attract mice to my house; but I do want to attract mice in my house to the trap. — Xiong熊talk* 07:47, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Keep However Gene Ray is wrong, Time is actually triangular. And I can prove that. Klonimus 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)*
• Keep Gene Ray is my hero.
• Keep I may not have an account, but i agree on keeping this!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shroomlock

[11] 18 Google hits, not even a marginal character in the game. Lotsofissues 10:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 07:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If he's only got 18 Google hits and the game is so well-known, then he's not even worth including in the game's article. --Idont Havaname 01:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's wait until he's even ESTABLISHED. --A Link to the Past 09:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: Redirect to Festival. android↔talk 02:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural festival

We already have Japanese Cultural Festival and Cherry Blossom Festival as a redirect, and this article says almost nothing about its title. Gazpacho 11:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Festival (and delete the link there). Megan1967 04:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now, but someone really needs to create a real article under this title, even if it starts as just a stub. I was going to try to "cheat" and turn the article into a list of internal wikilinks, but I found a real paucity of articles that I could have used. I guess we can chaulk this up to one more example of the systemic bias of the Wikipedia. BlankVerse ∅ 23:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 18:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony Hulman

A vfd tag was added in February, but it doesn't seem to have ever been put on VfD. I'm guessing the reason was non-notability. I don't have strong opinion on the deletion of this, but wanted to list it here anyway since someone else obviously thought it should be here. Angela. 11:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Hulman appears to be a significant figure in the sport - article needs lots of work though. Andypasto 11:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Tony is a International Motorsports Hall of Fame member. But article is almost entirely about his grandson. Page needs a stub tag. — RJH 15:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Both Tonys are among the most notable racetrack owners, and the grandson has been a very significant organizing figure in race sanctioning. Article as it stands is highly POV against Hulman. Barno 15:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as notable figure in motor-sportCapitalistroadster 01:17, 27 Apr 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?) 00:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Exclubiz

Blatant ad, placed by User:Exclubiz. On the positive side, he forgot the obligatory external link, and didn't include the image he uploaded. —Korath (Talk) 11:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam. Samaritan 17:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 10:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Desimation

Delete, not notable, possibly an ad KFP 12:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and add redirect to Decimation, as a valid spelling mistake. Megan1967 04:55, 27 Apr 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?) 00:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Touca

Cannot find confirmation of this use of Touca (which otherwise seems to be Portuguese for swimming cap). Google search for touca+mistake nets 32 hits, only about half of them in English. Grutness|^hello? 12:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. At best this is a future neologism. --Allen3 ^talk 13:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:56, 27 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

W. Li

Academic vanity page. No evidence of notability. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Weidong Li is listed as an "assistant scientist" at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and that's that. Check related articles, contributed by the same author: Elfeki, Elfeki and Dekking (duplicate), Carle, and Markov chain geostatistics. Lupo 10:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Era of Good Feeling. – Rich Farmbrough 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Era of Good Feelings

Delete. There is a longer and better article on the same topic Era of Good Feeling. -- Mwanner 13:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• If there's anything worth saving Merge. Then Redirect. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Everything mentioned is explained in greater detail in the Era of Good Feeling article. -- Trivial 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Gazpacho 20:54, 26 Apr 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 (already transwikied). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Epigone

DicDef, etymology and one example of a word. It has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kelly McGee

Non-notable model who has previously dated a rockstar. Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Doesn't appear to have made any other contributions of note. — RJH 15:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with RJH, delete--nixie 04:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:15, 30 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

West Mersea

Poorly written and highly POV. Might be recoverable if someone would take the time to rewrite the whole thing. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A valid topic to be in WP, but very badly written. Rewrite and Keep. Maybe ask Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board for someone to look at it? Qwghlm 22:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Real place with community of interest. However, article as it stands is useless. Would vote to keep decent stub. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Your wish is my command, O great ones. New stub provided. Grutness|^hello? 03:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'll change my vote to Keep the new stub. Thanks Grutness! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:27, 27 Apr 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?) 00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kultur

What is described here is some right wing ideology, which no doubt existed in Germany before 1945, but to do this under the title "Kultur" is utter nonsense. "Kultur" is simply German for "culture". This page should therefore be deleted. Perhaps one can move some parts elsewhere to describe this ideological thinking which existed but is not denoted by the German word "Kultur". LARS 14:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe some of the contents of this article could be salvaged under another title though. Jeltz talk 14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep somewhere. This page is referenced by multiple other pages. — RJH 15:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The title of this page is inappropriate and misleading. Delete. However, the content should be moved, maybe to Kulturkampf or to a page describing German nationalism (which is currently a redirect to nationalism). Martg76 20:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Kulturpolitik and öffentliches Kulturwesen in the age of nationalism in Germany. A small number of non-nazi era articles contained a link to this article. Two of them said "this is a German term meaning something between culture and civilization". However, this is not true. German has two distinct words, "Kultur" and "Zivilisation", just like English. Of course, different countries had different ideals of what "culture" should mean, but e.g. during the Weimar republic, Germany's understanding was not outside of the range of meanings in different English speaking countries at different times. Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup. Ideology existed and is cross-referenced. Megan1967 05:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: someone seems to be systematically removing links to this article, which seems quite premature while VfD is being debated. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That was me. Sorry, i see that this may not have been the best time to do it. I wanted to be able to write: "Move" (see above) – so i removed the ones that shouldn't refer to the proposed move target. These were the following:
    • Glossary of the Weimar Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Hohenzollern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — this one could possibly link to the proposed target. Sebastian (talk) 08:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Redirect for the page created by Sebastian (+ cleanup of this page). Pavel Vozenilek 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but also with the above mentioned reservations. Needs cleanup and format (?).--Numerousfalx 14:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Condyle

DicDef of a piece of anatomy that has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. It's a bump on a bone. Unless more can be said about it, the Wiktionary entry should suffice. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep anatomical terms or merge with some kind of glossary. Wikipedia needs to explain the technical terms it uses, because wiktionary isn't necessarily going to be disributed with it. Kappa 15:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By that logic Wiktionary and Wikipedia should be one project, but they are not and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an anatomy glossary. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Whether or not wikipedia and wiktionary should be one project, wikipedia needs to be able to explain the technical terms it uses. Kappa 18:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, and it can do so by linking to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 20:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bone. Megan1967 05:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deletionists are boneheaded. Not you Megan1967, but in the abstract. Klonimus 06:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks, Klonimus, not even abstract ones.
• Merge to bone. Radiant_* 08:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Perfectly good anatomy stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to bone. --InShaneee 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bone. Quale 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bone. --Eleassar777 23:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Colombianism

POV, 1 Google hit [12]

Lotsofissues 14:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Google 1 hit, link from racism made by the same user. Feydey 17:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Gazpacho 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable. Megan1967 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 18:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, I have seen it happening. It is real! (by anonymous article author)
• Delete, rant. Pavel Vozenilek 12:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Anhakis

Google turns up nothing relevant for Anhakis, Anhaki, Anhaky, or Anhakys. DS 14:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thue | talk 14:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ancient racer? Delete — RJH
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So lacking in context as to be meaningless Dsmdgold 15:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Tony Sidaway. Sjakkalle 11:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Corbett

DELETED this. Patent nonsense, should have been speedied. Move along please, nothing to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity if not utter BS (which I still think should be a criterion for speedy deletion; we can all detect patent nonsense, and we should also all be able to detect utter BS.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The user should be referred to Uncyclopedia instead. --Euniana/Talk 14:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 15:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Kevin Rector (talk) 15:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Under which criterion? That's how I knew about this in the first place -- it was marked as a speedy, but I didn't see what criteria it fit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Patent Nonsense. Kevin Rector (talk) 20:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty close to patent nonsense. Kappa 18:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but not speedy--good call by jpgordon. Keep it up! Meelar (talk) 20:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 10:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gynephilia

DicDef that has been tranwikied to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already transwikid. Megan1967 05:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to sexual attraction. --Eleassar777 23:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bojinka 3.5

Not notable, zero Google hits, relates to article on Desimation KFP 15:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Liejournal

Slang DicDef that has been Transwikied to Wiktionnary and is completely non-notable. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; only 32 hits on Google. --Spudtater
• Delete. This was transwiki'd to Wiktionary? Ugh. Neither Wikipedia nor wiktionary = urbandictionary, or so I thought. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the Wiktionarians will make a similar decision when it comes time for them to look over the tranwiki logs. Kevin Rector (talk) 20:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 10:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Ayers Scandal

delete this article. 169.244.70.148 16:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Astronica

This article was tagged as {{Unencyclopedic}} and {{POV check}} on April 7 and has not been modified since. At first glance, this seems like some sort of non-notable psuedo-science or astrology. In fact, the last sentence of it reads, "Astronica is not related to Astrology." Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• See [http//www.astronica.org]. Meandering junk about some type of astrology-type stuff. If Astronica becomes a serious cult, it can have an article here. Else delete it. Anthony Appleyard 18:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, some kind of original research or simply not notable. -- Curps 19:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Quale 05:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

-mancy

DicDef, Transwikied already, and not really even a word. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dsmdgold 00:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- We have -stan, which I used myself last night for some information. I looked here at WP hoping to find my answer, and did. There's one example of an article of this nature being somewhat useful with some expansion. - Longhair | Talk 06:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Radiant_* 08:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 18:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of English suffixes. Angela. 15:46, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of English suffixes. Kelly Martin 15:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 16:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair, failing that merge with list of English suffixes. Kappa 22:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. This is Wiktionary material. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to English suffixes until someone writes an absolutely perfect article somewhere else and then fights tooth and nail to put it at -mancy. -SV|t 21:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quale 05:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Stancel 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Matt Lumley

Must be a vanity article. The high school exists but none of the rest of it is true. I can only imagine that the contributor did not expect to find other people from London here. Adam Bishop 16:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if any of this info can be proven. Otherwise, rewrite or delete. --Myles Long 16:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this nonsense. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified -- and I haven't had any luck verifying it. --Carnildo 18:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a useful page about a local politician, it is notable becasue of the controversy that was caused, it links to his cause, it's informational and useful and notable. -- Toonami 3:14, april 26 2005 (UTC)
  • But he's not a local politician, which is why I listed it here. Adam Bishop 19:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: "Toonami" is actually the anonymous user User:64.231.120.76 --Carnildo 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• PROOF HERE is the VERIFICATION. www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_1995_11_28.pdf and http://www.mikechester.demon.co.uk/chime.txt MORE PROOF: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/profeedback.php search for his name -- Toonami 3:24, april 26 2005 (UTC)
  • Proof of what? A list of carillons? Huh? I would think that some Canadians would know about a secondary school student who's a member of parliament and has ended poverty in London. Delete, nonsense. RickK 19:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • So, we have a byline in a student newspaper, a quote by a "Matt Lumley" claiming to be a government strategist on a random website, and a "St Matthew Lumley Ave" having a six-bell carillion. That's supposed to show what? --Carnildo 20:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete vanity/patent nonsense. The first "proof" is a student newsletter. The second is something about bells. The third is the one Google hit you got for the name that could possibly be the guy you're talking about if he exists. None of these things is relevant or proof of notability. Ben-w
• Delete. Utter nonsense. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this person exists he's non-notable anyway. I strongly suspect he does not exist. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Unverifiable despite good efforts by others. References provided are not. Matt Lumley fails it. JRM · Talk 20:20, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Claimed to be a Canadian MP yet this search turns up no results. Claimed that he was in a controversy with rival Beth Gavin but this search also turns up no results. SteveW | Talk 21:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Should be Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. A Canadian MP who is also at secondary school? Capitalistroadster 01:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Delete I'am matt lumley, a student that go's to my school created this page. None of it is true.
  • Note: Above edit was by Mjal --Carnildo 20:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was routine delete as the final step in a successful transwiki. Rossami (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Grammage

DicDef, Transwikied already, not likely to expand. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• agreed. I'd have said transwiki, but it seems to already be there. Grutness|^hello? 07:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony 03:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 10:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Random toronto

Sorry, but it made little sense to me. Seems to be an userpage moved to main articlespace. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-Way too cryptic.

• Delete. This seems to be somebody's website: Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. -- Curps 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. An attempt at communication, an attempt at creating a User forum in article space. Wouldn't even have been appropriate use of User space. RickK 19:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Logical-unreason

Delete This is more like a profile than an article. It should be dumped. --Adun 21:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Don't clear this page until enough people have voted. (The VfD page, that is. You can dump the article if you want.)
• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Might even have just speedied this as patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hand pay

DicDef, Transwikied already, not likely to expand, un-notable gambling term concept. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has hit the jackpot and needs a hand pay. Klonimus 21:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this gambling term concept or merge with slot machine. Kappa 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony 03:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 18:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Alfredo M. Bonanno

This article was tagged as {{explain-significance}} since April 7 and has not been modified since. It currently does not explain how this Italian anarchist is notable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep after the major rewrite. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. —Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since the rewrite. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe. I've found alot of lengthy essays by him on the web, but they all seem to be the same mess of anarchist buzzwords produced by millions of anarchists worldwide. Typical examples (loose translation) : (on dialectal materialism) 'As grave as this problem is, with a little reflection, anyone can see how many anarchist campaigns end up strongly influenced by marxist theory in the decisions taken by the writers of law.' or 'The Crisis or Capitalism' or 'This idea can be desguised as Collaborationist Ideology, but cannot infact disappear entirely.' For such creative free-thinkers, anarchists sure are devoid of original material.

