Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 8

June 8

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Wikisource Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of dead in Bolivian Gas War

Wikipedia is not a memorial. DanKeshet 00:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• del. mikka (t)
• Is there any holding place for these sorts of things while m:Wikimorial develops? --Tabor 01:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, they could be userfied. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:40, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
    • I'll vote userfy then. --Tabor 02:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004, List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2003, etc. (5 of them) were all decided to be transwiki to Wikisource, this should get the same treatment. --Dmcdevit 03:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. DanKeshet 04:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Transwiki or userfy would be acceptable. This doesn't belong in the WP article space. --Xcali 04:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Smooth Henry 04:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is these individuals arent notable. JamesBurns 06:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from wikipedia, transwiki or userfy. Jasonglchu 14:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Doesn't belong here. — Chameleon 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as JamesBruns said. Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource, as mentioned by Tabor. To some, these people are very notable. Andrew pmk 20:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia main space. Userfy is my first choice, transwiki to Wikisource is my second... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• transwiki Ombudsman 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic, yes. Encyclopedic, no. Indrian 03:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (already done) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holly Ben-Joseph

del. Vanity. nonnotable, nonverifiable. mikka (t) 00:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, nonnotable. Ridethefire3211 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non notable -CunningLinguist 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. It is verifiable the person is a landscape designer [1] but notable? Nah. --Chill Pill Bill 01:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not verifiable that the person is "considered one of the greatest landscape archritects". Of course, I am not going to contest that Holly was born on May 9. mikka (t) 01:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete see aboveWAvegetarian 04:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing on the internet about a landscape designer by this name (according to google) shaunw 15:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Google, her husband is a professor of landscape design. WAvegetarian 02:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Chameleon 19:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete under criteria of requested deletion by page creator. David | Talk 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yoav shapira

Vanity. 00:57, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC) (Unsigned: User:Denni)

• Delete - vanity. See discussion tab of the article. The creator has commented: "Never mind, I think I understand. I moved the contents to my user page. Thanks." --Chill Pill Bill 01:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy - article already userfied by creator (as per talk) --Doc (?) 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per request from user. David | Talk 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete, 16 delete 5 keep 2 merge. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:27, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist)

Both are POV forks of Anarchism. Delete both. --cesarb 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: If Anarchism (anti-state) is deleted, Template:Anarchism should go to TFD. --cesarb 01:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: One editor wants to link the expression "POV forks" above to Wikipedia:POV fork. Please do not edit other people's comments; put a comment below it (like this one). --cesarb 17:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: Another POV fork is at Anarchism (theory) (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory)). --cesarb 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep both. RJII 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep both. Use the Neutral Disambiguation Page and let the Wiki user choose the meaning (s)he intends. Both Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) are (more or less) NPOV wrt the definition of "anarchism" specified on the Neutral Disambiguation Page. --Hogeye 01:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. They are both redundant, and were only created by copying a previously existing article and changing a few words for the purpose of importing a particular POV. Kev 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One was created from the favored anarcho-socialist version, the other from the favored anarcho-capitalist version, in a recent edit war. If you want to avoid the definitional feud, then the Neutral Disambiguation Page seems the only way. But if you like edit wars, and you think your tag team has more people... --Hogeye 02:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Anarchism whatever NPOV factual information isn't there already. Most of it seems redundant. -R. fiend 03:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Although both pages, as well as various related pages, requiring a great deal of editing on several counts, and some need to be merged as well (this arrangement, for instance, vitiates the need for anarchism (disambiguation) and left anarchism), I do not believe that they need to be deleted outright. I vote keep for both. After the dust has settled, it will probably be advisable to merge the edit histories of one of these pages with that of anarchism, though. I disagree that these qualify as POV forks. The Wikipedia page on that topic says the following:

The controversial aspect of new forks can be reduced to three elements:

1. the necessity for a fork,
2. the new article's scope, title, or premise
3. the manner in which the article is written

The necessity for a fork is the obvious problem arising from different senses of the word anarchism. The scope and premise of these articles is quite reasonable given the definitions they are using. The manner the articles are written in is not always great, but that can be solved through editing. - Nat Krause 05:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both and replace the anarchism page with what was there before. Anarchism has a long history of anti-state and anti-capitalism (whatever that is). While there is a more recent arising of people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists, there is a page describing their beliefs. A brief link to the other in each page should be sufficient. These two pages repeat each other a lot, and repeat other pages on anarchist ideas. Not only that they seem to be obviously POV towards minimal state capitalism (or anarcho-capitalism if you wish).--harrismw 06:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sorry, this is just getting silly Saswann 13:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into Anarchism. If there must be anti-state and socialist distinctions, they should be contained in headings for each pov (or a "different points of view within anarchism" heading) within the article. Jasonglchu 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created after VfD began --cesarb 19:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both. Qadir 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit-R. fiend 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And this absolutely discredits my thoughts and diminishes my ability of reading comprehension? Please. Qadir 18:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It is customary in wikipedia to dismiss the votes of people that have made very very few contributions. Luis rib 18:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) No, it only means your vote will not count (however, your comments (had you added any) will). See the Guide to Votes for deletion. --cesarb 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Either solve the whole thing on Anarchism (currently a leftist propaganda page) by including some mention of anarcho-capitalism, or keep both in case the first solution is not viable. Maybe a vote on the future of Anarchism might be useful. Luis rib 18:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both - forks. If there's something to salvage put it into Anarchism. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge them back into Anarchism. Don't let the ancaps undermine the project for their own ends. Policy is so clearly against the existence of these redundant POV forks that they should be deleted regardless of voting here. — Chameleon 20:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jasonglchu> "If there must be anti-state and socialist distinctions, they should be contained in headings for each pov (or a "different points of view within anarchism" heading) within the article."

Sounds good in theory, but experience shows that this leads to a permanent edit war. Many/most anarcho-socialist editors routinely and automatically delete references to anarcho-capitalism, and/or claim that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist. --Hogeye 23:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. POV forks. JamesBurns 07:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• please keep both - PK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.65.130 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 Jun 2005

Please merge into one anarchism page . . . or should we have a separate page for every individuals take on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.157.237 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 Jun 2005

Question: According to Wiki policy, the vote is just for show and there is an arbiter who decides. Who is the arbiter,or arbiters? Are they neutral? When do they decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.26.242 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 Jun 2005 <-- a comment by anonymous #70.178.26.242

The answer to this question is that this vote is not just a show. An administrator will perform the actual deletion, but only if a large majority of the people voting vote to delete. Also, I'm not sure of the details, but I believe votes from people who just showed up to vote on this one issue are not normally counted. - Nat Krause 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will the administrator/arbitor be unbiased? I mean, it's not going to be the same administrator that proposed deletion and voted, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogeye (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 Jun 2005

It could be me who will close the discussion, but it probably won't (and I can keep my biases in check; for instance, if this discussion were to be closed right now, it's a clear "no consensus" for both articles). --cesarb 20:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete the socialist entry. The government-and-censorship loving socialists need to keep their statist propaganda and censorship of genuine anti-statism off of the anarchism entry. Free-market anarchism has a much longer history and breadth of scholarship than does the statist "anarchism" of the socialists.--James Redford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemichelle (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 Jun 2005

• User's first edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge both into Anarchism. keep shared texts from both pages; keep factual info from either page, keep opinion from either page if shared among many ansocs AND ancaps. Add ancap section in middle of controversies without 'most important,' etc. language. OR add ancap section in a discussion of coerced, voluntary, and disputed hierarchies. OR ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 Jun 2005
  • User's second edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Correct all incorrect references to property in socialist text to references to possession. Add discussions of Mutualism/Individualism (i.e. socialist market anarchism) to socialist text. Expand discussions of economic systems. - Jacob Haller - 8 Jun 2005 17:41 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 Jun 2005
  • User's second edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Anarchism IS anti-statism - thats it. The state claims a monopoly on force. If the state enforces capitalism, then ALL (AC and AS) anarchists would be against that. A government, on the other hand, could mean your home owners association or even a democratic vote. It doesn't necessarily imply state-like powers since the option of secession (sell your home and move or find another union) is always available, though possibly not preferable. So I don't think ANY anarchist could be against government as long as it's voluntary (non-state sponsored). The free market implies all transactions are handled voluntarily absent any coercion. State sponsored capitalism would not be a truly free market. It seems to me that a simple definition of Anarchism would simply be anti-statism. It goes without saying that an anarchist would be against state sponsored capitalism, socialism, feminism, or communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.102.176 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 Jun 2005