Anyway. It looks like he had a few books published in the early 70s and late 80s, but from what I can tell none of them are in print. I couldn't find a biography or anything. It is worth noting that some of his stuff seems to have been translated into French, German and English.

He sounds like one of a million anarchist pamphlet writers. I'll change my vote if anyone can find anything else notable about him. He did publish after all. But otherwise delete for being a non-notablist vanitarian unencyclopedicism. Kyle543 02:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 15:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Alfredo Maria Bonanno. Noted in his field, lots of his stuff on the web. Sentenced to six years in the Marini trial last year.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable. I have been aware of Bonnano's writings since 1977. His publications are notable as a tendency and influence on late twentieth century anarchist thought (insurrectionary anarchism) (see the Anarchism entry). Notable for being labelled by prosecutors as the anarchist godfather in a trial in Italy 1997-2003. I have researched and added substantially to this article to ensure it meets the notability requirements. --Takver 05:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Paul August ☎ 04:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The liberation struggle of the economic dependencies of colonization must be... um... something. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:54, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (and nomination withdrawn). Sjakkalle 11:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Beenakker

This was tagged as {{explain-significance}} in February. The content has not changed since. It currently does not explain why this person is "a famous professor". Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry. I admit I was lazy in not doing enough research on this person. I apologize. Based on Average Earthman's modifications, Keep. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you were more lazy than you should be. The article didn't describe his notability, so questioning it with a significance-tag in february and a vfd now was very apropriate. I don't think it should be expected to do extensive research on the subject of an article to list it. If that were the case, at least I would be too lazy, and maybe even afraid for risking harse comments, to list almost anything. Now you motivated this discussion on him, made people expand the article alitle, and get people involved. Thats a good thing. Shanes 20:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, not particularly lazy. I mean, Leiden's a good university, but I doubt it's a household name worldwide. If you proposed a direct delete of a research group leader at MIT or the University of Cambridge without doing a quick google first, then that perhaps would be lazy. Average Earthman 10:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Leiden is probably one of the best known universities in Europe, and a couple of hundred years before MIT was founded, Leiden was the place everyone traveled to learn the new things in science and medicine. (And no, I'm not a Leiden alumnus...). Anyway, this VfD is another sign we need better criteria for judging the notability of academics. We can't expect every scientist bio-stub to exhaustively explain that person's research, because then only experts would be able to even start such a biography. To some extent we have to put our trust in the internal notability criteria of academia itself, just as we do for sports or pop music. Uppland 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely we can expect at least a rudimentary explanation? I don't think just listing a scientist's vague field of study is enough to justify an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Leiden is one of the top 150 universities in the world, and unlikely to appoint a complete muppet to a professor position. Google Scholar produces 3,810 hits for CWJ Beenakker, so he's been either very busy, or influential, or both. Some of his papers have over 400 citations (this one [13] has 474. This is very, very good by the way - In-cites rate the hottest physics paper of the last two years as one that has 396 citations [14]. Average Earthman 19:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgot to add - a google search also indicates he is regularly an invited speaker at international conferences, another sign of note (I stress invited, as opposed to accepted) Average Earthman 19:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you're not trying to claim that every professor at every one of the "top 150 universities in the world" deserves an article. Delete, article does not establish notability. RickK 19:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? We appear to be keeping every sportsperson in far more teams than that overall. I'm talking full professor here, anyway, not in the US title inflated sense. Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Average Earthman's assessment of notability. Kappa 21:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability beyond that of an above-average professor average professor at an above-average institution. Not every professor at a top university is notable at an encyclopedic level. Gamaliel 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An above-average professor would seem to pass the wikipedia:professor test. Kappa 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have clarified my comment. Gamaliel 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Does the importance of citations need further clarification, then? Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • No. Gamaliel 09:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • So what, you just believe that physicists are unimportant then? Average Earthman 20:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Hardly. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I simply believe that this particular article does not yet establish that this particular physicist is notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, I'm missing something here - you accept citations are important, he was already in the top 300 most cited physicists when he was 37, he's published a number of papers with over 100 citations, yet you still say he's not above average? This seems blatantly obvious to me, and I genuinely want to know where the communication problem is. Average Earthman 08:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • This is an encyclopedia, not a citations database. An encyclopedia article explains why the subject of the article is important and the work that they do, it doesn't merely throw statistics at the reader. If I wanted citation information I'd go to the ISI Web of Science. Gamaliel 08:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • But if you want statistics for a cricketer you can go to cricinfo, so should we should delete all cricketer's articles that don't explain the rules of cricket? This article needs attention, not deletion. Average Earthman 09:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • For a cricketer, or any other sportsman, I can follow a link for their position that describes what that position does. But any article here that has nothing but statistics for a player I'd vote delete on too. What would be the equivalent in science for a shortstop or quarterback? There is no equivalent in science. Scientists aren't important because they play lead particle accelerator for the Leiden Leptons, they are important because of the specific research that they do. If we wish to assert that that Beenakker is more notable than the majority of his colleagues, then the article must provide a reason why, and that reason is what he is researching and what he has played a role in discovering or learning. In this article there is no mention of that at all. Gamaliel 18:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • You mean you're voting delete because I forgot to wikilink mesoscopic?. Average Earthman 10:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
                    • Do you keep missing the point on purpose or is this a debating tactic? Congratulations, you've dragged this discussion from meaningless down to utterly futile. Gamaliel 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Question for Average Earthman: how many citations would an average paper get? Kappa 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For physics? Somewhere around ten. Average Earthman 09:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Average Earthman. According to the article: "In a 1997 study by the Institute for Scientific Information, Beenakker (at the time aged 37) rated in the top 300 most cited physicists of the previous 16 years." And that was eight years ago. His CV with publications. Certainly more notable than most two-albums-and-an-international-tour pop bands, most professional baseball players, fictional Klingon warships, and so on. Uppland 21:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So then we should have articles on the other 299, yes? RickK 23:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • He has probably advanced in the relative status by now, in case you didn't get that part, but if somebody bothers to write those 299 other biographies I see little harm in it (we may actually have quite a few of those already), or in articles on the 300 most cited researchers in other major disciplines. There is no reason why scientists should be Nobel laureates to be considered notable, while it is enough to have been payed by someone to publicly kick a ball around a lawn to qualify for a Wikipedia article. - Uppland 00:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Articles on the top 300 physicists? Well, of course we should. We have articles on more than 300 football players, or basketball players, don't we? If you think physics isn't important, well you're not writing on Wikipedia by banging a couple of rocks together. Average Earthman 09:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Passes the "average professor test". --Carnildo 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is definetely a notable physicist, one of the most notable solid state physicists today if you ask me. Shanes 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You don't get citations like that for nothing. I bet there's not a professor in my city who could claim that.
• Keep and expand. Notable physicist who won a Spinoza award which is the highest award available in the Netherlands. Three professors at Leiden have won the Nobel Prize for Physics so it obviously has a reputation for physics and a Professor there is likely to be a leader in the field. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable awarded professor. Megan1967 05:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh come on! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Paul August ☎ 04:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand yes, but threshhold for notability definitely met. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:15, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 10:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

List of postal codes in China

Delete, looks like a random address

Keep, I rewrote it to a stub article. Should be expanded using information from the official external link. -- Curps 19:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as rewritten, thank you Curps. Kappa 21:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As with all other postal code articles and lists.--Gene_poole 02:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikisource. Radiant_* 08:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to WikiCookbook. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

English banana caramel dessert

Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but this article is just a recipe. Johntex 17:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on category:British cuisine AND link to Wikibooks Cookbook 2004-12-29T22:45Z
• Wikicookbook. Gazpacho 01:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Mmm... banana caramel... Grutness|^hello? 03:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 05:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikibooks:Cookbook. Angela. 07:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.

Grue was also at the center of a 1970s Supreme Court case -- prisoners claimed the food was unconstitutionally bad, and the court agreed that the grue-serving prison was violating the 8th amendment, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It is mentioned in an NPR article on a currently suspect prison dish "the loaf." Grue 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikibooks. Please note the difference between an article and a recipe. Rje 16:25, May 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Konar Siosk-Baas

Apparently, this character is a fan invention and doesn't actually appear in any of the official star wars publications through two characters with similar names (Vodo-Siosk Baas, Bodo Baas) have appeared in the Star Wars comics. I think this entry is worthy of deletion Timon 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Jon Hart
• Delete - I got about 80 Google hits, but only 7 without the automatically omitted sites. Not official fancruft. Notability not established. Seems to only exist on "www.darkjedibrotherhood.org." Only VfD stuff links to the page.-LtNOWIS 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Note: Could it be POSSIBLE that not all the SITH are covered in the COMICS? Where was Ajunta Pall? Where was Tuluk Hord? I've NEVER seen a mention of them in anything other than KOTOR I. How about Darth Sion, or Revan? Revan apparently defeated Mandalore. Mandalore is a well known character in the star wars universe, noted in comics, books, etc. He even started a new cult called Mandalorians, of which Boba Fett and Jango Fett's characters have taken ideas off. And yet, some how this Revan person comes along and destroys him just like that. Revan is ONLY a character in KOTOR.

I have also done a google search and nothing pointed to wikipedia when I looked up Konar Siosk-Baas. Why does the fact that one character exists that was not yet known by you affect you so? Searches never seem to pick up the name and it appears that one would have to be intentionally LOOKING for the specific Konar Siosk-Baas name to pick it up on wikipedia.

By point concluded; I do not think the requests are valid enough to warrent deleation of the page.

"Note: Could it be POSSIBLE that not all the SITH are covered in the COMICS?"

Of course. It just so happens that Konar Sios-Baask isn't covered anywhere. Because he doesn't exist. :)

"Revan apparently defeated Mandalore. Mandalore is a well known character in the star wars universe, noted in comics, books, etc. He even started a new cult called Mandalorians, of which Boba Fett and Jango Fett's characters have taken ideas off."

Mandalore is the title given to the leader of the Mandalorians. There have been several throughout history. The particular one Revan killed was called Mandalore the Ultimate. There have also been Mandalores the First, Indomitable, and Resurrector, among others. Mandalore the Resurrector was the one who restarted the Mandalorian tradition after it was destroyed by the Jedi. This was the group to which Boba Fett belonged; Jango belonged to the aforementioned destroyed incarnation of the Mandalorians, which had existed since before the formation of the Old Republic.

"And yet, some how this Revan person comes along and destroys him just like that. Revan is ONLY a character in KOTOR."

Revan was one of the greatest military commanders and warriors in the history of the Jedi Order and one of the most powerful, feared, and intelligent Dark Lords of the Sith of all time. What is your point, and what has it to do with the nonexistent Konar Siosk-Baas?

"Why does the fact that one character exists that was not yet known by you affect you so?"

You are obviously unfamiliar with Star Wars. Not only does Konar Siosk-Baas not appear in any existing sources, his history as presented in his fraudulent article is completely and utterly impossible; only three named Sith Lords have appeared since the Battle of Endor, and he is not one of them.

"By point concluded; I do not think the requests are valid enough to warrent deleation of the page."

Sure they are, as he doesn't exist. Not in the comics, not in the video games, not in the books, not in the movies. Not anywhere. He's not a real Star Wars character. At all. :)

— Jon Hart

- Sorry George Lucas (by this I imply you because you seem to know so much about Star Wars you clearly must be uncle George), but if you happen to know so much about Star Wars, (a) what is the point in looking it up on a Google search directory? (b) why is there a limit to the future of the Star Wars universe? (clearly time has no end, so just like time, Star Wars doesn't end after the war between the Alliance and the Yuuzhan Vong) (c) what's to say the Siosk-Baas family ended after the death of Vodo? Surely Vodo had parents. - Perhaps they had another child. (d) Jedi's are not one off's. Just like the Adam/Eve Theory, the jedi started, had babies and produced more jedi. Surely some surnames would have been kept (they don't just wipe their surnames because they've been used by their parents), so what's to say Konar isn't one of the descendants? (e) Why not wipe out the Aborigines because they're just as usless to you as the character Konar Siosk-Baas and you want to wipe him out?

Terribly sorry to disappoint, but I'm not really George Lucas. I tend to get that a lot, though. Must be the flannel. In any case, you seem to be confused about a few things (I'd never dream that you're the person who wrote that article, naturally), so I'll do my best to try and set you straight.

(a) I didn't need to check Google, as I already knew Konar doesn't exist.