• Delete Anarchism (Socialist). (The "Socialist Anarchists" are nothing but pro-state Marxists. They clearly love the state when it supports Marxist restrictions on capitalism.) TexasDawg 15:09 EDT, 9 Jun 2005
  • Sorry, we can't delete an article be cause you think their theories aren't sound. All anarchistic societies are purely theoretical anyway. -R. fiend 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • His reason wasn't that their theories aren't sound. His reason was that they are pro-state, therefore not anarchists. IMO he is wrong, and there are anti-statist versions of both socialism and capitalism. He's simply the other side of the 'ancaps aren't really anarchists' coin. I.e. Some intolerant ansocs can't conceive of stateless capitalism, and some intolerant ancaps can't conceive of stateless socialism. Here are some good acid tests for socialist anarchists: Do you think the State should outlaw sweat shops? Do you support minimum wage laws? If they answer "yes" to either, they are not really anarchists. --Hogeye 20:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, that's sort of the same thing, he thinks they aren't sounds anarchistic beliefs, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevent. Sort of like saying an article on National Socialism should be deleted because the ideas aren't socialist. Or Christian Science for not being scientific. -R. fiend 20:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've had to think about this quite a bit. Emotionally, I feel like socking it to the socialists in order to support the "capitalist team"... but that wouldn't be encyclopedically sound, or NPOV. Thus... Delete "Anarchism (anti-state)"... though I actually agree with the content of this article more than the socialist one, it just doesn't make logical sense to have an article of this title; is there an "Anarchism (pro-state)" to contrast it to? But Keep "Anarchism (socialist)"; that's a distinctive political movement that deserves a page to itself, just not sole ownership of the unqualified "Anarchism" article. Then, move "Anarchism (disambiguation)" to "Anarchism", and rework it so its two most prominent links are to the two main political movements that are referred to as anarchist: "Anarchism (socialist)" and "Anarcho-capitalism". And then try to clean out some of the other debris the edit-wars have left. *Dan* 23:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE BOTH - Follow the books written on the subject. And keep original Anarchism article. POV aplenty with the articles being used as platforms for evangelical Anarcho-capitalists and Nazis. -max rspct 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. These are POV forks aimed at circumventing the normal editing process. No more needs to be said. Grace Note 08:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both and take some inspiration from how Libertarianism was solved through mediation, arbitration, discussion and debate. Libertarianism now has US-style Libertarianism as the main entry, but an excellent top-of-page redirect to a disambiguation article. Anarchism has had far too many edit wars which acts strongly against gentle participation and article quality. I remember at least five major restructures which have shuffled content in and out of the main article, eventually resulting in the deletion of useful added content because original editors had abandoned the page. Additionally, a great many people on wikipedia need to lose their US-centric bias which has informed the anarchism debates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the world, and in relation to society and history, of world society and world history. Additionally, en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in international English, not exclusively in en-US. Fifelfoo 04:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Both I completely agree with Fifelfoo. millerc 12:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Good idea! Using the Libertarianism article as a model, our article should begin like this:

Anarchism

The term anarchism is also claimed by anti-capitalist anarchism, (also called anarcho-socialism). For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation). This article deals with the standard dictionary meaning of "anarchism".

Does everyone agree to that? --Hogeye 18:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that some kind of joke? He was saying to take inspiration from the dispute resolution process which generated that article, not to take inspiration from the article itself! --cesarb 18:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is called 'talking to other parties involved.' Pure Wiki. I simply suggested an unbiased beginning to the article. The standard dictionary definition is about as unbiased as you can get. Do you agree that the suggested beginning is NPOV? --Hogeye 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about: The term anarchism is also claimed by anarcho-capitalists. This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within international English. ? Fifelfoo 03:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine with me, subject to verification by English dictionaries that "predominant political usage of the term" is anti-capitalist. If most dictionaries don't reqire anarchism to be anti-capitalist, then of course we should go with this:

Anarchism

The term anarchism is also claimed by anti-capitalist anarchism, (also called anarcho-socialism). For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation). This article deals with the standard dictionary meaning of "anarchism".

Let's be totally objective and unbiased, take the top ten hits in a dictionary search, and settle the "predominant political usage" once and for all. Here you go... --Hogeye 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. This is stupid. The anarchism page has been developed over a long time with a lot of effort. This sudden introduction of two redundant, free market fundamentalist POV versions is unacceptable. AW 11:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE BOTH There's no reason to make a false disctinction between these flavours of anarchism (except anarcho-capitalism, which is a made-up term that no-one seriously believes in). This isn't stupid, or mundane, or a time-waste, but it is divisive. Fragmenting anarchism and anarchists benefits whom...? An An 11:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Plenty of people believe in anarcho-capitalism, and plenty of libertarian minarchists respect anarcho-capitalism as a more extreme version of what they believe in. Many regard anarcho-capitalism as being a lot more intellectually consistent and logical than the socialist forms of anarchism. *Dan* 12:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. This is one of the more aggressive attempts at controlling language I've witnessed so far on Wikipedia. 80.203.115.12 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both after merging useful information to main article. – Kaihsu 12:58, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Keep both, bring in a horde of non-anarchist editors to help overhaul the anarchism pages. Sam Spade 14:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Both the editors holding up consensus on the Anarchism page created these in order to avoid/ignore the conflict resolution process. --albamuth 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Would prefer to see User:Fifelfoo dab note on the top of Anarchism. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Commentary

What is at issue:

• The definition of anarchism. Should it be defined according to its Greek roots, meaning "without political rule"? Or should it be defined according to some 19th century proponents who happened to be anti-capitalist?

The Greek roots of anarchism means "without rulers", not "without political rule". Its an assumption that the -archy must refer to state politics. millerc 12:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is not at issue:

• The size or importance of anarcho-capitalism within the general movement.

What does this have to do with deleting Wiki articles? This is a little more complicated. Ideally, everyone could 'just get along' and create an unbiased article, with both definitions considered in a neutral manner. Practically, this approach hasn't worked well since too many people insist on their preferred definition by deleting any edits which are not in conformance. Most Wiki editors, regardless of which side of the definitional issue they support, agree to this:

• There will be a permanent edit war if there is only one Anarchism article.

So here on this page, we are trying to decide whether to continue with the permanent edit war or 'split the question.' A vote to KEEP BOTH is saying that you think we should split the question, i.e. have a separate page for each definition. A vote for DELETE BOTH or MERGE is saying that you want to continue with a single hotly contested page, and continue the edit war. --Hogeye 20:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

False premise

Nothing says a permanent edit war will continue if the page is kept the same. It is possible that a way of presenting the article which is considered agreeable by both sides is found.

False premise

Deleting and merging do not necessarily mean it will continue being a single page; first because it's already been split between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, and if a consensus is found to move Anarchism (disambiguation) to Anarchism you have a separate page for each definition.

Appeal to emotion

Most long-time editors have feelings against edit wars. You are trying to associate both delete and merge votes, to which you are opposed, with these negative feelings.

Appeal to motive

You are trying to guess the unstated motives of the voters. There are a lot of possible different motives (the motive of my delete both vote, for instance, is a belief that POV forks are wrong).

--cesarb 21:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Cesar. — Chameleon 21:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar> "Nothing says a permanent edit war will continue if the page is kept the same. It is possible that a way of presenting the article which is considered agreeable by both sides is found."

Yes, it's possible, but evidence from past interactions indicate otherwise. See the history page. Your reason does not remotely prove the premise false - only that it is possibly false.

But you made it sound as if it would never be possible. That's what I was objecting to. --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar> "Deleting and merging do not necessarily mean it will continue being a single page; first because it's already been split between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism..."

You miss the point here. The point is to have an unbiased Anarchism article (or articles.) The Anarcho-capitalism article is irrelevant to this, as is any other article about a particular school.

It's not irrelevant. Since the dispute (from what I understood) is between the theory presented at Anarcho-capitalism and the theory currently presented at Anarchism, one possible solution (and the one the Anarchism side seems to be favoring) is to keep the current split. Another (which your side seems to be favoring) is to keep the current split but make it more symmetrical (making Anarchism into a disambiguation page to the two theories). --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar>"... and if a consensus is found to move Anarchism (disambiguation) to Anarchism you have a separate page for each definition."