(b) There is no limit to the future of Star Wars. There is a limit to the number of stories set in Star Wars. None of them currently involve a Konar Siosk-Baas. Sorry.

(c) Well, that's the thing, isn't it. You'll note that the article claims that Konar's species is half-human and half-Twi'lek. Now, not only are these two different species genetically incompatible, but I fail to see how a line known to consist only of Krevaaki could produce such an improbable half-breed.

(d) First of all, as I just said, neither of two species that Konar reputedly belongs to are the same species as Vodo and Bodo. Secondly, you seem to be forgetting a little thing called the "Jedi Purge." In case you're not familiar with it, that was when Darth Vader and his minions drove the Jedi to virtual extinction. Only a handful are known to have survived, and none of them were named Baas.

(e) What are you talking about?

In any case, your logic is deeply flawed, my friend. Konar Siosk-Baas does not currently exist anywhere in any Star Wars universe. You seem to be arguing that his article should be kept because one day he might. Sadly, not only can his history as it is given in the article never come to be because of a hilarious amount of continuity errors and ridiculously obvious fanfiction, neither can he, as LFL writers are forbidden to use fan creations in their works because of possible copyright infringement. In short: Luke Skywalker isn't dead. There are no stories set 88 ABY. The only Dark Lords of the Sith who rose to power after the Battle of Endor were Lady Lumiya, Lord Flint, and Carnor Jax. Krevaaki, humans, and Twi'leks are not genetically compatible. Konar Siosk-Baas doesn't exist. Sorry. :)

— Jon Hart

"Luke Skywalker isn't dead." Ah. So I get it. Luke is an uber Jedi. He can't die because he is immortal. Damn! Why didn't they underline that in any of the scripts? We assume that Luke is human (natually because he not only looks human but they say that he is human), and all humans are mortal. So naturally, eventually Luke must die. And Konar's life is set after the death of Luke Skywalker. Yes, I know the dates are wrong and don't coincide with the fact, but they will be fixed in due course.

"Krevaaki, humans, and Twi'leks are not genetically compatible" Where was this stated? I have never read that they are not genetically compatible anywhere. Please provide a link or a story which states this and I will endeavour to read it.

"In any case, your logic is deeply flawed, my friend" No, you are not the emperor. So please desist in trying to sound like him.

"I didn't need to check Google, as I already knew Konar doesn't exist" Oh. So you've read every single starwars comic, book, played every video game, made a collection of all the action figures and wrote your own book about starwars because clearly you know so much about it. - How did you manage to pass school if you spent all the time it'd take to learn starwars off by heart while you were supposed to be attending classes?

"Only a handful are known to have survived, and none of them were named Baas" Again you are making assumptions. If so few survived, the Jedi probably died out soon after the purge.- Going by the logic of your logic

"I fail to see how a line known to consist only of Krevaaki could produce such an improbable half-breed." You ever heard of a thing called sex? People have it from time to time, and if appropriate procautions are not taken a baby is born. Say you had a great grand father who was completely black. He marries a white woman and has a child with her. The child [when old enough] marries a white man and has a child with him. And so on and so forth. Eventually the descendant has no visible black in him. In the case with Konar Siosk-Baas, the crustaceous Vodo's parents had another son, who married and had another child. That child married a Twi'lek, who had a child with a human, and so on a so forth. Eventually the descendant is no longer crustacean, but is a cross-between Twi-lek and Human. Also note that the descendant has had many thousands of years to change in form, as Vodo Siosk-Baas is evidently much much older that his descendant, Konar.

- To conclude, I'm still missing the proof that this is fan fiction, and I don't accept your 'so called' knowledge of the Star Wars universe as proof. If I thought you were right, I would obviously support you. But as it is, you still haven't properly backed up your arguments, other than convinced me that the dates are chronologically wrong which I am already aware of. They will be fixed in due course, but until the real proof comes (and I mean, not what your opinion on the matter is), this character will remain.

Hey 203.61.240.131/203.61.243.164 while you are at it mind explaining why you added a bunch of fan fiction (Brotherhood of Dark Jedi, Sons of Sadow) to the Sith Article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sith&diff=0&oldid=12835518 that someone had the unfortunate task of cleaning up and reverting? And by the way you aren't by any chance the author of this article considering that your edits to the Sith Article are also derived from the Dark Brotherhood Site. Timon 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Ah. So I get it. Luke is an uber Jedi."

Yup.

"He can't die because he is immortal."

Nope. Don't be silly.

"We assume that Luke is human (natually because he not only looks human but they say that he is human), and all humans are mortal. So naturally, eventually Luke must die."

Now you're getting it. Key word: eventually. As of now—AKA this moment—AKA April 30, 2005—Luke Skywalker hasn't died in any canonical Star Wars story.

"I have never read that they are not genetically compatible anywhere."

Use some common sense. They're entirely different species.

"Please provide a link or a story which states this and I will endeavour to read it."

Now there's an idea. Please provide a link or a story which states that Konar Siosk-Baas exists and I'll concede. If you are unable to provide said link or story, I wholly expect the concession to be yours.

"No, you are not the emperor. So please desist in trying to sound like him."

Aw, shucks, I can't have any fun. :(

"Oh. So you've read every single starwars comic, book, played every video game, made a collection of all the action figures and wrote your own book about starwars because clearly you know so much about it."

I'm moderately certain I never made such a claim, but if you believe it, why don't you concede?

"How did you manage to pass school if you spent all the time it'd take to learn starwars off by heart while you were supposed to be attending classes?"

I didn't inhale.

"Again you are making assumptions. If so few survived, the Jedi probably died out soon after the purge.- Going by the logic of your logic"

Once again, you prove your lack of familiarity with the Star Wars Universe, my friend. Luke Skywalker founded a new Jedi Order after the final death of the Emperor. It seems like you're trying to say the Jedi who survived the Purge rebuilt their order. That is not so; it was all Luke. "When I am gone, the last of the Jedi will you be." Not quite, but, for all intents and purposes, correct.

"You ever heard of a thing called sex? People have it from time to time, and if appropriate procautions are not taken a baby is born."

Gee, now you're just making stuff up.

"Say you had a great grand father who was completely black. He marries a white woman and has a child with her. The child [when old enough] marries a white man and has a child with him. And so on and so forth. Eventually the descendant has no visible black in him."

Yeah, except, oh, gee, look at that: they're all the same species. Tell me what would happen if that black great-grandfather mated with a dolphin and you may have something.

"In the case with Konar Siosk-Baas, the crustaceous Vodo's parents had another son, who married and had another child. That child married a Twi'lek, who had a child with a human, and so on a so forth. Eventually the descendant is no longer crustacean, but is a cross-between Twi-lek and Human."

Please at least pretend to prove it.

"To conclude, I'm still missing the proof that this is fan fiction…"

To conclude, I'm still missing the proof that this isn't fanfiction.

"…and I don't accept your 'so called' knowledge of the Star Wars universe as proof."

Man, I feel really, really bad now…

"If I thought you were right, I would obviously support you."

Obviously. :)

"But as it is, you still haven't properly backed up your arguments, other than convinced me that the dates are chronologically wrong which I am already aware of."

I can't present a nonpresence. Give me ONE canonical source that states Konar Siosk-Baas exists in the Star Wars Universe as the character presented in the article, and I will concede. Prove me wrong. Please. :)

"They will be fixed in due course, but until the real proof comes (and I mean, not what your opinion on the matter is), this character will remain."

You can't prove it, can you? I mean, I know you can't, because he doesn't exist, but you do know you can't, right?

Look, I have nothing against fanfiction (good fanfiction, at least), but it's not a part of Star Wars canon, and, as such, doesn't belong here. Prove Konar is canon, or concede.

—Jon Hart

• Delete fanfiction. Please don't quote other people at length when responding, this is not Usenet or a web forum. Gazpacho 07:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete without even having to look at the article. Any Star Wars fan article creating this much VfD discussion has to be non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 15:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Magnetic reversal

The material in this article appears almost word-for-word in Earth's magnetic field as a section of the article. Delete the article, or the section in Earth's magnetic field? Arcturus 17:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Earth's magnetic field (although there's only about one line different), as that article isn't overlong. Average Earthman 18:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Average Earthman. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Earth's magnetic field, concur with AverageEarthman. Megan1967 05:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no real consensus, for now I have redirected it to Numbers in various languages, which already has the names in Persian. - SimonP 21:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Iranian numbers

List of digits with a latinized translation into Persian or some other language. If this type of information is useful, it may be placed into the appropriate number articles. Delete --Allen3 ^talk 17:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. RickK 19:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it and Delete --Carnildo 22:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary doesn't want transliterations. —Korath (Talk) 03:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Korath. Megan1967 05:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Korath. Radiant_* 08:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic list. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At most, merge with Persian language. - Mustafaa 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I would be quite happy to see a List of numbers in different languages, with this as one small section of it. I think it would be fairly useful to have the numbers 1-10 in as many languages as possible here. This article could be merged with it, if such a beast existed. Grutness|^hello? 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - into List of numbers in different lanugages, as per Grutness's suggestion. - Pioneer-12 09:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, there are alot of different languages: Numbers from 1 to 10 in Over 5000 Languages. It seems the research has been done. A set of lists of numbers by language would be most helpful to the linguistic articles. It's one of the standard means of language comparison.
• Merge into Numbers in various languages: this article dates back to 2003. Unless there are special numerals, in which case it would be useful as an article along with Chinese numerals, Japanese numerals. Fg2 10:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool. Iranian = Modern Persian. That article already contains an entry for Persian. That entry contains the same numbers as this list, with very slight differences - Transliteration error or regional/temporal variation? The big list [15] contains several closely related dialect variations, including Farsi and Tati. Farsi is described in sources as "the Official language of Iran", and another name for Persian. Actually, I think Farsi is the official and self-identified name for Farsi/Persian/Iranian - I believe that, if you asked someone from Iran, they would tell you that they spoke Farsi.... Yes, the wiki entry for Persian language confirms this.
  • So... these Iranian numbers are a dialect of Persian/Farsi - a meaningfully different dialect or simply a transliteration error? Without a source for the info, we have no way of knowing. So I say delete this info as redundant and unsourced and redirect the link to Numbers in various languages so future efforts/searches are coordinated with that list. No harm is done by deleting this unsourced info, as "Numbers in various languages" already contains an entry for Persian. - Pioneer-12 15:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Grow Up and Die

Not notable, by author's own admission. DJ Clayworth 17:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I cannot find any references to it. Where did the author say it was not notible? I was the one who left that comment on the talk page, not the author. Roodog2k 17:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did say they haven't released anything as of yet, but they have been touring in holland. Consequently, they have gained a modest following. I will be expanding this article if you let me....--Douwe 17:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, they haven't even recorded yet. They don't show up in the first page of Google hits for "Grow Up and Die". RickK 19:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable protohiro 03:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kindling

Dicdef. Delete or merge into an article on fire starting. --Allen3 ^talk 17:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Potential for expansion. Keep or merge into an article on fire starting. Kappa 21:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...or disambig as suggested below. Kappa 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? Kindling is an important term in the study of epilepsy. Grutness|^hello? 03:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It is? Wow, you learn something every day. Disambig between fire starting and epilepsy, or something like that. Radiant_* 08:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I only know because one of my university professors discovered the phenomenon! I've turned the page into a disambiguation page. Grutness|^hello?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Samuele de Gaunt

• Delete - I'm am a left-wing activist in Portugal and I've never heard about such things ... The photo doesn's seem to had been taken in the 1940's. Google reports only 3 results for "Samuele de Gaunt" and are all related to this article. This seems like a vanity page with a big background story. Samuele de Gaunt is not an hero to the portuguese left-wing, no one has heard about Samuele de Gaunt! Actually that is not a Portuguese name. If you try to read the story you will find it way too silly.

Two more things:

- There is an article related to this in the votes for deletion, Gil Martinez. - The user who built the article has edited this same comments a few times. Afonso Silva 19:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. "The Empire Strikes Out" in 1968? Uhhuh. Sounds like an English speaker who doesn't understand that puns don't translate. RickK 19:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's not a single reference to him on the Portuguese site, so he can't be all that famous if he existed at all. I also found absolutely about him on a few different Portuguese language search engines. If this is a joke, it's a bad one and a strange way to waste time. Kyle543 01:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep Note- Living in Sale, I have viewed a commemorative plaque to de Gaunt in the town hall, which I am sure the above posters have not witnessed. Samuele de Gaunt was not as famous as mentioned in the article, which accounts for his relatively low to zero documentation on the internet. However, he did exist nonethelss and was both a folk guitarist and left-wing political activist.

N.B. The above unsigned comment was from User:81.152.32.109 whose only contributions have been to Samuele de Gaunt and this VfD. P Ingerson 10:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

N.B. The above poster doesn't realise that I searched my hometown and commented on what was missing. I have not visited this site many times before, and certainly didn't care enough to post contribute elsewhere. Besides, this is for the history of my hometown; it has purpose.

Note: The above comment is by 81.152.32.109, whose only edits are to the article and this VfD.

• Delete. I agree this is probably a hoax. P Ingerson 10:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bollocks, pure bollocks. Delete at once. As a Sale resident, I was keen to learn more about my town's history, and lapped up the information contained within this article with glee. Now I realise it was a cruel hoax. How did my fellow posters come be stung by the malicious pranksters who have made a mockery of this fine educational resource and the proud history of my hometown?

The above unsigned vote is from User:80.5.160.8 -- P Ingerson 15:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC).

My fellow posters. As a U.S student of Archaeology at Coimbra University I have recently come across this article and assumed that it was utterly fictional. However on a visit to the Municipal Graveyard or the túmulo do país on Ladeira das Alpenduradas I found the graves mentioned in the article. They seem in first class condition and I suspect they are well cared for. Whether this means the entire story is authentic is another matter.

The above unsigned comment is from User:81.77.94.146, this user's first contribution. RIPE puts this IP address in the United Kingdom, not Portugal. Also note that he used the British spelling of Archaeology even though he's supposedly American. P Ingerson 15:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that the deluded above annotation failed to account for the expeditions which archaeologists embark on.

Note: The above comment is by 81.152.32.109, whose only edits are to the article and this VfD.

• Strong keep. Why was this listed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Change to delete unless corroborated. It now looks to me like a hoax. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: User:80.5.160.8 and User:217.44.48.168 attempted to vandalise this VfD page. Damage has been reverted. P Ingerson 21:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most of the votes of deletion are from liars- they say they are themselves political activists. That is quite frankly laughable, and although some parts may have been tampered with the person that is Samuele de Gaunt indeed visited our town of Sale. Taking away this page is like taking away our history.

The above unsigned comment was from User:81.152.32.109 whose only contributions have been to Samuele de Gaunt and this VfD. P Ingerson 22:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep Samuele de Gaunt was indeed a guitarist and political activist.

Note: The above unsigned vote is by 80.53.113.150; user's first edit.

• Comment. User:80.5.160.8 has vandalised this page again. The vandalism has been reverted again. Could everyone please add this page to your watchlist? Thanks. P Ingerson 23:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He's done it again. And I've reverted it again! P Ingerson 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there a page on Portuguese Wiki for this dude? If not, why not? A²Kafir 23:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My point is, if this dude is so bleeping famous in Portugal as our anonymous poster claims, there should be a Portuguese page for him. I just checked for one, and it's not there. That implies this fellow is not as important as our anonymous poster asserts. "Taking away this page is like taking away our history" is a bit much; why are you concentrating on an English page if the fellow is so important to Portugal? Delete if no resolution of these issues. A²Kafir 13:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Some people wish to conceal the truth. For shame.

• Strong keep. Our heritage is being defiled by this Portuguese truth-butcher! Do not let de Gaunt's name be corrupted by this reprehensible slander! FORWARD, COMRADES!

Both of the above unsigned votes are from User:82.211.102.159, who also added the fake "Strong Keep" to A2Kafir's comment. This IP address is owned by Trafford metropolitan borough council. P Ingerson 10:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is getting worse. I repeat: Samuele de Gaunt never existed, at least as a Portuguese left-wing folk singer! You want an example of a real Portuguese left-wing folk singer? -> Zeca Afonso. Samuele is not a Portuguese name, de Gaunt is not a Portuguese surname, that's just like saying that Afonso Silva is a British left-wing folk singer. Afonso Silva 16:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep I have heard of de Gaunt, and when I visited Manchester I learned some of the history of the towns within. I am not too sure of de Gaunt's popularity in his home country, but his efforts in Sale sure seemed to have an impact.

Note: The above unsigned vote is by 210.196.130.62; user's first edit.

• Strong keep After being contacted via the above poster, I too travelled with him to England. Sale is a small yet lively town with some interesting history. Notably James Joule, and also de Gaunt. I am confused to why people are unsure of de Gaunt's existence, as documents are clearly visible within the town hall.

Note: The above unsigned vote is by 211.76.97.249; user's 20th edit.

• • As you may not be aware, the votes of anonymous votes are not counted. However, you would strongly support your contention if you would take a camera to the Sale town hall and take photos of those documents, hmm? RickK 22:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Note: This page was vandalized by 217.43.178.234, who changed Afonso Silva's vote and comments. This was the user's first edit.

• If the socks can try and vote "strong keep," this real user votes strongest possible delete. Do not pass BJAODN, do not collect $200. Apparently, their little button eyes failed to notice the delete vote from a genuine Portuguese leftist. Nice try, hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence for existence, probable hoax.-gadfium 07:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Like all non-sockpuppets here, I vote delete with the most extreme prejudice possible. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Note: this page was vandalized by 80.5.160.8 (talk · contribs) 81.152.32.109 (talk · contribs). RickK 16:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per everyone else who voted delete. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reasons well established by others. Quale 05:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalised by 81.77.94.146 (talk · contribs). P Ingerson 10:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the damn thing. Clearly a hoax, and almost certainly the creator is using sock puppets to vote and possibly vandalize the page. Not good form. --Whimemsz 17:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP- this person has a few pages about him off google, there isn't much but there isn't a lot about thousands off these articles. If this was a vanity page why would it be all about someone who is dead and lived aound 50 years ago, This to me seems like a genuine page; the person in it may be over hyped but still a real person and a true article. Though this may be phrased wrongly the only perons vanity this page seems to be for is P Ingerson, who single handedly wants to lose history forever. Dr White
  • Actually writen by 80.5.160.8 (talk · contribs), see hist. – ABCD 21:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. A Sale resident myself (check the IP!) I was fortunate enough to encounter Mr. de Gaunt during his brief sojourn into our fair town. I am duty-bound to confirm that the countenance gracing the page to which this Vote refers (and may I add that the persons posting for deletions are evincing a lamentable ignorance about Sale and Mr. de Gaunt) is indeed that of Mr. de Gaunt, and that, with some possible inaccuracies, the information contained therein is without doubt representative of actual events, persons and places. To attempt to delete this resource is not merely to deprive people everywhere of this small morsel of Sale's history, but to slur (though admittedly without intent to do so) Mr. de Gaunt's name. - J. Mones.

Note: The above vote is by 217.44.32.3 (talk · contribs); only edits are to this VfD page and P Ingerson's talk page.

Note: This page was blanked twice by 80.5.160.8 (talk · contribs).

Blanked again, this time by 82.211.102.159 (talk · contribs), a repeated vandal.

Blanked again a minute after I reverted, again by 82.211.102.159 (talk · contribs)

The same user then replaced the text with "stop it loser".

Blanked AGAIN by 82.211.102.159 (talk · contribs)

• Delete. I did a Google check [16] on this guy and I notice most pages that link to him are from Wikipedia mirrors or have been deleted from Wikipedia pages (see Sale, Greater Manchester). Zscout370 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalized by 81.154.222.178 (talk · contribs), who replaced the whole page with that ALL SEEING EYE crap. --Whimemsz 02:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pokes the All Seeing Eye's out. Nice try, no cigar. Zscout370 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Having been informed of this page by several surprised Wikipedia users, I have to confirm that Samuele de Gaunt was indeed a Portuguese folk singer; I was unaware of many (if any) left-wing acitivities on his part, but his talents as a bard were formidable and not to be trifled with. To delete this page (despite any posible inaccuracies therein) is a travesty and one which I consider an unforgivable breach of Wikipedia's mission. My own experiences of de Gaunt during his all-too-brief period in Sale were quite a revelation, and it will be a sad loss if others are deprived of the chance to grasp at some small sample of his beauteous musical talents.

Proof, man, PROOF! Give us PROOF! Not testimonials! Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind folks that whenever you post a vote and or comment, please sign the entry by using four tildes ~~~~. Thank you. Zscout370 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: This page was blanked by User:80.5.160.8. Zscout370 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I live in Manchester, and Sale is but a short distance away on the Metrolink; I checked in the library and there are a couple of small displays of de Gaunt, but some of the information here may be embellished - requires alot of revision. Arpeggio 18:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this for reasons others have already listed. Quite clearly a hoax. HorsePunchKid 20:48, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Why on earth would anyone want to write a 'vanity' article, as Dr. White so rightly says, about a dead, little known Portuguese left wing political activist? Surely we should be encouraging this article? It recognises the integrity and bravery of someone who was, undoubtedly, a very fine man. Do we want to lose this small piece of Samuele de Gaunt? It is our only link to him now, apart from his remaining poetry. He is clearly a hero, and one who deserves to be remembered in any way that we can. Also, as a Sale resident, I can confirm the existence of the plaque to de Gaunt's memory. I suggest that anyone who doubts the truth of this statement comes to Sale. Or do they not wish to be proven wrong? Especially as phots seem to copy so badly onto this page "The photo doesn's seem to had been taken in the 1940's" (again, the first poster). As to his name not being portuguese, could not his parents have been immigrants, or maybe even only one parent? We are not considering all of the possibilities here. Thank you. User:81.155.199.53

This is where, once again, we want you to do this: PROVE IT. Show us articles, show us books, show us poetry, show us stuff that will try to convince us. It is not our job to do YOUR research. You claim to know all of these facts, but nothing to show proof to back those claims up. Plus, as mentioned earlier, if he was a great man that was valued by the Portugese people, he will be on the Portugese version of Wikipedia, but he is not. That, to me, brings me a clear sign that he is probably not notable. Zscout370 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lucky, how can we have any idea whether or not the "genuine portuguese leftist" is, in fact, a genuine portuguese leftist? You seem to take their word for it with less evidence than you do for the supporters of Samuele de Gaunt. This, to me, suggests that you are not impartial. Perhaps you have conceived a dislike for Mr. de Gaunt? STRONG KEEP. User:81.155.199.53(FL)

I see a long page, a photo, and a bunch of stuff, but no sources, no links, nothing to support any statement. Anything that has been found online, it is from Wikipedia mirrors. The "UK Guide" [17] and Realestate.ca [18] are just Wikipedia mirrors of that one page, which the hoax was removed before. Wikipedia wants proof on their articles, and until you get some, we will keep on saying delete. Zscout370 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Howington

• Keep, He is actually quite an amazing person. I recently saw a show on A&E about him. I am glad that someone has taken the time to write an entry about this fascinating new prospect. jjh 9:10, 06 May 2005 (UTC)

The kid had his 15 minutes, lets delete it now.Feydey 18:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, simple vanity. He never got any 15 minutes, as far as I'm aware... the only 15 he's got as far as I'm aware is years of age. -- Curps 19:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Josh Cherry 04:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Enough said. JHMM13 01:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this guy is obviously notable, as stated in the article. He will be as notable as Benjamin Franklin one day
  • above vote by 66.0.121.112 (talk · contribs)
• Keep, I have a pHD in the History of Western Civilization and I have to say this is a very interesting character. He has all the earmarks of someone who will be a key player in tommorrow's future. I have to say i've actually met the young man, he's a very charismatic and a quite vibrant youth. DO NOT DELETE this historical gem.
  • above vote by 66.0.121.112 (talk · contribs). You can't vote twice, and anonymous votes are taken less seriously, if at all -- Curps 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:66.0.121.112 vandalized the discussion by deleting a number of votes and changing others. Now reverted. Rossami (talk)
• Delete, vanity--nixie 04:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good luck to him, though. I understand prophecy's a tough gig. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep hasnt done anything wrong. 68.190.40.38 02:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of U.S. Presidential trivia not listed anywhere