Here it sounds like you agree with my solution - to have a Neutral Ambiguation Page pointing to both definitions of anarchism - Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) - each of which can be unbiased wrt that definition. I think it is legitimate to point out a likely consequence of deletion - an edit war. This is hardly a logical fallacy. --Hogeye 23:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you still didn't get my point, which is that, again from what I understood, the article currently at Anarchism and the one you created at Anarchism (socialist) are about the same thing, while the article currently at Anarcho-capitalism and the one you created at Anarchism (anti-state) are also about the same thing. The ones you created are redundant with the ones which already existed, and deleting them would only lose a pointless split. If (notice I was presenting an hypothesis) the disambiguation page gets moved over the current article (which I believe won't happen, basically because it happened before and in the end it got moved where it is right now), you would then have two separate pages for the two definitions, even if your creations are deleted, because they are redundant with articles which already exist. --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar> "From what I understood, the article currently at Anarchism and the one you created at Anarchism (socialist) are about the same thing, while the article currently at Anarcho-capitalism and the one you created at Anarchism (anti-state) are also about the same thing."

Aha. Here is where we are not on the same page. In my understanding (and I've worked on the articles in question) the Anarchism (anti-state) and the Anarcho-capitalism articles are two totally separate articles. The former is about anarchism in general. It covers all major schools, and the history of anarchism including the socialist schools. The latter is about one particular school of anarchism. Look at the articles and you can see for yourself that they cover different subject matter.

The dispute as I see it, is about whether a general article on anarchism should use the narrow partisan socialist definition of anarchism - even though it goes against every dictionary on the planet. (Slight exaggeration, perhaps, but I've never ever seen a dictionary specifying that anarchism is anti-capitalist.) --Hogeye 04:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion there only needs to be one main anarchism page (with a disambiguation page as well). This would be a basically socialist one ('cause that is what anarchism is). However, there should be a link to the capitalist page in the first paragraph so that people can see it if that is what they are looking for.

It seems that many people are trying to claim that there is simply two types of anarchism, capitalist and socialists. This is quite wrong. That are a number of different sorts of anarchism, all of them socialist (unless you happen to think that anarchism does not mean no social hierarchy or rulers, but rather simply no state). However, many anarchist violently disagree whether other forms would even work or be anarchistic. --harrismw 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lets say the state as we know it disappears tomorrow. If you have a centralized plan for how everyone SHOULD live and want that plan enforced, I'd question whether you're an anarchist. In my opinion, the AC crowd has no plan and would leave it up to individuals as to how they'd live. Their version would allow the AS crowd to live out their socialist dreams as they please. On the other hand, the AS crowd seems to have plans for everyone and wouldn't be tolerant of the AC. My hunch is they'd immediately talk about outlawing the AC lifestyle - and that would require state-like powers. Honestly, I question whether or not an AS is really an anarchist (anti-state). This could be why the ACs are so adamant - they don't see the AS as serious or credible in their anarchism, and not worthy of the title anarchist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.113.253 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 Jun 2005

Harris> "It seems that many people are trying to claim that there is simply two types of anarchism, capitalist and socialists."

No, no, no. The issue is not about that at all. The issue is about whether the general Anarchism article should be about all types anarchism, or only anti-capitalist anarchism.

Perhaps you are an individualist anarchist, a la Benjamin Tucker. Suppose a bunch of Wiki editors got it in their heads to define anarchism as anti-individualist, wrote at the top of the page that all anarchists are anti-individualist, and deleted all individualist thought from the general article except a link labeled 'not-really-anarchist' pointing to the Individualist Anarchist article. Would you find this satisfactory? --Hogeye 04:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voltino

Non-verifiable fan fiction. No substantial Google hits. Nufy8 01:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no proof of existance. --Chill Pill Bill 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per what everyone else has said. -CunningLinguist 01:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some fragment of existence can be ascertained. Denni☯ 02:10, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete Same as above.--Kross 11:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - for my reasoning see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Exaro Taas. -- Lochaber 14:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic. Jasonglchu 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Chameleon 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a fake or fanfic.--M412k 00:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Since when did encyclopedias document every character and fanfictional character from every movie and video game?--Major.T 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Doroquez

Middle school teacher. Non-notable.--Nabla 01:07, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. Just a middle school teacher. --Chill Pill Bill 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because a line must be drawn somewhere, and a voice must be raised to the teeming hordes who seek to cross this line, and that voice must say, "You shall not pass!!!" -- BD2412 ^talk 01:42, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess the teeming hordes weren't enough aware of the line crossed. The stub would have been expanded to an article of reasonable length that meant something to hundreds of people. But if you guys still feel that violates the deletion policy's "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" clause, it's ultimately your call. The one favor I ask is that you let the redlinks stand, so that if the subject becomes article-worthy, the name will still be available. Article author, wikinick 03:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I came across harshly there, but there are over 6 billion people on the planet, and if we add all those who have come and gone, we probably top 9 billion. If Wikipedia had an article on every person, it would be an unmanageable, unsearchable mess - so we draw notability lines that limit us to perhaps a few dozen thousands of persons. Sounds like a lot, but it's really a tiny proportion of the whole. Also, what redlinks? Nothing links here except the redirect that you made from "Mr. D" - which is hardly an appropriate redirect, because there's very little chance the average user typing in Mr. D will expect this result. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
    • Comment – I agree that 9 billion biographical stubs would be a mess, but perhaps you'll allow me to point out that Wikipedia's a still just a six-thousandth of that size. And certainly not every article has meaning to dozens of thousands of people. For example, lots of the data-generated articles for small municipalities wouldn't qualify. Take Maza, North Dakota. Home to five people. Or an article about Astley Cooper Key, lifted from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and edited twice, once minor. Dozens of thousands? Doesn't seem like it. Now, I'm not saying that my article fits your notability criteria, I know it doesn't. But I had always felt that one of the coolest things about Wikipedia was that it really seemed like what ever subject I wanted to learn about, no matter how obscure, there might be an entry for it. Maybe that's not feasible, but even impossible ideals can be worth pursuing. About the redlinks, I guess I didn't use the term correctly. All I meant was to ask for the article name to be left available, even if the current article is deleted. That way, if the subject ever does reach his notability quota, he can still have an article. As for the redirect, its appropriateness I won't contest, but remember there wouldn't be many users typing in "Mr. D" at all. It's a common nickname of the subject, and not used anywhere else on the site, so I created the redirect without realizing the rigid standards under which one may create new pages. That's just stating my reasoning; I'm not saying it was valid. Last but not least, don't worry about seeming harsh. According to the Guide to VFD, the people frequenting it "may seem terse, gruff, and abrupt, but that is not actually the case." wikinick 10:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Mr. Key was First Sea Lord - being in charge of the Royal Navy is an inherent claim to notability. Being a middle school teacher isn't. --FCYTravis 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not leave a redlink, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not Google, it's an encyclopedia, therefore don't expect it to contain everything - some selection is required. Average Earthman 06:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I really have to ask: If every school that has ever existed is notable, why isn't ever teacher who has ever existed? RickK 07:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  Excellent question. Perhaps you'd be willing to explain exactly what would be wrong with a short piece about every teacher who has ever existed? Perhaps you could focus on the harm it would do? Don't work yourself up over it, Rick. Purely rhetorical questions. Grace Note 05:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • That beats me too, RickK. Example, this stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinkaid_School. It links to Houston and Texas and nothing else. wikinick 10:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm so if every village deserves an article in wikipedia, so does every villageperson... never thought of it that way. Kappa 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete. Wikipedia is not a census. Jasonglchu 14:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a census. — Chameleon 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic expansion. If all schools are worth keeping, then so are all teachers. --Carnildo 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools are not worth keeping, and neither are all teachers. jglc | t | c 23:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about Carnildo, he's just making a POINT. Kappa 23:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He is a grade 6/7 Math teacher. Nothing else can be verified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I really wanted to do a speedy on this one, but could not see a valid reason. If this article is deleted, also Delete the redirect for Mr. D. Vegaswikian 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Should this article be deleted, the redirect at Mr. D will be a speedy as it redirects to a non-existent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I liked many of my teachers too, but I would not be silly enough to write articles about them in an encyclopedia. Indrian 03:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article was inappropriate. But then, kindly discuss the article, and not how silly the author may have been. wikinick 05:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP.