While there are some interesting trivia facts here, I think they should be merged into the articles on the individual presidents. This article is pretty clearly a joke, as its mere existence presents a logical paradox. It's almost like people are actively trying to get on BJAODN, which is kind of why i'm opposed to BJAODN in the first place. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bad attempt at BJAODN, plenty of other places to put this trivia. Most of the facts "not listed anywhere" already appear on other pages. Plus, at least 2 of these "facts" are false (left as an exercise for other Wikipediholics). RussBlau 19:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 19:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blah - this is ridiculous. Anything listed here that's accurate should be moved onto the appropriate pages. Dpark 22:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. The useful stuff should go on the relevant pages, the rest should be deleted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do we merge it and preserve the edit history for GFDL? RickK 23:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not needed, IMO. The trivia is no more than a simple list of facts. There is no editorial or creative content. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless list of stuff that should be on pres. pages, (and in some cases already is) and if not is not worth noting at all. Also, mis-spells names of presidents Cleveland and Reagan. No BJAODN. -- 8^D ^gab 02:21, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial is the opposite of encyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 03:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• But if they're not listed anywhere, and they are added to this article, then they don't belong in this article and should be removed...but if they're removed from the article, then they belong in the article since they are no longer listed anywhere...delete before my head explodes. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial and pointless. Megan1967 05:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge. As the author of this trivia list, while I agree that there's something lacking in it, the facts are true. And if a list for the pets & libraries & even height of U.S. Presidents can be retained, I don't understand why a list that includes the lightest and heaviest presidents (weight) among various curious facts should be removed. I suggest that if it looks bad, maybe it should be reformatted or moved/merged instead of deleting it. Maybe I shouldn't have used "not listed anywhere". I wante to convey that the previous trivia lists on U.S. Presidents don't contain the facts mentioned here. Something like "List of Miscellaneous trivia on US Presidents" would have been better I think. --Idleguy 05:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • If these "trivia" facts aren't listed anywhere else, you can insert them in the President of the United States article, which already has a trivia section. As for accuracy – check the Bill Clinton article before you insist that Andrew Johnson was the only President to be impeached. There have actually been three Presidents married while in office; perhaps you meant that Cleveland was the only one to be married inside the White House itself. RussBlau 13:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually these trivia were inserted in the trivia section under the President of the United States article. Just that the trivia mentioned were more odd and one of a kind that I thought would merit a seperate list as it couldn't be accomodated with any of the other trivia lists on US presidents. Yes, I agree I made a mistake with the impeachment thing. That ought be taken off. And I meant Cleveland was the only one to be married in the White House itself. I guess I'll edit the article to reflect the changes.
• Delete -- and merge any useful info into the relevant articles on presidents. Poorly titled also. - Longhair | Talk 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A list of things not listed anywhere - how's that for a paradox? Delete. Radiant_* 13:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm starting to like that phrase "trivia is by definition not encyclopedic". These facts, if relevant, belong in the articles of the respective presidents, not here. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Before a decision is taken, I would like to know why a list called List of U.S. Presidents by height order exists. Since it's as trivial, if not more trivial than my list that has the lightest and heaviest US presidents among others. All I did was put it in a concise form and "Delete" is the general consensus. Why, may I ask does a List of US first dogs or nicknames then? Please see the other lists in the trivia section before making up your mind. Like I said the title was badly phrased and a little editing could be welcome to make the list more orderly. But it's double standards when other trivia exists and this list of trivia is sought to be expunged. I think that many just look at the vfd and directly start voting without looking at the article and the sub heading this appears in. I hope the admin takes these things into account before blindly deleting some useful information. --Idleguy 04:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Poor title. As soon as information on this list is 'listed anywhere', this list fails. - Longhair | Talk 04:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but move all information to President of the United States and to pages for individual presidents as appropriate. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:12, Apr 30, 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 special. I am ending this nonsense and closing the nomination early. There is clearly not going to be a consensus to delete. Isomorphic 06:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Everson

Vanity Page nominated by 68.42.0.182

• keep typical bio page —msh210 20:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• speedy keep -- I have to laugh at this, I really do. The anonymous nominator had only one edit previous to nominating this page for VfD, and that was to the Time Cube article, so his nomination is doubtless in retaliation for my having put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination). I am, of course, the Michael Everson in question, and the article has been on the Wikipedia for more than a year now. Irregularities as to its original appearance were discussed at length on its talk page, and everyone was satisfied that it was not a vanity article. Apparently my work for Unicode makes me a minor celebrity, and other Wikipedians of note agreed that the article was noteworthy, neutral, and verifiable -- and it still is, as far as I can see. I am pleased to be one of the Wikipedians with article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_article), and I do hope the article doesn't get deleted. (See the Dutch version at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson if you are so inclined.) Evertype 21:15, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; there's already consensus that the article isn't vanity. --Angr/_comhrá 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - I was one of the original people who determined that it wasn't a vanity page, and I still maintain that opinion. -- Arwel 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Apparent bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This shouldn't even be an issue.
• Check the history if you would like to see 209.30.65.63's vandalism to what I wrote above. Who are these people? Evertype 00:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Page smacks of self-advertising. His claim of celebrity status is unfounded and likely the result of some sort of catatonic delusion of grandeur. GNAA Popeye 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you don't know me, or my work very well, I guess. It was another Wikipedian who called me "a minor celebrity" and I guess having an article about me on the front page of the technology section of The New York Times is some evidence of that. I think it's cool, and fun, and I am neither catatonic nor delusional. Evertype 11:39, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• So what, Gene Ray talked about Time Cube on national television and yet you don't seem to think his theories are worth having an article. Also, I was mentioned as a firefox contributor in the New York Times; maybe I should get an article too. GNAA Popeye 14:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think the page expounding his theories is not encyclopaedic. It is patent nonsense, pseudo-scientific babble, and the entire article is so POV I think it irredeemable. I said nothing about Gene Ray's own page. With regard to the difference between having a feature article in the Times and being mentioned in it, well, I guess what you're telling us is that you're a begrudger. I'm sorry that my opinions about Time Cube make you and others angry. The level of invective I have received over it, however, says more about others than it says about me. Evertype 15:05, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not encyclopaedic 68.42.0.182 01:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How can this not be pure vanity?

• above comment by User 24.86.165.199 who proceeded to repeat this phrase about a zillion times in a fit of vandalism, which I have now deleted. Soundguy99 01:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Unicode, whoo-hoo!!! -- 8^D ^gab 01:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Comment This Vfd appears to be related to this discussion. Seems to support the Time Cube retaliation theory. 63.201.91.192 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How pleasant. Evertype

• Keep and sanction nominator. Josh Cherry 04:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable self-advertising. Come on people, he wrote an encyclopedia article about himself and is the only major contributor. This is the definition of vanity that wikipedia so likes to get rid of. Wikipedia should not be used as a place that you show to your prospective employers how important you are. He already has his bio on his own domain, it doesn't belong here. - 193.77.153.149 05:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- he's done a lot more of note in the real world than most Wikipedians. Sure, he created the article himself, but readily admits to his lack of good judgement at the time. Since, may others have contributed to bring the article to where it is today. Retalitation as per the Time Cube VfD seems likely. Hell, Evertype and I even had a tingle over the same VfD, but he's fine by me. - Longhair | Talk 08:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Agree with GNAA Popeye. How many thousands of people contribute to ISO standards? Does everyone of them have an article here? No. Why not? Because they aren't really anybody that special. Alexs 09:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There are a lot of ISO standards. There are ISO standards for concrete and light bulb filaments. The Universal Character Set, however, is a bit of a different animal, in that by encoding people's alphabets, it allows everyone to be able to use their own languages to create new texts and express themselves. The UCS enables the digital preservation of all of the written knowledge of humankind. What people consider notable is my work to ensure that the UCS supports all of the world's writing systems, not just the ones which make big companies money. Evertype 13:18, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Delete. I've contributed patches to X11 for the truetype sbit renderer and cursors that you see in GTK version of mozilla are my code. Do I have a page on wikipedia about this? No. This is totally non-notable junk, especially considering most of it is duplicated on his "personal" website. --Timecop 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity is a sin. #bible efnet. --Impi.za 14:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete vanity. Even considering his unicode work is noteable, half, if not three fourths, of the article is garbage that isn't noteable to a single person on earth. Strip out the filler vanity lines, and all that's left is a few sentances about his coding. This is an encylopedia, not a blog. Only NOTEABLE info should be in an article, not every little side factoid someone can possibly dig up to make it appear as if a person actually did something considerable. --vetta2 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-noteable, vanity. Kryptops 14:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Michael Everson likes to self-promote, but at least he's done stuff that he can base that self-promotion on. In any case I don't think we should delete something everytime some random slashdotter says "this is gay". -- Talliesin
• Comment [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Michael_Everson This] is pretty funny.
• Keep. Everson is a very large figure in the Unicode world, and deserves an encyclopaedic entry; that its content may need to be made less self-promotional is a different issue altogether. This page, if deleted, would likely be reinstated later on anyway by a random outsider wondering why there's no page for someone so well-known. --Sbp 15:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs some editing IMHO, it has too many links (maybe Wikipedia needs some kind of "autolink" mechanism to be triggered at the discretion of readers), but this is far from a vanity page. Michael Everson's accomplishments are real, and valuable, and his place in Wikipedia is well-deserved. -- Non-registered user Javier Candeira, http://barrapunto.com/
• Delete. The vanity disgusts me. I thought wikipedia was around not for vanity but for information. The information present in this entry is of negligible value. His aforementioned "accomplishments" are little more than what one might simply call a "job".-- thelark
• Delete. I agree with thelark. It sounds roughly like a job. Nothing outstanding enough for your own page in a respectable encyclopedia. --jobeus
• I don't think that it is a vanity page. I'm not all that vain. I didn't put the link to me in the Wikipedia; another Wikipedian did. Months later I added in text from the short bio I keep on my website. I was unaware of Wikipedia's policy at that time, but invited people to make sure that it was verifiable and neutral. I believe that it is. I provided some text for an article which has since been edited by others and judged by them to be useful and appropriate. The "parody" you mention is base and offensive, and written by someone who has a lot of hate and a lot of problems, it would appear. All I try to do is make sure that Unicode has all the writing systems of the world in it, so people can use their writing systems on computers. This year I had a wonderful experience, meeting gentle and intelligent people in Bali who helped me to encode their script. That was a pleasure, and I am glad that I was able to help the Balinese people. I am proud of my contributions. I don't think that is "vanity". Evertype 16:27, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Vanity pages have no place in Wikipedia. If we allow one to stay on the basis of "it just uses some space", then that same argument will be applied to others. There should be no favouritism. Kryptops 16:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Biography pages of notable people do have a place in Wikipedia however.Talliesin 2005-04-27T17:23Z

• Speedy Keep and ignore trolls, socks, and bitter cultists. Ben-w
• Keep or merge with his user page, since he's a user. I think he's more than notable enough, however, to have this article stick around. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Avoiding vanity pages and personal flame wars on wikipedia is the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica exists. Just take it [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Michael_Everson there]. --Girlvinyl 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that I ever did anything to anyone to merit a treatment that hurtful and mean-spirited. Evertype 20:41, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • One could say that having a parody of you indicates that you are indeed a minor celebrity and deserving of such a page as the one we are voting on. Maybe one day you'll make it to the ranks of major celebrity and actually have a parody of you that parodies rather than engages in unfunny schoolyard name-calling. We all need goals after all.
• Speedy Delete --Girlvinyl 18:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. silsor 22:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know anything about the field to judge what makes someone notable within it, though a NY Times article lends some weight to that judgment. I do want to echo the concerns voiced above regarding Wikipedians creating or editing pages about them. I would like to see an absolute ban on such a practice, as it not only necessarily constitutes original research (you don't exactly learn about yourself from other sources) but strikes me as heavily contrary to the objective spirit of this project. No responsible Wikipedian should use this as a forum for self-promotion. If at all, a user should attempt to correct article content about themselves only through talk page comments, leaving it to others to verify such self-claims. Postdlf 00:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, which appears to have already been done, so why have duplicate pages? --82.69.188.246 00:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to user page. Read the vanity page article. The Michael Everson article should be redirected to User:Evertype. The votes are keep 15 against delete 13 anyway. That way we avoid having the whole article deleted. Everyone is allowed to edit the user page. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a valid opinion, but don't unilaterally implement that change while the article is being discussed here. I reverted your redirection. Postdlf 23:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The redirect thing also goes for the article in Dutch, nl:Michael Everson, and the ones in Spanish and Galician if they are created. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm unclear on what you mean, but if you are trying to achieve something here that would be binding upon other language versions of Wikipedia, that's not something you can do here. Log into the Dutch, Spanish, etc. versions and make/propose the changes there. This English VfD has no power to decide anything outside of the English Wikipedia. Postdlf 00:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • What I mean is if we delete or redirect the page, then the same should apply to all articles in other languages. All this discussion on this page is being made because someone added a "VfD" template, which is still not the case in articles of other languages, so we can redirect the articles on other languages without asking first. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • VfD has authority only over articles on en. silsor 13:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Absolutely not - if you want to delete an article on another language Wikipedia, you go through that Wikipedia's deletion procedures and make your case in that language. en:VfD has absolutely no authority over any other language version of Wikipedia. Any en: user attempting to interfere in another version on the authority of en:VfD would quite rightly deserve to be shot! -- Arwel 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Administrator on cy:Wikipedia).
          • First of all, you're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say anything about having authority. Secondly, I didn't say that the English VfD should be used to "interfere" in other language versions. What I mean is that it makes perfect sense to redirect the page in other languages if we redirect it in the English version, because the rules of the different language versions have to be consistent with each other. What's the purpose of redirecting the page on the English version if you don't do the same on other languages? The Wikipedia rules should be the same for all languages. Then I didn't say anything about necessarily deleting the page. I voted for redirecting it. And then, why should a Wikipedia user go through the deletion policy if there is no VfD and if you don't want to delete it anyway? If you make a redirect that makes sense, why should anyone put a VfD template on the page? That's ridiculous. I said redirect, not delete. And I said if, and only if. Don't put words in my mouth! And shoot yourself if you want me to get shot, Arwel, you misinterpreter! 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, of course, and discount any sockpuppets. Ridiculous bad faith nomination. - Mustafaa 00:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The existing consensus should not be disturbed without new evidence. --Johnwcowan 18:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. AaronSw 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• speedy deletion absolutely no distance, no criticism, egotistic trip by author. No one should write an article about himself. There are really more important people and concept to document that to debate this. 165.107.37.86
• Keep Everson's vanity is well known, nevertheless he is worthy of an entry --Peterkirk 00:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Who is this Everson? A guy that works on ISO committees? So? How many anonymous contributors to ISO standards are there? How many other people are on his committee? And he believes he is entitled to write his own hagiography? Who says his contributions are so great? I understand he writes a lot but how original is it? So he got his 5 minutes celebrity in a few articles and a prize... Where are the Wikipedia of the other recipients of this award? Remove his vanity page. Leave the many links he has already put on Wikipedia to his own site since there seems to me valuable info there. Wikipedia must be objective and absolutely refrain from being a way to exhibit and advertise one's oversize ego.
• Keep (reluctantly). I find Everson's vanity very unseemly, but his work is borderline notable. The article is too long for his relatively modest achievements, and really should be paired down. Quale 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find no evidence that this is vanity, and anyway, Wikipedia isn't paper, after all. It is slightly notable. Unless you provide me more evidence it is vanity, I will vote to keep. -- Natalinasmpf 05:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "I find no evidence that this is vanity repeats Natalinasmpf", let him consider the definition of vanity: " An inflation of mind upon slight grounds; empty pride inspired by an overweening conceit of one's personal attainments or decorations; an excessive desire for notice or approval; pride; ostentation; conceit." Everson entry is clearl vanity, an excessive conceit of one's own importance. Let him have a user page (he of course already has) and links to his site in the appropriate pages, but he clearly does not merit his own entry on its own written by him (whether objective or not, although I don't see anything in his autohagiographic entry that analyzes his successes and foibles).
• I agree with the "How many anonymous contributors to ISO standards are there?" question. Michael Everson is not the only important member of a standardization group out there. There are a lot of members, employees or workers of the Unicode Consortium or International Standardization Organization, "important" or not, who don't have a main-namespace article on Wikipedia. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:38, 30 Apr 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ben Demarzo