Godzilla

Fancruft. Non-notable (IMO). Delete. Ketsuban (is 1337) 01:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Can we speedy keep this please? - Mustafaa 01:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A supplementary link: WP:POINT. --Sn0wflake 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Object to this nomination :-P -CunningLinguist 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nonsensical nomination. --Sn0wflake 01:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Like so many others. Ketsuban (is 1337) 01:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And you will prove that by placing yourself on the level of the people you think are wrong? --Sn0wflake 01:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Yes, there are plenty of bad nominations, some of which are kept when the error is realized. How does this help? -- BD2412 ^talk 01:48, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Same user as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wiktionary. We can hope that users will realize that this sort of disruption only costs them support... --Tabor 01:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable movie/s and movie character. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Godzilla and Mothra, enough said. Also, Moooozilla. :-P --Chill Pill Bill 02:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Physchim62 02:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do you really think it's appropriate to waste everyone's time to prove a point? Go gripe on irc or the pump. Gamaliel 03:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the least justified nomination I've seen so far. --Arcadian 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Zoo pals

Google verifies that these exist, so its not nonsense, but it is non-notable CunningLinguist 01:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it is way to usless. Unless someone cares to research these some more. --harrismw 06:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd say make it a stub and let someone expand it. Maybe, in 10 years, this will be a defining article of several people's childhoods. There's an article on Dixie Cups. Jasonglchu 14:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just one product from a large company (maufacturer of Hefty trash bags. I don't see that the product is notable by itself. - DS1953 16:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd agree, except I'd like to know why the user bothered making the entry. Jasonglchu 17:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good question, since nothing links there. Still not notable, IMO. DS1953 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What's non-notable to you isn't necessarily non-notable to others. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely uninformative. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, yes. It's not going to blossom into a Featured Article candidate overnight, you know. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chameleon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 Jun 2005

• Delete as a non-notable product, or advertising. --InShaneee 21:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. --FCYTravis 22:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as uninformative. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as of current state, it is completely useless. It could become famous and there could be a great stub started for it... but right now, unless someone cares to fix it, it must go. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:33, Jun 9, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holly Owens

Vanity CunningLinguist 01:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not vanity since Holly apparently did not write this, but still unencyclopedic junk. Very funny though. Academic Challenger 01:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I dont beleive pages have to be written by the person to be considered vanity -CunningLinguist 01:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• BJAODN. --Sn0wflake 01:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I added it to BJAODN :) -CunningLinguist 01:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Physchim62 02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some bored idiot having a little fun. RabidMonkeysEatGrass 04:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but a good BJAODN :) "'child-bearing' hips"" ha. Jasonglchu 14:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sweet of the guy, but vanity and therefore not for Wikipedia. Suntiger 18:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* People in love should not be allowed to edit articles. Soundguy99 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pointless cuteness. — Chameleon 20:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hey I wrote the article and I know it isn't very educational I just did it for fun and I was bored although I don't consider myslef an idiot that is probably debatable. Although I am sure if I had the time/effort I could make some sort of case wh everyone should know about Holly.
  • Wikipedia isn't for making a case. Go and edit something else.  :) — Chameleon 20:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While fun, Wikipedia is not just for fun. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, it doesn't belong here. jglc | t | c 20:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The creator again just saying I knew it would be deleted (thought it would last longer then a day though) so if you must go ahead I have no real objections and I know that although in my encyclopedia Holly Owens would have a section that if it were placed in this one then everyone would want a page.
  • Kind sir, your dedication is admirable. jglc | t | c 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity by the girl's lover. Delete - I am sorry. - Mike Rosoft 15:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - someone has to put it! Smileyrepublic 22:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it already the page I made (I am the original creator) no longer amuses me and I am sorry for wasting some peoples time with the whole page. I promise any further articles I add/edit on Wikipedia will have actual educational value.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenberg

Advertising; has had a {cleanup-importance} tag on it since late April. CDC (talk) 01:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yuck what a messy dump of text. RabidMonkeysEatGrass 04:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopaedic... given the state of the text it looks like a copyvio from somewhere. JamesBurns 06:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I briefly flagged this for a blatant copyvio, only to take the copyvio out again when I couldn't prove where it came from. If anyone finds the text in question, feel free to flag it. Jamyskis 09:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; advert, non-encyclopaedic, could be vanity... ugh. Just a bad entry. Jasonglchu 14:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What the hell is this? Delete. — Chameleon 20:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was part of the spamvertisement campaign by User:Sports Internet Destination. I saw "CEO" and hesitated to slap a VfD on it and went with the cleanup tags instead. Since Sports Internet Destination has declined to explain this person's significance, I don't think we need to keep it around. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:37, Jun 10, 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 speedied. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dangerdoom

Dangerdoom is a collaboration between rapper MF Doom and producer DJ Dangermouse. It is set to be released in late 2005. We infer from further down the article that the collaboration is an album.

Fine. Then let's wait till late 2005 when it comes out. Till it does so, it's merely DoomDangermouseCruft, with a (perhaps unintentional) whiff of promotion. (This is not a vote, for which see below.) -- Hoary 03:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

• Delete this article as about mere vaporware, without prejudging the worthiness of an article about this album if/when the album actually appears. -- Hoary 03:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability is established. --Sn0wflake 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo for a future album - notability not established. JamesBurns 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The album will likely be fairly significant when it comes out, but the official title hasn't even been announced yet. Jasonglchu 14:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation — Chameleon 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca Rothberg

Vanity CunningLinguist 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy If that's her most notable accomplishment, it is a very sad life, indeed. --Xcali 04:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A vanity substub, about as useless as you can get without being factually incorrect. Average Earthman 06:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 09:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sardinian (horse)

The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), and Pleven (horse) were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni☯ 01:49, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep for my reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Salerno (horse). - DS1953 02:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any persuasive reason to delete. --Tabor 02:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, look fine to me. In any case looking suspicious is not a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For all the reasons above. I can imagine that the contributor has been writing them up on his own harddisk before placing them on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. I am listing these articles on Wikipedia:Copyvio as possible copyright violations without an online source. - Mike Rosoft 17:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to be absolutely no evidence for copyvio, and in any case, this isn't the place for that sort of thing. I strongly oppose listing this on Copyvio at all. Where is the evidence? Can I just go through Wikipedia alleging copyright violations in any article that strikes me the wrong way? --Briangotts 18:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. By my count, keep outnumbers delete/twiki by one. Golbez 00:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Drexler

Very sad, but abandoned infants are just WAY too common to give the abandoner's extra publicity in an encyclopedia--leave that to Wikinews and local police blotters. Cases just in the past 12 months in North America alone include Griselle Suarez[2], Beatriz Cuaulte[3], Sarah A. Duenk[4], Stephanie Smith[5], Liem Swat Nio[6], Jennifer Donaldson[7], Erin Pendleton[8], Gloria Vasquez[9], Janet Sherman[10], Tri Minh Hoang[11], ...there's no doubt more, but it's too depressing to keep looking for them. Niteowlneils 01:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Noteworthy news item-- it's NPOV, and whether or not it's depressing is not the point. Emiao 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm going side with Niteowlneils on this. Sadly, this is all too common to be notable. Surely, we wouldn't include articles on every murderer or rapist, would we? --Xcali 04:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted keep because I remember this girl, who was not just any old murderer-- she was called the "prom mom" and became a major human interest story. This article is a useful contribution to the historical record. 69.177.14.218 05:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoops, I wasn't signed in. That was me, Emiao 05:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC).
      • A catchy name given by the press does not make a difference here. Just because something is all over television for 15 minutes does not make it notable forever. For instance, remember last year when a woman and her friend were riding their mountain bikes in California and they were mauled - it was all over every news show for a week. The man died, and the woman, Anne Hjelle, barely survived. A random cougar attack, on the surface not notable? Anne Hjelle gets twice as many google hits as Melissa Drexler (Anne Hjelle ~1100+ vs. Prom Mom ~571 or Melissa Drexler ~658). The story here isn't this one murderer but the crime itself. Like I said below, make an article about the crime, not the criminal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most criminals are not encyclopedic. --nixie 05:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Drexler is a prominent example of the class of baby murderers, and has had many mentions in the media. Also, although the events took place eight years ago, many people still remember this specific story. By the way, I have carefully reviewed the criteria for deletion and What Wikipedia is not, and I'm afraid I cannot see that this article falls into any of the categories. I can't connect the comment at the top of this VfD to any of them either. Could we have a clarification, please? Disclaimer: I have made significant contributions to this article. Bovlb 05:58, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

From What Wikipedia is not, I think "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" #4 'Memorials' and #5 'News reports' apply. We have an article on arson (and carjacking, kidnapping, etc.), but don't generally have articles on each individual arsonists (or carjackers, kidnappers, etc.) because a single instance of such a common crime does not inherently have "historical significance". An article on infant abandonment (or maybe expand child abandonment to cover it) would be fine, maybe even link the names of those convicted of it to that article, but otherwise the individual criminal articles are much the same, except for the details: "__firstname__ __lastname__ was convicted of __exactcharge__ for leaving their infant in __exactlocation__, wrapped in __blanket/coat/nothing/whatever__. __criminal's name__ had been __at the gym/at the prom/doing laundry/at school/at work/whereever__ when the incident happened." The crime trend is probably encyclopedic--specific occurrences too commonplace to individually track. Niteowlneils 22:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the same page, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." #4 Memorials says that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Although Drexler may not be highly famous, the individual case is widely known outside the circle of friends and relations. #5 News Reports says "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Our account of Drexler's case is neither a first-hand account, nor breaking news. Many of the comments on this VfD page seem to focus on Dexler's notability as the primary criterion for deletion, but other than the low bar offered under #4 Memorials, I'm afraid that I can't see any support for this being a deletion criterion per se under official policy. Bovlb 23:13, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I've dug up some more Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#People_still_alive says that we may include the biographies of "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Wikipedia:Importance says that we should not delete an article because its topic is "insufficiently important, famous or relevant" (providing it meets the other criteria, including WP:NOT, which I address above). Finally, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents#Is a person whose death received nationwide attention encyclopedic.3F - Yes. Bovlb 04:59, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

• Weak Keep agree with Bovlb. JamesBurns 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Drexler's case in particular appears to have been the subject of quite a bit of talk in the media; I found a reference to her in a George Will editorial, for example. Postdlf 06:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A google search picks up 658 hits. While some may feel it might be notable enough (I do not), I feel it is unencyclopedic in this instance, so delete it. That's not to say Bovlb does not make a good point: there seems to be no article in wikipedia on the phenomena of young parents abandoning and murdering their own children. But rather than focusing on a few subjects of dubious noteriety, an article should be written that talks talks about and explores this phenomena (from a psychological and cultural stand point; why they do it; the effect on society; etc.) - I'm sure there are plenty of resources out there to competently draft an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 06:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this tragedy received considerable media attention it's notable. Also, I have never seen Postdlf vote keep on articles which should be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wikinews. Radiant_>|< 09:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. I was pleased we had no Abigail Witchalls, a bit of a cause celebre here in the UK. This is typical Wikinews stuff. We may never hear about Melissa again, and hence no notability to speak of. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This got a lot of press coverage at the time and has continued to to be mentioned when the similar acts hit the news. Not every criminal is a Lizzie Borden or Leopold and Loeb, and generally I would prefer to let criminal acts slip into obscurity, but I think this is one for Wikipedia. - DS1953 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused about the suggestions to move this to Wikinews. Is it really ok to send articles there that were in the news 8 years ago? If not then the suggestion to send an old news article there is a cop-out. If someone wanted to look up Melissa Drexler where do you suppose they would look? In Wikinews - doubtful. BTW my vote is to Keep. hydnjo talk 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but this is an important enough phenomenon that could justify a section in Infanticide, possibly including the names of some of the most well known cases. --Arcadian 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to some article on the subject as a whole. This does happen all the time, so one perpetrator is not neccisarily notable. --InShaneee 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikinews does not generally publish old news. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete are prisoners really notable? If a reference to this information is needed, then add it to Infanticide. I suppose you cound make a case to include the first case of this type as being notable, but every one? Vegaswikian 05:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has been noted so, per definitionem, "notable". Grace Note 05:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not particularly notable. Kaibabsquirrel 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it was a case notable enough to get an article. -- Mysidia 06:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting.  Grue  14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unnotable. When wikipedia has thousands of articles like this one, it will be well on its way to being a laughingstock in any reputable circle that would use it as a resource. Judging by the number of keep votes for this article and others like it, I am not so sure that wikipedia has not already reached that level. Indrian 03:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough, verifiable and interesting. This article has no significant effect on the qualify of any other articles, so Indiran's concerns are misplaced. Kappa 21:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I started the article for many of the keep reasons above. --PeterMarkSmith 06:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Exaro Taas

This user certainly likes pushing his un-verifiable fan fiction onto Wikipedia. Nufy8 01:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - in general I would vote merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters as per WP:FICT however given that there are no google hits for this one, which you would expect with even the most minor SW characters, I'm inclined to believe that this is simply fan-fic. However if someone can verify that this character did in fact appear in some game / movie / cartoon or book then I'll change vote to merge. -- Lochaber 09:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Google can't find anything about it, then this character probably is nothing more than a fanfic character.--Kross 11:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jasonglchu 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• May the Force destroy this article. — Chameleon 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Since when did encyclopedias document every character and fanfictional character from every movie and video game?--Major.T 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Salerno (horse)

The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), and Pleven (horse) were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni☯ 01:52, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep. What are you proposing as the basis for deleting this? It seems fine to me. It looks like the person created it off line and cut-and-pasted because it had "smart quotes" (to use Microsoft Word's term). I have done that myself. In any event, the solution to a suspected copyvio is not putting the article on VfD. - DS1953 02:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see persuasive reason to delete. --Tabor 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and categorize. If you think it's a copyvio, go to WP:CP and speak with the regulars there on how to substantiate that. Radiant_>|< 09:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, look fine to me. In any case looking suspicious is not a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For all the reasons above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't forget to assume good faith. An article isn't a copyvio til it can be proved it is (and even then, vfd is not the page to take it to). Until then, it's just a well-written article. --InShaneee 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge (2/3 in favour). Ingoolemo ^talk 04:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

September 11, researchers

What little is in this article is in David Ray Griffin, along with a bunch more wackiness Frjwoolley 01:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see no reason why there should be article on September 11, researchers. As pointed out, David Ray Griffin already has an article. Since the VfD nomination. another name (Eric Hufschmid) has been added. This should all be merged under 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article should not be redirected to that page, however, because the title purports to be all 9/11 researchers, not just conspiracy theorists. - DS1953 02:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • More and more wackaloons researchers are getting added; I agree with DS1953 — Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frjwoolley 03:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: as suggested above. This article is titled poorly, and as DS1953 noted can carry the wrong connotation. Strikes me more as attempts by conspirowackos to gain credibility. --Durin 04:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. --Xcali 04:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Aside from all the abusive ad hominem attacks by voters so far, the page provides a good overview of various authors who have written on the subject. Whether or not you agree with what they have to say (or have even bothered to read it) they are notable. They have written books which have sold many thousands of copies and have been endorsed by many prominent activists, professors, organizations, etc. If you don't think the page is properly titled, then that's an issue for "pages to be moved," not vfd. Blackcats 10:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It is not uncommon for conspiracy believers to argue vehemently for their points. It doesn't change the reality that the article carries the wrong connotation and should be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Durin 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It seems you’re making yet another ad hominem attack. (And here I thought that “conspiracy theorists” were the ones who made logical fallacies.) Repeating your opinion does not make it any more a "reality," and like I said if you think there's a problem with the title then the move process can take care of that. And BTW, I was not arguing "vehemently." As anyone who knows me will attest, you'll know if I get "vehement" ;-) Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Stating that a group of people argue vehemently is an ad hominem attack? I think you don't understand the meaning. Regardless, your response doesn't address the point. As with my comment below, to do this article appropriately to include all viewpoints would result in an immense article. The list, as it stands now, is all people who do not agree with official conclusions. Thus, the content is more appropriate for the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Please observe that I haven't voted to delete the content; merely merge it. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Calling people "conspirowackos" is ad hominem. So is calling them "conspiracy believers." Everyone believes that 9/11 was due to a conspiracy - the only debate is who was doing the conspiring. Responding to an argument by saying that people "argue vehemently" is a non sequitur. I apologize for not making it more clear which of your fallacies I was referring to. Blackcats 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Noted, and not responding. You've devolved this into an argument that has little to do with the VfD. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to bits, then delete. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep: the magnitude of fallout from the events of 9/11 clearly merits a catalog of the who's who among 9/11 researchers Ombudsman 16:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Then you won't mind if I include references to every single PhD the government has used in its investigation, yes? --Durin 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your levity is appreciated, Durin, even if not refreshing, given the gravity of the tragedy at issue. Of course, adding researchers who have tried in vain to keep alive the Bush administration's deceptive and disproven conspiracy theories, linking Iraq to 9/11 and to stockpiles of WMDs, would be very much welcome (short of spamming); bring 'em on, to coin a phrase. Merging into an article including the term conspiracy is patently absurd, however. Ombudsman 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Generally the term "September 11th researchers" has been used to mean researchers who believe there was complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11, but if you would like to change your vote and include some of the more notable researchers hired by the government to uphold the official conspiracy theory (that a cabal of Muslim zealots living in caves in Afghanistan hatched a successful plot to defeat the world's most powerful air -defense system using box-cutters) then I would not object. The article could easily include a section for those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity and one for those who don't. That's what Wikipedia is all about - presenting both sides of an issue and letting the readers decide for themselves. Blackcats 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If I were to include the people as I suggested, per the current way in which the page is laid out, the page would greatly exceed recommended article length. My suggestion was intentionally tongue in cheek, and should have been read as such. The list of people researching 9/11 is immense, too much so for Wikipedia to have an article titled as this one. The article thus is inherently going to be biased towards conspiracy theories. As such, it deserves to be merged. --Durin 21:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I was well aware that that you were being rhetorical. I simply decided to call your bluff. I am quite serious about what I said though, so long as like Ombudsman said, you don't spam the article with hundreds of insignificant individuals. It should only include the most notable researchers from each side - with two categories - those researchers who believe there was U.S. government complicity in 9/11 and those who don't.