NN, delete.Feydey 19:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Working on political campaigns and being politically active are not notable. R Calvete 19:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Communication. – Rich Farmbrough 18:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Communication technology

No useful content. Aspires to be a dicdef, but isn't even that. Although the topic itself may be worthy of discussion, that should be done in the Communication article. RussBlau 19:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Communication. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as above. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kangas, Steve

Is this person notable? I certainly can't tell, from the state of this. The article is named in an incorrect format, too. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but needs work -- there certainly seems to be enough interest out there. Ben-w
• 4930 google hits for his name as a phrase. No vote, but what's there is borderline-libelous. It should be removed unless there's a rewrite. Meelar (talk) 23:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 08:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• delete maybe Yuckfoo 16:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)`
• Delete --nixie 04:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is worthless. If he is notable and a good article is written on this subject it would be easier to start from scratch. The article is mistitled in any case. Quale 05:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't say it was borderline libelous, it is libelous. There seems to be a few web-pages out there devoted to him. I can't decide, but it does need to be rewritten if it's kept.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Rollins

Vanity page that appears to be largely fictional AlistairMcMillan 19:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. R Calvete 20:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonexistence person. minghong 01:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, nonsense vanity. Megan1967 05:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with all reasons given above. Quale 05:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the Google test completely with this name ANDed with "open source". --I am not good at running 03:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle 11:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Chokladboll

Saved from speedy. Seems authentic. Keep. —msh210 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'll change my vote to keep as the article makes sense now. KFP 16:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like racism to me. Feydey 20:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. --Carnildo 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the poster can't even tell us what it is (though I suspect it's a comestible). Should have been speedied. RickK 23:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, it's linked to Cuisine of Sweden and seems authentic. It's just very badly written. If we take this off, we should take off alot of the other Cuisine of Sweden links. Kyle543 00:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this is a simple type of chocolate-coloured candy or pastry sold in Sweden that has commonly been called negerboll, very literally "negro ball" ("ball" as in something round, nothing else). This has been the object of some public controversy, involving the Ombudsman against Discrimination, and a café in southern Sweden was recently actually sued over offering negerbollar and forced to change the name. People who find it particularly important to demonstrate their political incorrectness make a point of ordering "negro balls" with their coffee, but for the most part the transition to the new terminology, chokladboll ("chocolate ball"), has been smooth and painless. I can't really think of a good way to make an encyclopedia article out of this. In any case, the controversy, which may be mildly interesting in some way, is over the word, not the thing in itself, and it is over the N-word, not the Ch-word, so like with N****r, any article about that issue should probably be under that title. Seen purely as a part of Swedish cuisine, it seems doubtful if it is interesting enough for an article of its own, but could possibly be mentioned in an article on Swedish pastry or candy, if one were to be written. -- Uppland 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Jeez, if you had put that in the article it would help. Ben-w
• Keep and continue to expand. Megan1967 05:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, as notable pastry and linguistic controversy. Kappa 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand even more. bbx 02:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep working on this and dont rush to conclusions Yuckfoo 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Getting better. Paul August ☎ 04:26, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this might well be kept as a separate article for the time being, but should eventually be merged somewhere. There is a similar controversy in Germany over the use of the word Negerkuß ("negro kiss", another type of chocolate treat). In the longer run, a good home should be made for both of these things in an article on a more general topic. There are, I believe, many other examples of racial slurs or stereotypes having been used in advertising and product naming before this was seen as controversial. Uppland 11:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, provided that somebody cleans the article up so that it actually describes the food in question and not just the controversy over its name. Dr.frog 16:27, 30 Apr 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

South Dakota TV Tower, Corridor TV Tower, Southeastern Media Tower Beech Island, Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Caesars Head, WRJA-TV-FM Tower, Barnacle Broadcasting Tower Port Royale, KTMD-TV Tower, Cox Radio Tower Security and South Carolina Educational TV tower Sumter

Little more than a listing of coordinates and a link. I don't think we need separate articles for these items, particularly when there is already a rather lengthy List of masts. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Please see also a Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts|policy proposal]] proposing a mass merge of masts into the List of masts.
• Keep, I'm sure it has a history, and tall things are local landmarks. Kappa 20:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. If not kept, they should be merged with their local area. Kappa 22:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all the dozens of individual tower articles cluttering Wikipedia, unless the particular tower is notable in some way that makes it distinct from other towers. Every town and city of any size has several of these, so there must be thousands of them around the world. The tallest tower in the world definitely deserves an article; a tower that introduced a new method of construction or support deserves an article; but the 17th tallest tower that looks just like the other 16 towers, only shorter, doesn't. RussBlau 21:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a steel truss 400 meters tall. What more is there to say about it? --Carnildo 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Who built it and why, design choices to suit it to the local site, conroversy, what its used for, its history. lots of things can be said. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all towers. These simply aren't notable, and they're not local landmarks. This information could easily go on a list, but does not deserve its own article. Meelar (talk) 23:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All major infrastructure is inherently "notable".--Gene_poole 02:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I want to say Delete, since all notable infrastructure can go in a table in one article...but perhaps this is an area for a policy consensus discussion? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea. Feel free to start one, I'll clean up some old ones asap. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to say about it. Delete this and all TV/radio tower articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 05:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- reasons exist to keep the List of masts and associated mast articles. If they're suitable for Wikipedia, so is this. - Longhair | Talk 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All major infrastructure is inherently "notable" and worthy of inclusion in a truely great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of masts Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The articles contain all basic information for a tatter expansion! The table on List of masts has no column for location data! It has only a column for the country and when you write KTMD-TV Tower is in USA the statement does not give much information, because the USA is very big! Even for small countries an exact location data is necessary and because of the fact that radio masts are almost outside urban areas geographical coordinates are very useful to give the exact location and are often listed in transmitter tables. Keep them!
  • Above remark by User:85.74.13.16, who has twenty edits. He accidentally bolded the word 'keep' twice, I've unbolded one to prevent confusion.
  • Why can't you just change the formatting of the table on List of masts to include the additional information you think is notable? RussBlau 13:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. There's already a forum for these towers, and it's List of masts. There just is not enough information on each individual tower to warrant a separate article. It's not that I object to the information being presented somewhere, it's just that I think a separate article is not warranted. Why not expand the table on List of masts as RussBlau suggests? (And thanks, Radiant, for merging the VfDs!) · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, IMO notableDeirYassin 11:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For once I agree with DeirYassin. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of masts, which really should be reduced to a list; the other information belongs in Radio tower, Radio mast, and so on.
  • Forgot to sign this —Wahoofive (Talk) 21:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the reasoning of RussBlau 21:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC). —msh210 19:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nearly all the mast articles, as described by RussBlau. CDC (talk) 20:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have started a policy discussion on the family of mast articles. Please contribute policy suggestions and comments here. (Pardon the use of bold type.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the articles and give them a chance to expand! They all contain detailed basic informations for further research (location, geographical coordinates, height, owner). Please give them some time to expand! Perhaps know some people in the neighbourhood more about them, but did not find enough time to post their knowledge. Are there no radio engineers of the USA with more data?
  • Above by User:85.74.11.10, whose IP traces to the same ISP as the above anon user, who has already voted. In response to your points, what else could possibly be added to expand the article? It's just raw data -- and Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all really tall towers are legitimate subjects. Wikipedia isn't paper. Oliver Chettle 04:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into list—there is no hope of expansion, because what more can you say about these? It's just a data dump in multiple parts. Postdlf 04:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep all. Deleting or even merging these will be a huge loss of information. Let them expand. N-Man^talk 12:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• anything but a delete - I wish users would respect the earnest work of others. Lotsofissues 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Earnest work of others isn't beneficial to wikipedia if it's non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Quale 05:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - a list will organize this information better. List of masts already exists. Only masts with substantial meaningful information beyond the list should have their own articles. The rest should be redirects to the list. - Pioneer-12 08:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft vole

POV from an ONLINE news outlet. Does not belong to Wikipedia. And what is that talk page about?? Delete. Feydey 20:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this stupid, non-notable agitprop phrase. Gosh, I hate the Inquirer. Gazpacho 20:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  A mention in the Inquirer article is fine (and I can guess without looking that there already is one), but the phrase is no more appropriate for an article than "Micro$oft."

• Keep. Anything anti-Microsoft is inherently notable. Delete. Not verifiable, neologism, dicdef, and other wise unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 23:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the Inquirer's own glossary has only "Vole" anyway. — Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, nonce term. The Talk page seems to be a copyvio, too, since the people on the email don't seem to have released it to the GFDL or to fair use. RickK 00:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neologism? It is neither meaningless as it is referenced all over Google. It also has been a term that's been in use since at least 2001 well before many other Wikipedia entries (e.g. podcasting ). Yes it does seem to revolve around usage at the Inquirer, but so what? Even if you do 'hate the Inquirer' that should not preclude it from being a valid entry. I think entries are valid if the usage of the word is widespread enough ( search Google and see ) and it does not exist in Wikipedia. The sceanario was that an Inquirer article came up on Google News where i read it and then couldn't find ANY kind of explanation ( even if it was to say that there was NO definitive an explanation ). One of the first places I tried was wikipedia. Currently if someone else conducts this same search they will come across this entry and at least had some knowledge of what the word mean't and the possible reasons( When i first read the article I didn't even know that Vole=Microsoft! ). If this entry is deleted then someone will either give up or waste a lot of time trying to find out ( as I did ). Even if a term is disparaging the term itself should be included if it's in use ( e.g. fairy a male homosexual ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fairy&x=0&y=0 )). The article is not POV in the sense that it is reporting a usage and not condoning it or promoting it. Note that the explanation of the term was in quotes and was said to be from a Message Board so it is not speaking with 'The Authority of Wikipedia'. Also if this is a nonce term then why has it been used since 2001 that's getting on for four years! Additionally it's all very well to say that the word is used on special occasions ( yes i went to M-W to figure out what nonce mean't! )but it is everywhere on Google and even if a lot of the links are to Inquirer a lot are NOT - the word seems to have been picked up by other writers. Also who cares if it is a special occasion surely that should not preclude it from an entry. I guess i feel quite strongly about this because there i was, a user on the Internet - i came across a term and i COULDN'T find out what it mean't. My entry into wikipedia was to increase everybody's knowledge ( and not to Bash Microsoft ). As for 'copyvio' on talk page - i could instead paraphrase or get permissions - it is not a show stopper - however i do think it would be nice for people to get some discussion on etymology. :->
  • Above edit by 204.110.116.1 --Carnildo 19:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's put it this way: Assume somebody described someone with a long neck and called her "giraffe". Now assume you didn't know what it meant. You go to the Wikipedia article about giraffe and read "Giraffes are famous for their long necks." Voilà! Same with vole. The article already says "Unlike most rodents, voles' teeth grow continuously." If you feel this is not enough, just expand this statement so it sufficiently explains why people use "vole" in the meaning you quote. — Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC) (PS: Please don't go ahead and create an article [[giraffe (insult)]] now.)  ;-)

• OK I take it that the article is no longer being considered for deletion? I hope so! We have two outstanding issues of contention if the article is kept then.