Blackcats 04:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Then we should also be analyzing the significance of the people who are currently in the article if we go that direction. Before doing that, some metric needs to be established for how to count as significant. Anyone can publish a book; there are lots of companies that will enable you to publish, so that is not enough of a metric. Referring to WP:MUSIC #3 as a possible guideline, then we'd need two or more books from a major publisher by the author. The list of government investigators is very long, but their qualifications and notability are no less than most of the people currently on this list. Regardless of what you or I think, it's very clear from the current vote that this article will be merged; currently 9 merge 4 keep. If the article passes VfD as 'keep', then we can discuss metrics. Failing that, I'll refrain from commenting further. My vote for merge stands. Good day. --Durin 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge — Chameleon 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The page should but kept, as a list of 9/11 researchers is an important thing to have. It should also include a list of government researchers, to maintain npov. Zelmerszoetrop
• Merge as above. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep or merge maybe but please do not erase this Yuckfoo 23:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. carmeld1 04:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:59, 2005 Jun 9 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pleven (horse)

The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), and Pleven (horse) were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni☯ 01:55, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep for my reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Salerno (horse). - DS1953 02:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any persuasive reason to delete this. --Tabor 03:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No copyvio proven although it would be good if the author could provide a source or sources. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looking suspicious isn't particularly a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is the creation of an anonymous editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia with good articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is silly. If you're going to write a series of articles on similar subjects, it makes perfect sense to use a template article and change whatever details need changing for the specific article. Have a look at some of the articles on suburbs of New Zealand cities that I created - they used a set format. So of course four articles created within a few minutes on different horses will look similar. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Russian Trotter

The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), Pleven (horse), and Russian Trotter were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. Denni☯ 01:58, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep for my reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Salerno (horse). - DS1953 02:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any persuasive reason to delete. --Tabor 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a model article. If you think it is a copyvio the onus is on you to come up with evidence. Then list it in the appropriate place, not here. CalJW 05:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be good if sources could be provided though. Capitalistroadster 06:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looking suspicious isn't a reason for deletion. -- Lochaber 09:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks OK to me. — Chameleon 20:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wenqian huang

Obvious vanity, was created by User:Wenqianhuang and non-notable CunningLinguist 02:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, move content to User:Wenqianhuang. --Sn0wflake 02:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Delete. - DS1953 02:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, non-notable. --Durin 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article moved to userspace, deleted from main namespace.--nixie 10:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dean Hill Motors

Promotional Daniel Case 02:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic, advertisement. - Jersyko talk 02:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. — Chameleon 20:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Teleincision

• Delete: Everything in this article is nothing but rumour and speculation and probably completely false. Most web sites and articles mentioning "Teleincision" refer to this Wikipedia article as the source. Wikipedia is not a rumour site. MrHate 23:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: As the article states it, it's subject does not exist yet. Can not be encyclopaedic. Gtabary 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: So far, nothing has been confirmed: the first single, (official) track listing, touring and other info. I also found out this might be a DVD this time instead of album or there must be some confusion or mistake. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT) --Durin 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak weakling keep: I say this because if Danny Carey did report information about the album then that is a rather strong source and not merely a crystal ball article. The problem is, if the title is just a rumor what would we call the article? (and how did they get that cover?) gren 04:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Carey said the new album will have an 18 minute long song... he never said the album was called Teleincision. The cover is a fake MrHate 06:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, I only want to discourage deletion if there is any relevant information... I'd change my vote... but, it won't matter. gren 20:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rumourmongering. — Chameleon 20:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have said it ten times and I will say it another ten times: until there is proof, this page is misleading at best. --Johnnyw 23:38, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete We shouldn't be starting articles based on rumors. At most, there should be notes in the band's page about the possible new album, but only if the rumors have some degree of credibility. Actually starting a page about the album should await a definite announcement. *Dan* 04:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is rumored to be the title for the new Lateralus tour DVD, not the new album title. Either way, they are strictly rumors and this page should be deleted.--Herrhav0k 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of given names by language

Would be valid for transwiki, but it has no real content. Take a look. This is just a list of links to other pages that should be transwikied as dicdefs. Delete. --Dmcdevit 02:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this list will be redundant after transwiking. JamesBurns 06:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content. Radiant_>|< 07:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. — Chameleon 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I do think that lists of usual given names divided by languages are encyclopedic and do belong to wikipedia. Poli 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia offers better ways to show the same information. Javier Jelovcan 15:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The content of the referenced lists may be appropriate to Wiktionary but this navigation page is not useful. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lamberto Piovani

possible hoax; no google hits at all in any language carmeld1 02:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable, not verifiable. --Durin 04:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, two google hits, pages in Italian: [12]. But I doubt they have anything to do with this person. --Etacar11 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Death to useless stubs. — Chameleon 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Maudlin

A dicdef, non-notable band, and generally irrelevant link. Deserves triple deletion, I guess, but I'll settle for one. -R. fiend 03:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — at least this could be a disambiguation page.... as for the band's notability I'm not convinced it's not notable... gren 04:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at this stage as dicdef and there is no evidence of notability according to WikiMusic Project guidelines. While the band has been writing songs, there is no evidence presented that albums have been recorded, let alone said album/s or tracks charting or national tours been performed. If this is presented, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:VFTD heh. JFW | T@lk 11:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jasonglchu 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They're not famous. — Chameleon 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Norwegian rock band is unknown in English. There is no need for dab. It can't point to Wiktionary or non-existent band article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Boxor

An object from the BIONICLE line of items/stories. Doesnt seem notable enough to have its own page, suggest merger with BIONICLE at least. CunningLinguist 03:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last few times I've been looking at Newest Pages many of these things have been listed... so, we should probably get a decision for the lot of them... I'm pretty sure they all have the same notability... or lack-there-of gren 04:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. We should take on the whole of Lego/Bionicle and get a consensus. I say merge them all to one list. --Xcali 05:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. See WP:FICT for details. Also, the word 'boxor' sounds like l33t to me. Radiant_>|< 09:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Bionicle, or perhaps create a List of Bionicle Creatures / Characters. Jasonglchu 14:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this nonsense into one article so that we can avoid it more easily. Same goes for:
  • Toa
    • Tahu
    • Gali
    • Pohatu
    • Onua
    • Lewa
    • Kopaka
    • Takanuva
  • Turaga
    • Vakama
    • Nokama
    • Onewa
    • Whenua
    • Matau
    • Nuju
    • Dume
• and the rest — Chameleon 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to avoid these things, how about using the search box or wikilinks instead of "random page"? Kappa 23:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Chameleon. carmeld1 04:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all. -Sean Curtin 07:05, Jun 10, 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Better Version of God

Imaginary, or crystal-ball, release. Google=5—Wahoofive (talk) 03:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or maximally merge with Fiona Apple. Also: "finally" is POV. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge — Chameleon 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unverified, the 9 google hits are all irrelevant (mainly discussion board talks on religion). Delete unless somebody manages to substantiate this. - Mike Rosoft 18:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Linux Kernel Prediction

This is speculative original research, making it not encyclopedic on two grounds (WP:NOR and WP:NOT). Kelly Martin 03:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —Sean κ. + 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Make sure to salvage relevant material for other articles first... but, definitely original research. gren 04:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, on both grounds. --W(t) 05:01, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete Blackcats 10:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Kelly Martin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If you must... It is on my site; but I gess I'll just have to publish it some where else :( 66.81.20.130 14:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for not taking it personally —Sean κ. +

• Delete original research. — Chameleon 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable, too specific for Wikipedia. (And when I see exact dates for future software releases I always laugh a lot.) Pavel Vozenilek 19:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tim Vale

Delete: Non-notable. Possible vanity. Perhaps the author will expand the article to show why this person is notable. Failing that, this should be deleted. --Durin 04:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity Daniel Case 04:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Xcali 04:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this was supposed to be the author's user page. It is now anyway. - DS1953 04:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, first person vanity. --Etacar11 16:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Chameleon 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Alternative hip hop. JeremyA 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hip-hop underground