1.) The quote that shows why the term was used.

(oh bugger - just read Sebastian said to go ahead and explain why people use vole - BEFORE i wrote all this !!! Sorry. I will leave it in anyway since it is a clarification of my view even if it may be redundant now! Although having said that i think that it's not the Vole article that needs to be updated it should be this article since we are highlighting this key feature of the Vole as it relates to the nickname (see below))

I understand that we are trying to reach a point where the article is still illuminating but is not gratuitously negative to Microsoft since wikipedia needs to protect it's neutral nature and not be seen as being hijaked by Anti-Microsoft 'crusaders'. You are trying to protect wikipedia's integrity and that is the right thing to do. I think that the use of the giraffe to illustrate the point is fair as far as *that* animal and *that* explanation goes and also the *key point* that the girl is described with a long neck to start with. However i wasn't looking into the nickname of Vole thinking to myself that "...this is being used to describe a voracious corporation that devours everything continuously now let's look up what vole means". I guess if i was thinking that then i would may have understood the possible reason for vole as nickname without it needing to be illustrated. Also I'm not sure that voles are famous for having teeth that continuously grow and if they are famous for it I certainly had no idea and neither does *everyone* else. So now it's a matter of what we leave out without assuming knowledge on the part of the person reading ( assumption of knowledge especially where that assumption is not declared is extremley frustrating for people seeking knowledge ). I think that the issue revolves around highlighting the nature of teeth and the key to the metaphor: the requirement to eat continously ( whether that is true or not ). That is the key i think: the need to eat continously. So i think perhaps the bone of contention that is left that maybe considered gratuitous ( even though it is in quotes! ) is: "...Microsoft can only survive by acquiring/stifling the competition." I have no objection to removing this and merely paraphrasing the quote and removing the quotation marks.

2.) The potential copyviolation.

I am currently attempting to aquire permissions to use the text on the discussion page.

204.110.116.1

• Update on Item 2.)

OK i misjudged this one - to my suprise the provider of the quote has wished for it to be retracted from this page for fear of 'unwanted attention from Microsoft'. - I am removing the complete thread, since i do not want anyone else to be subject to similar fear.

204.110.116.1

I sympathize with you. Please don't let this discourage you from speaking up! This is a lame excuse from the provider! For all i know, the First Amendment has not been abolished yet. It's our all duty to keep it alive by sound practice. I see this sort of spineless appeal to fear as a reason for much evil in our society, and i deeply hope that it will soon go out of fashion. (To avoid misunderstandings: I still uphold my vote for "delete"; but only because we have good reasons, not because we are intimidated.) Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

keep, its a standard phrase coined by theinquirer.net (a well read IT news site), in the same vein as chipzilla and graphzilla (Intel and NVidia). I am quite sure that the publisher of theinquirer.net would be "tickled pink" to see this on wikipedia.

• Delete, it hard to tell what's going on here, but editorial/unverifiable content is not suitable for an encyclopedia--nixie 04:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, unverifiable, unenyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Response:

Please can someone explain the meaning of unverifiable here. If it relates to what is the truth behind the REASON for the application of the term then I would agree that is not verfiable. What is verifiable, however, is that the term IS used to reference Microsoft. It is verifiable that the term did turn up in what i consider to be a mainstream news outlet ( google news ) and i can verify (;->) that i was completley clueless for quite a while as to what the term was even referring to. I think even on that point alone the term deserves inclusion in wikipedia, whose purpose is, I believe, to provide non biased ( as far as possible ) knowledge. I did not coin the phrase I came across it - i had no knowledge - i went to wikipedia to seek knowledge - it was not there and that was when i decided to pin down this term as far as possible, create a wikipedia article and help others like myself. As for the reason the term was applied, I feel that to level verifiability at etymology would be unfair as a reasoned speculation can be more helpful than none at all. Where would we be without the idea of putting forward a theory? There are lots of facts in this world that are without a verifiable explanation but there are theories to explain these facts and these theories are usually included when discussing the facts.

As for neologism please see my previous comments ( above ) regarding the application of neologism to this article.

As for unenyclopedic can someone explain which definition we are using. I just went to www.m-w.com and looked up encyclopedia. It says:

encyclopedia: "...a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." - ok well under this definition I cannot see that this entry qualifies as unenyclopedic any more than many other 'approved' wikipedia articles.

I am trying to address each point as they are put forward - i can see that another one was editorial. Again i will have to use www.m-w.com to discover the definition ( rather than just the vauge idea that i have ;-> ).

editorial:"a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers." I think this has been an issue since the term seems to have originated with The Inquirer. I think the key point here is *opinion*. It is not The Inquirer's opinion that Microsoft is 'The Vole' it is simply a fact that they nicknamed them that. If i say I am going to call IBM 'Diggy Diggy Dog' that is not really my opinion it is a fact. If I say that IBM ARE Diggy Diggy Dogs that is my ( nonsensical ) opinion. I don't think we can really say that the Inquirer is of the opinion that Microsoft is a vole, it is merely their nickname for them and as such it is a fact. So although it may seem editorial at first glance I don't think that applying editorial to the entry is applicable here.

204.110.116.1

• Delete. Neologism, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, non-interesting. Zzzzz. Quale 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given by Quale. I don't know that the Inquirer's Jargon File is as notable as the Jargon File. --Idont Havaname 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why not mention this nickname somewhere near the bottom of the Microsoft article in some sort of errata section? The fact that MS is in one of those positions of disputed alliance (People love MS, other people really hate it.) would seem to be of encyclopedic value to address, in and of itself. Perhaps rather than simply deleting the entry, have it redirect to Microsoft's errata area. --JD 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there are so many names people call Micro-soft, that if we did so, the list of names would overwhelm the rest of the Micro$oft article. --Carnildo 23:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If somebody thinks this is a neologism, it is probably stealth/fiction from the author. We could BJAODN it. --SuperDude 05:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair | Talk 05:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 10:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dippu

Obviously a vanity page, written in the first person. Google search for "Dippu" yields 680 results, a majority of which seem to have nothing to do with this site. Ketsy 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 05:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikispam--nixie 04:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:52, 30 Apr 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?) 12:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Exposé (journalism)

DicDef that has been tranwikied to Wiktionary. --Allen3 ^talk 20:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and re-write. The existing article may be a dicdef, but an article about the journalism topic should be written. SchmuckyTheCat 14:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could make for an interesting topic once expanded. N-Man^talk 22:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ditto N-Man's comment --Quuxplusone 04:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Aged

Dicdef that has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. --Allen3 ^talk 20:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I was going to say "redirect to aging, but that doesn't say anything about aging in cheese, so I'll switch to keep and expand. Must be something to do with oxidation. Kappa 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a cheese page for information about cheese. Ben-w
• Delete, why should aged only refer to cheese and not to wine, whiskey, tequila, etc.? RickK 00:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why it should be expanded, not redirected to cheese. Kappa 00:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as important concept in production of food. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to aging, which should be a disambiguation page for the process in humans/other animals and the process in foods (e.g. wine, whiskey, cheese, etc.). Meelar (talk) 02:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aging. Megan1967 05:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to aging. And pass me the cheese please. Radiant_* 09:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to Aging - Longhair | Talk 04:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with redirect voters. Past tense verbs (alone) are useless as an article but better as a redirect. --SuperDude 05:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Tickle (dating service)

Advertising for non-notable dating service. --Lee Hunter 20:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Onlyemarie 20:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spamvertising. I get pop-ups for them all the time. -- 8^D ^gab 20:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Use Firefox, then you don't. Delete.Feydey 21:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, pop-up blockers complicate the pop-ups I want to see (like for logging in to Westlaw. Erp. -- 8^D ^gab 01:54, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Actually, this isn't an ad; it is an encyclopedic article describing notoriety of a silly dating service despite null notability. So keep it. --SuperDude 21:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Tickle certainly is notorious, and I'm not sure it's non-notable--170,000 google hits for +Tickle "dating service". Reluctant keep. Meelar (talk) 23:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I fail to understand how someone can say that an article that starts off "Tickle is a dating service that is useful, convenient and fast to use" is not an ad. But then, it's SamuraiClinton/SuperDude, who wrote the article, so it's just more SamuraiClintoncruft. RickK 00:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up: It is a notable dating service due to the amount of pop up ads it has. I can however see why people are voting delete, because thier fed up with the pop up ad's but I think a company as notorious for it as tickle is deserves some mention. Unfortunatley as it stands now it looks more like spam than an actual article but if someone could add to the history section it would greatly help. Deathawk 02:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up. Well known Internet service for being annoying if nothing else. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Losing the ad-speak isn't difficult. Personally, I'd like to get my hands on the scuzzball that started placing these links on spyware. My work computer got a particularly nasty "Tickle infection" that refused to go away. Finally found the pesky thing and deleted it. - Lucky 6.9 04:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just got rid of the "weasel words." - Lucky 6.9 04:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: nonnotable, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as it has been cleaned up fairly well. Connor Hill
• Delete, ad. Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• keep the spam part can ususally be fixed Yuckfoo 16:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article looks fairly cleaned up, and with an Alexa rating of 222 it appears notable enough. That rating may be mainly due to spyware (I don't know), but...sigh...I guess being one of the more successful spyware infiltrators to drive up hits may be some kind of notability in and of itself. Postdlf 23:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if Tickle (website) or Tickle (online dating service) may be a better title. Meh. Postdlf 23:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikispam--nixie 04:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. An internet dating company isn't notable just because it has an Alexa rating of 222. Quale 05:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Emode was a notable online quiz site for a while. Tickle is a similar site to OkCupid, which has had over a million users. Tickle itself claims over 20 million members. --Idont Havaname 03:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Keep keep keep keep. It certainly is 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hock (zoology)

Dicdef. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. --Allen3 ^talk 20:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with something about horses. Kappa 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Kappa's extreme inclusionism is showing. RickK 00:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Capped Hock as a stub, unless there is some page I don't know about for equine maladies. Kyle543 00:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm certainly far from an extreme inclusionist, but I see no reason why this article couldn't grow as big as Head (anatomy) or possibly even Foot. --Angr/_comhrá 06:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As an extreme mergist, I'm agreeing with merge with something about horses. Angr may well have a point, and if/when the article gets expanded enough it can always be broken out. Radiant_* 09:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly good veterinary anatomy stub --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - By using the same logic, a majority of wikipedia shouldn't be here. Roodog2k 19:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Grungies

This article adds nothing new and only repeats info from the grunge article. -- LGagnon 20:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Grunge music. Megan1967 05:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to Grunge music - Longhair | Talk 06:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ass Traffic

Nothing in article to establish notabiliy. Looks like advertisement. -Rholton 20:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• So totally delete. Spam. Removing the external link to prevent Wikipedia abuse. -- 8^D ^gab 21:09, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Well, my slogan is, What stupid spamvertisement will we Delete next? android↔talk 22:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• This does not appear to be advertising. The site Alexa ranking is an impressive 1100. Using the Ovt inventory tool ( [19]) to query "asstraffic.com" yields 18000 searches compared to "wikipedia.org"'s 7000 (search data corresponds to number of times website address is searched for in most online search engines with the exception of Google) I don't like the idea of Wikipedia over run by commercial entries but I would just like to inform others that this is popular website. Lotsofissues 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Half of the Web is porn. I'm not sure 1100 for a porn site is really all that notable. I am, however, willing to do some research... android↔talk 23:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • By this measure, it does make it one of the web's largest porn sites. Lotsofissues 02:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Even given that, I'm not sure how one could write an encyclopedic article about a run-of-the-mill pay porn site, no matter how many hits it gets. android↔talk 02:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't mind if this entry is tossed but I can't quite understand why votes below me insist on calling it spam. I guess no one reads comments. Lotsofissues 22:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Depressingly, I think you are right in most cases. So much for debate and consensus-building :( Kappa 00:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but we might regret it when Ass Traffic makes it big. Kyle543 00:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikispam --nixie 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it's me, but when I visualise the phrase "ass traffic", I think of long hours spent straining on the toilet, cursing God for making my bowels the way they are.-Ashley Pomeroy 15:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And now I will too. Thank you so much. Oh, and delete this unless someone demonstrates that it can be encyclopedically expanded. FreplySpang (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't delete this. This could be an article about a notorius pornsite. Also, I would much rather have pron sites deleted from the Internet than have this article deleted from Wikipedia; reason being is because Porn sites can have a whopping rating in notoriety. To read about guidelines about advertisemental microstubs, go to Wikipedia:Advertisement. --SuperDude 05:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: SuperDude, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you're not alone in thinking this page might become encyclopedic. However, it seems a bit disingenuous to refer to a proposed policy that you created a few days ago as though it supported your vote. -Rholton 14:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, nothing of value. --Marianocecowski 10:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Church affliation