The underground music scene of hip-hop. Dicdef. We need this just as much as an article on Rectangular tables. Just adds two concepts together.—Wahoofive (talk) 04:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alternative hip hop. (Underground hip hop redirects there.) --Idont Havaname 06:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 06:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Redundant. Jasonglchu 14:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. — Chameleon 19:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Wildstyle (Vice City soundtrack)

Gamecruft. The radio station on Grand Theft Auto. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• merge to the video game parent unless it is intended to break out some large amount of text from that article. SchmuckyTheCat 04:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack. There are tons of these (some for GTA3). Emotion 98.3, Fever 105 (Radio), Flash FM, Head Radio, K-Jah, KCHAT, Radio Espantoso, Rise FM, V-Rock, VCPR, Wave 103. They're virtually all stubs too. K1Bond007 05:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 06:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack. -- Lochaber 08:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete trivial nonsense. — Chameleon 19:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or expand, i could add tracks, and etc, but maybe these should all be one page?? -mysekurity 20:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge indeed into one page. carmeld1 04:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack, as has been done with V-Rock. SwissCelt 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Zakofal

From the incoherent writing and lack of google hits (which isn't very reliable for rare subjects) I believe this is made up... If not hopefully the author will provide a lot of sources and show us something of interest. gren 04:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another "philosphy" made up by some guy and his friends. --Xcali 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense masquerading as history. DS1953 04:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All I see on Google are blogs, [13], in Greek(?), which makes me doubt the veracity of this article. Seems like a hoax. --Etacar11 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what looks like a hoax to me. — Chameleon 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Final Gasp

Fails to establish any conditions set under WP:MUSIC Delete Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 16:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 15:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gilly Salmon

delete non keep; notable in light of info below. Would one of you who knows seems to know something about this do a little expansion please?WAvegetarian 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)WAvegetarian 00:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone with the title Professor in the UK is automatically of more note than an 'average professor' as usually defined in Wikipedia, as there are three levels below (Reader, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer) that get titled professor in the US. A quick Google Scholar search finds that her book E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online has been cited a few hundred times, indicating importance in her field. The Independent Newspaper in the UK said ‘If you are serious about e-moderating, you should have a copy.’ She has been the key speaker at conferences [14]. As far as I'm concerned, any academic who is invited to deliver keynote speeches at international conferences has been declared notable by their peers, who know a lot more about what is notable or not in their field than someone with a silly name on Wikipedia Average Earthman 06:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) , and yes I know it's a silly name.
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 06:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Article should mention book for example. Capitalistroadster 06:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Average Earthman's evidence of notability. Kappa 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. The professor test is a poor predictor of actual notability. Some academics make no impact whatsoever; it is hard to establish Gilly's impact on students, her area of research and on public opinion. JFW | T@lk 11:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 14:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 281 hits on Google Scholar. Ajc

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Gilly Salmon"

delete non notable WAvegetarian 04:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy and tagged as such. This is a duplicate of Gilly Salmon. --Xcali 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

BrightStor

delete self promotion WAvegetarian 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy ad --Xcali 04:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Computer Associates listing brands in the company article should be OK. Vegaswikian 05:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

PUKL

Delete. This is a substub about a 20 year old little known Icelandic bandWAvegetarian 03:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And this is only the name they once performed. Hopeless. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as irrelevant. Karol 21:57, Jun 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 KEEP. Golbez 00:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kawasaki ZX-6R and 6RR PAGE MOVED TO Kawasaki ZX-6R

Unfocused 20:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is unecessary, short, not of interest or noteworthy.WAvegetarian 00:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete almost a speedy candidate with so little content. JamesBurns 06:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (expanded slightly), notable bikes. Kappa 07:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but in need of expansion/clean-up. Also, if they are different but related bikes then perhaps the article should just be named after one then redirect the other title to it? -- Lochaber 09:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge to Kawasaki bikes, or if not at least rename to Kawasaki ZX-6R and have the 6RR redirect there. Radiant_>|< 12:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or rename, as per Radiant!, except the target is Kawasaki motorcycles.--Nabla 15:10, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Comment, somehow a previous comment by WAvegetarian disappeared, even from the page's history! As far as I remember it included an opinion that Kawasaki isn't a major manufacturer, but correct me if I'm mistaken.--Nabla 15:16, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Comment, That was in an article about a car, not this article. I agree that Kawasaki is a major manufacturer of bikes, I just didn't think that a single model deserved a page. There was so little content that I found it unecessary to merge. If someone wants to expand it or merge the small amount of info here to Kawasaki motorcycles, that's fine with me.WAvegetarian 00:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Correction taken, thanks. Sorry for misquoting you. And, yes, I agree we have too much catalog-like articles.--Nabla 13:40, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
      • What is the drawback of having many catalog-like articles? --Unfocused 15:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That they tend to be rather short, must all include redundant information about the parent company, and are more easily accessed and compared if put in a list. Radiant_>|< 10:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • These will develop far more than a simple list. Have a look at Honda Prelude. Further, each of these motorcycles should (eventually) have a photo, to help with identification. Significant products require both a list, and a separate article for each, ideally. --Unfocused 14:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The drawback is that, in my opinion, Wikipedia is not a catalogue. But do not think that I'm for deleting them (I voted to keep this one). Quite the opposite, i think it is unfortunate that some articles don't say anything about the product importance: which novelties does it include? (Even if simply a minor detail or a new combination of features); did it have any cultural impact?; was it a major selling product? Or a flop? Why?; etc.. On the other hand if nothing of relevance can be said about it... what's the article for? It should probably be in a list, which would give a better perspective to a then relevant set of products.--Nabla 02:55, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Keep, but Merge as per Radiant. Even if it's just a stub, this could very well be expanded into something quite informative. Jasonglchu 15:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Kawasaki motorcycles, no redirect. Kawasaki is a "major manufacturer" of motorcycles, unless you're intentionally redefining "major" the way Anheuser-Busch did for its current ads calling itself "the only American-owned major brewer." Most people wouldn't call Yuengling and Anchor, for example, "minor". Barno 17:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I moved the page as shown above. I created a redirect for "Kawasaki 6RR" pointing at the "Kawasaki ZX-6R" page. --Unfocused 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would welcome an NPOV article for most manufactured products. Unfocused 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable product from a major worldwide manufacturer of motorcycles. --FCYTravis 22:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perodua MyVi

This seems unimportant. It was just launched this year, not by a major manufacturer. I just don't see why it should be inlcuded at this point.WAvegetarian 00:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, noting recent update and slightly more research. I don't see why there need be separate pages for each model. Unless the few that there are, an more that seem to be on their way are expanded, I think they should be put at the bottom of Perodua's page.WAvegetarian 00:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Why should it be deleted? This is a major breakthrough for Perodua. It's a key car for them and this deserves a special article on it compared with other previous mediocore models. ---Haniff 06:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to me that a make/model of a car (other than when called a separate model due to minor trim packages) deserves its own page. DS1953 18:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a make/model of a car deserves a page even more than an album does. Kappa 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Car model Capitalistroadster 01:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Perodua. Local notability not enough for a seperate article. JamesBurns 02:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, If other makes can have individual page for their models, so does Perodua.
• Keep Same as the other keepers say L-Bit 03:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Daihatsu Sirion. Perodua is a Malaysian company that produces and rebadges Daihatsus. --Pc13 19:55, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Keep - MyVi needs to be introduced in detail, thus we need a page for it.--Haniff 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, when can we remove the deletion note on the MyVi article?--Haniff 23:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. JeremyA 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deitch Projects

looked like self promotion, I now withdraw my nomination save WAvegetarian 04:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

MacBrickout

DeleteThis is self promotionWAvegetarian 01:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean? I don't want it to be deleted! I just started. -jtbandes, creator and current editor of MacBrickout

• That is my point exactly. Because you are the creator of the product described, which you are selling, this page qualifies as "advertising and other spam" under the deletion guidelines. Go list yourself with Google if you want free advertising. You can't do this here, sorry. WAvegetarian 01:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete because it is nonsense. A page like this deserves the sandbox at best. Vegaswikian 05:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not the creaotr of the PRODUCT, just the wiki page. I am NOT selling this product. I am just describing it.