Decdef that that already been transwikied to Wiktionary. --Allen3 ^talk 20:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete misspelled dicdef. Gazpacho 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to religion--it can be used in that way. Meelar (talk) 23:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, already transwikid. Megan1967 05:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Ladies' man which should be a disambiguation page to Giacomo Casanova and The Ladies Man. Complicated, but I'll try. Sjakkalle 11:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ladies man

Already has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary; no real potential for converting to an encyclopedia article. RussBlau 20:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps a redirect to Giacomo Casanova? That article contains a decent discussion on the phenomenon. Or delete, I'm not married to that option. Meelar (talk) 23:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say redirect to the movie The Ladies Man. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 23:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• This should be redirected to Ladies' man, which should then disambig to Casanova and to the movie XmarkX 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect and disambig as per XmarkX. Kappa 21:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect as XmarkX says Pavel Vozenilek 12:37, 30 Apr 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?) 12:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

All Internal

Article does not estabilish notabiliy. Looks like an ad to me. -Rholton 20:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, no evidence of notability. Kappa 23:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 15:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pure spam Robert Mercer 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This article has since been edited. User:James Wong 19:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Marianocecowski 10:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 21:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Link Access Procedures, D channel

Wikipedia is not a repository of any information. At best, this deserves a mention. It certainly does not deserve a disambiguation to distinguish it from Los Angeles Police Department at LAPD Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to ISDN. Ben-w
• Keep. Encyclopedic subject, give it a chance to grow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Hoover's, Inc.. Sjakkalle 11:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hoover's

Delete: Pure advertising. --Durin 21:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoovercruft. -- 8^D ^gab 22:25, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dun & Bradstreet. Ben-w
• Redirect to Hoover's, Inc.. Niteowlneils 00:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hoover's, Inc. as previously mentioned. Hoover's is notable in the capitalist world. Check out Yahoo! Finance which practically used most of the information along with Reuters regarding basic certain corporation information. It is not a pure advertisement. It is actually a legit notable company but a dupe article. --Chill Pill Bill 03:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hoover's, Inc. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 29 Apr 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?) 12:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Judahite

POV, original research Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. -- 8^D ^gab 22:21, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete. patent nonsense. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think this qualifies as patent nonsense, but it's POV and original research as claimed above. Josh Cherry 04:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 06:00, 27 Apr 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?) 12:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Synagogue of Satan

POV, original research; more of same from author of Judahite Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yawn. Onlyemarie 21:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judacruft. -- 8^D ^gab 22:22, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete would be offensive if it wasn't such a bore --Doc Glasgow 00:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 03:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 06:01, 27 Apr 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?) 12:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew israelites

POV, original research. More of same from author of Judahite, Synagogue of Satan Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More judacruft. -- 8^D ^gab 22:24, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete POV and obvious crap--Doc Glasgow 00:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Doc Glasgow said. Josh Cherry 03:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 06:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nick vs. Andy

Promo for a non-notable website. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

• Delete: or speedy delete. The redirect is being speedied. Non-notable, .com vanity.
• Delete, I concur. Onlyemarie 21:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• DON'T DELETE!!!: Who are we to decide what's notable and what isn't?
  • Wikipedia users in good standing? Delete. A Man In Black 12:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that a majority of the forum members aparently know eithier "Nick" or "Andy" is proof of how non notable this actually is.Deathawk 02:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. website. jni 08:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I decide that it's not notable. Nestea 01:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even though it has a medium google hit rate (some 900), I don't consider it worthy of the Wikipedia (we can't put the entire internet in Wikipedia!). --Marianocecowski 11:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

WHIZ Networks

Borderline speedy, for nonsense and being an ad. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have marked it speedy myself. I removed the back-link in case the originators were trying to improve their page rank. E David Moyer 22:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wikispam--nixie 04:26, 29 Apr 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 COPYVIO. This VfD was therefore moot and nothing prevents a non-copyvio version of the article from being posted. Postdlf 10:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin Knowledge Systems

Article is an advertisment. Linuxbeak 22:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio from [20] and tagged as such. However, the company itself is notable, so if somebody wants to write a real version at the temp page, I would vote keep. Meelar (talk) 23:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- with a rewrite of course. - Longhair | Talk 06:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was}} - should be transwikied - SimonP 21:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Neubauten

In architecture, this term is simply the plural of the German translation of "new building" and is therefore non-encyclopedic (for en.Wikipedia). In English, the term is only of interest in connection with the band Einstürzende Neubauten, which understands this term in a specific way, based on one historic incident of a collapsing new building. It may make sense to change this article to a redirect to the band since the statement that it is an architectural term is reiterated by some of their fan websites and blogs.

The term is briefly mentioned in List of German expressions in English. For more details and sources see Talk:List of German expressions in English. See also de:Neubau.

Having "Neubauten" as the title is particularly non-encyclopedic, since this is the plural of the word. (Moreover, this clashes with the text, which describes it as singular.)

The page creator has tried to partially address my concerns by including some of my text from his talk page, but the article still contains the claim "Colloquially it has been used in particular to denote functionalist buildings" which is not backed up by any reliable source or the German Wikipedia article. — Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

The perception amongst English speaking fans of the band is that the term is used as described by the band. If it is indeed not the case then then I would agree that the page be removed or redirected to the band as the word is also used a shortened name for them amongst English fans. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Einstürzende Neubauten as per above.R Calvete 01:22, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)-by that I mean redirect and said merge because I'm retarded.R Calvete 01:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Note: There already exists a page for the singular, Neubau, which is a redirect to Neubau, Vienna. Another possibility would be to change that to a disambiguation page and keep a little note about the meaning there. Sebastian (talk) 09:01, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and create a redirect to Einstürzende Neubauten. Martg76 19:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean English Wiktionary? It is not an English term. In English, it is only used as a reference to the German term, in connection with the German band. Or do you mean German Wiktionary? It already exists there. Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely familiar with the workings of Wiktionary, but the main page says: This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only. And I am unable to find Neubau or Neubauten in either the English or the German Wiktionary. In any case, I don't think Neubauten should be described on the Neubau page, as it is merely a dicdef. Neubau should probably disambiguate to other locations of that name. Martg76 08:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooops, you're right, it's the German Wikipedia where i found it. You're also right about "all languages". So it could be moved there. I would only like to weigh in that it may not be a lexeme. Would you write "new building" in a dictionary? German only superficially appears to have more lexemes because of a different spelling convention. (It's a mostly arbitrary decision if you spell compounds with space (like "science fiction"), hyphen, or together (like "database").) German just happens to favour spelling compounds together. There is no limit for such compounds. Trying to keep all German compounds in Wiktionary would be like drying the ocean with a bucket. Wiktionary needs to draw a line somewhere. I don't work on Wiktionary, either, so i don't know their standards. The decision if "Neubau" makes the bar should be made by German contributors to Wiktionary. — Sebastian (talk) 07:19, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Greatest mathematicians

A list ranking matematicians after "Greatness" has to be POV. We already have List of mathematicians and a bunch of mathematicians categories. Delete. Shanes 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The creator of this article seems to be playing around [21]. Oleg Alexandrov 23:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as Worst U.S. President et al. I might accept a properly cited List of mathematicians believed to be the greatest ever. Meelar (talk) 23:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - More or less POV, and I don't see any real potential. Not very well written anyway. You could argue for some kind of consensus amongst mathematicians but the already existing list mentioned above seems good enough. Kyle543 23:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - POVanity. José San Martin 23:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV. DO NOT redirect article space to categories. Slapping speedy delete headers on VfD pages is inappropriate. Please don't do that. RickK 00:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article with its title. I have erased the content AND redirected it to Category:Mathematicians, which is more dynamic than List of mathematicians. Done deal. Why? Because "Wikipedians" who find a mathematician "great" will put the mathematician's article on the mathematicians category anyway for people to read. That way we have an "automatic" article about the "greatest mathematicians", and the purpose of the article is served. Check it out by clicking on it: Greatest mathematicians. It only costs Wikipedia a few bytes, which is less than this whole discussion. AND delete this discussion, because it uses too much space, and because nobody wants to have the original content of the article anyway besides its creator. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete. Clutter that redirects is still clutter. Brendan62442 19:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, almost entirely subjective. -℘yrop (talk) 01:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Endless arguments, unresolvable even in principle, about whether David bernoulli was a second-class or merely a third-class mathematician. Useless and not encyclopedic. -- Dominus 02:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't list me there so it is wrong, ergo delete. --Zero 07:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , inherent POV. Radiant_* 09:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Selection criteria is too inexact. — RJH 16:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete entirely POV --nixie 04:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zero. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nostalgia Decades

[22] A term that can't be confirmed by Google (6 results) - nor by the content of the article. Lotsofissues 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks made up, and is of so-so quality anyway. I'm not sure if Schoolhouse Rock! can be considered more pivotal then World War II. I'm a big Schoolhouse Rock! fan, mind you. I'm just saying... Kyle543 00:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, seems like an interesting potential analysis, but not a reporting of an accepted term. --GenkiNeko 15:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete personal historical analysis. Not wrong, but not worthy as it's almost empty. --Marianocecowski 11:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's a fine article, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Brendan62442 19:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Neil rideout

Unverifiable neologism and/or personal attack. "Neil rideout" gets less than 80 displayed hits, mostly relatively obscure people by that name. It would just be a dic def even if it did have any basis in reality. Niteowlneils 23:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsensical neologism CDC (talk) 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Brendan62442 19:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its true. NeilRideout (talk) 12:27, 29 Apr 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 (I suppose this counts as a rough consensus). sjorford →•← 18:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Non-Encyclopedic. No offence, but existence still unproven.

• Keep. Lots of fictional characters have pages. Ben-w
• Keep. 23,700,000 Google hits, although some of them could refer to Mexicans. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination by known troll. android↔talk 00:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. ditto - I was going to add that no serious histoian doubts his existence, but this isn't even a debate worth having --Doc Glasgow 00:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep bad faith. Gazpacho 01:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well-attested historic personage who is the center of a belief system held by about two billion people. Bad-faith nomination, but easiest and most proper thing to do is just rack up the string of "keep" votes. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination.-gadfium 01:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jesus' existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to the obvious notability of the subject. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic. No offence, but his non-existence still unproven. --Allen3 ^talk 14:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the people."
• Keep. No offence, but existence of valid reasons to delete still unproven. (And as others have noted here Jesus' existence has been proven by any reasonable test.) Eric119 18:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete verifiability. Did he really rise from the dead, and was his mother a virgin? Keep What would Johnny Damon do? Klonimus 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does not say Jesus rose from the dead. It says "According to Christian belief, and the New Testament, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion..." It is easy to verify that the New Testament does say this, in Matthew 28:6-7, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:6, and John 20:18 to name four, and it is easy to verify that it is a tenet of Christian belief; the Nicene Creed says "and he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures." It is article IV of the XXXIX Articles of Faith of the Church of England: "Christ did truly arise from death." So what the article says is easily verifiable. The same is true of the virgin birth. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's kidding, Dpbsmith—Klonimus is not generally known around here for strong deletionist tendencies. :) TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless, of course, a vote to delete an entry would benefit Israeli propaganda purposes. (See his vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Right to exist. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA Klonimus 16:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for Christ's sake! -- 8^D ^gab 01:27, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

  Very nice. JRM · Talk 18:14, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Keep. Believer in Christ or not, VFD is not a religious debate. Nestea 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Matches no established criteria for deletion. Reason given is invalid, present or even past physical existence is not required of encyclopedia topics. Remaining problems with article should be discussed on the talk page. JRM · Talk 18:14, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Obvious keep and consider blocking user for disrupting the site to make a point. Much as I detest feeding trolls by weighing in on this issue, I figure that any historical figure around whom a religion of two billion followers has sprung is notable for our handful of bits and bytes. - Lucky 6.9 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator is either a troll or seriously needs to read WP:POINT. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• SUPER STRONG KEEP! - Keep article, PERMANENTLY BLOCK VFD NOMINATOR. Andros 1337 02:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Um, isn't April Fools Day at the beginning, not the end of the month? Keep, notably significant figure, with sporadic appearances through art, literature and other sorts of significruft in the last couple thousand years. Antandrus 02:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep all vfd nominations. sjorford →•← 18:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus

A ridiculous VFD nomination. LevelCheck 00:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Are VfD discussions VfD-able? Is there a better way to handle this? android↔talk 00:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is: the WP:RFAr against LevelCheck. Radiant_* 09:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, no jurisdiction. Gazpacho 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, just like the last one he tried. [23] —Korath (Talk) 02:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and preserve all VfD nominations. Megan1967 06:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Eric119 18:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD nominations should all be preserved as a historical record. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even bad faith nominations should be archived properly. Rossami (talk) 00:25, 29 Apr 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.