Wikipedia is not a blog or a complete list of shareware/freeware games. This game seems non-notable, therefore it is a candidate for deletion. In addition, you have formatted the page as a blog or fan website would (heading-font, bold notices that "This Page is Under Construction" do not help), thereby lessening the encyclopedic value of the entry. jglc | t | c 07:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete pending evidence of widespread significance. Not a speedy candidate, not nonsense. Most students' first game program involving motion is a Brickout/Breakout program. No indication is given that this one is more notable than thousands of other game programs including dozens of others similar to this. I would probably vote delete even if it were the version Microsoft picked to include in a current version of Windows. Barno 18:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. If this belongs in here, so does that final project I did for AP Comp sci. jglc | t | c 20:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad for NN product. carmeld1 02:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ruppert county,virginia

There is no Ruppert County, Virginia, for starters. - dcljr (talk) 05:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong argument, delete. --W(t) 05:24, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Stuart, Virginia is in Patrick County, Virginia. "Ruppert County" gets no Google hits suggesting it is a county. Further, no other articles link to the page. Strong delete. Could probably just go ahead and speedy it as nonsense. --Idont Havaname 05:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fake places masquerading as real ones. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ruppert County does not appear on the (apparently exhaustive) list of counties of Template:Virginia. A side note—there is a Rupert County, Virginia mentioned in the television show The Pretender. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, and a bad one at that. Hohokus 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Eddie DaRoza

'delete self promotion non notableWAvegetarian 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. 5 google hits for "Eddie DaRoza". --Xcali 05:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable jglc | t | c 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity PeteVerdon 00:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reich-The-Jew

Do anonymous player nicknames on Starcraft (though it is a good game) really deserve a page? Nominator abstains from voting. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 05:45, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• IMO we shouldn't allow articles on players at all, like, ever--which, of course, means I'll never be honored with a greyscale49 article, but that's a burden I'm willing to bear. Nuke it--err, excuse me, Delete. Marblespire 06:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I disagree with Marblespire: Certain players eventually gain enough notoriety to become known solely for their gameplaying abilities and gaming-related publicity (Dennis "Thresh" Fong comes to mind). Regardless, Reich-the-Jew fails this criterion as well. jglc | t | c 15:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. carmeld1 04:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca Rawson

Nom (& vote Del on) this tragic figure whose only apparent notablility is being exploited as a model for a forgotten novel's heroine. --Jerzy·t 05:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Very early American settlers and 17th-century Bostonians are inherently notable. Emiao 06:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not sure what logic was used to reach this conclusion, but since so many users have since hopped on the bandwagon I guess there must be something there. Indrian 03:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Appears to be notable. JamesBurns 06:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Kappa 07:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. - DS1953 14:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Emiao. carmeld1 04:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Jerzy. Early American settlers are not inherently notable, even if they inspired a forgotten potboiler. The idea of creating an individual article for thousands anonymous 16th century dirt scratchers is just absurd. This belongs in an article for the novel at best. Gamaliel 03:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fallen Desire

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE KEPT BUT USER: WEYES AND HIS MINIONS KEEP ABUSING THEIR POWER AND LISTING IT FOR SPEEDY DELETE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT SHOULDNT BE ON THERE BrowardBulldawg 05:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Besides the fact that this band comes up with no google hits [15] and the fact that it provides no information that if conforms to anything within WP:MUSIC and the fact that you have been warned for vandalism many times, there is no choice, if you insist on a VfD, the i nominate a Strong Delete. and the admins are not abusing power and do not make personal attacks, read WP:Wikiquette. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, according to mp3.com the band has no label, no offline relases and the members are incorrectly listed, does not meet mucis guidelines --nixie 05:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete as patent nonsense and obvious hoax. --Idont Havaname 05:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• OBVIOUS HOAX AND PATENT NONSENSE? I THINK THE ONLY WHO HAS PROVED HE IS INEFFECTIVE AT THESE VOTES IS YOU IDONT HAVEANAME -BrowardBulldawg 05:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, given the recent edit to the article (which previously showed Richie Rich as a member of the band), I'll change my vote to delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC. By the way, have you read any of my other VfD votes, or just this one? I've voted on VfD for about 500 articles since last November. --Idont Havaname 07:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I marked this as a speedy under criterion 3 (vandalism). A look at the names of the band members and the user's previous edits depletes all the good faith I have to assume. It is nice to know I have minions though. --W(t) 05:57, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Aw man! I want minions too! NOT FAIR! lol Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Can I be your minion, W? Even after the fix, it's still not notable. Google still only turns up one hit for ("fallen desire" bryan houston justin) --Xcali 06:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep NOTABLE -BrowardBulldawg 05:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, stop the personal attacks and come up with proof that this band exists from a verfiable source. If you have no proof and continue these personal attacks, you will be banned from editting Wikipedia. I'm trying to be nice here but you are pushing it. If you want to say its notable, PROVE IT! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • WHERE HAVE I MADE PERSONAL ATTACKS?????? AND LOOK AT THE LINK IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. DID U THINK TO READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU NOMINATED IT FOR SPEEDY DELETE??? -BrowardBulldawg 06:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • 2 issues first: "OBVIOUS HOAX AND PATENT NONSENSE? I THINK THE ONLY WHO HAS PROVED HE IS INEFFECTIVE AT THESE VOTES IS YOU IDONT HAVEANAME" would be a personal attack on Idont haveaname, and "USER: WEYES AND HIS MINIONS KEEP ABUSING THEIR POWER" would also be a personal attack on Weyes... second, i read the page, still doesn't prove anything under WP:MUSIC. Please read that page. You will then come to the conjecture, along with the rest of us, that the band is non-notable and everything we have done is fair considering we have only been able to find 1 hit on it... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • The comment to idont haveaname is not a personal assault, i was pointing out that he claimed it was an obvious hoax and patent nonsense dispite the fact that if you click one link you will see it is a real band. that is a CRITICISM of his voting technique, not an attack. ALSO it is my opinion that Weyes and his followers ARE abusing their power, that is not an attack, the only attack was there continued Speedy Deleting of the page. AND my comment to you to read the page had nothing to do with MUSIC, it had to do with the fact that you asked me to proof to you that this band EXISTS, please read what you wrote, you asked to prove it exists, and i told you to click the link to see it did. NOW you change the subject and ignore your original comments, how conveniant. -BrowardBulldawg 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • • Example: You asked: "Again, stop the personal attacks and come up with proof that this band exists from a verfiable source. " I replied: "AND LOOK AT THE LINK IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. " then you completely change the subject and IGNORE your first comments in order to discredit me by saying: "... second, i read the page, still doesn't prove anything under WP:MUSIC." THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED. YOU CHANGED TO DISCREDIT ME. -BrowardBulldawg 06:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • If you read the rest of my post, it also talks about notability... and the first post i made was about WP:MUSIC... so i don't see how that really applies, plus, you really brought up the issue of notability by editting the original page to that the band member's name actually match up... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • First, under the original page and the band members listed, it turned up 0 hits, therefore, that was a valid hoax. After you edited the page, you then changed the band members to the correct name. After you did that, this brings up the issue of notability brought upon the page by yourself by correcting your nonsensical origial page which indeed contained false information about the band members. So really, you yourself are responsible for the change of topic because you EDITED the page. So therefore, even after the edits, it still is a valid Delete because it fails the WP:MUSIC test. As for your excuse the it is your opinion the Weyes are abusing their power, it is still as personal attack. The second you express your opinion, it can be interpreted as so (i.e. "I think <<insert any name here>> is an idiot because of his edits" would just be an opinion of an person, but also a peronal attack). Again, I reitterate, the original page, seen here was to be speedied as it was a hoax and did not contain the link at the time. Hope that answers your questions, either way, the page is not Wikipedia material. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• HOW IS SAYING HE IS ABUSING HIS POWER AN ATTACK? ARE YOU SAYING THAT SAYING THE TRUTH IS WRONG? ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE ABUSES THEIR POWER IT IS AN ATTACK TO POINT THAT OUT?! -BrowardBulldawg 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you say it without hard evidence, it is called slandering. Simply because it is your opinion, doesn't make it fact. And he is not abusing otherwise he would have deleted the page himself. The fact that he put a notice up to let other admins to decide, is a sign that he didn't abust power. Again, opinion is not fact, don't slander and in general, just don't say anything about anybody unless it's to compliment them. Try Ethic of Reciprocity. Also, just calm down. if your going to post anything else here, let it be something that refutes the current claim that it doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC as that is the current issue. You proved the band exists, but not notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the band does not have a label, and there is no evidence of major tours as defined in the Wikipedia guidelines on WP:MUSIC. Also I'd suggest to BrowardBulldawg that he turns off the Caps Lock, as writing in all caps on the internet is generally taken as impolite or a sign of lunacy (no, I'm not saying you're a lunatic, but it's the equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs, which tends to get you strange looks if you do that in the street). Average Earthman 06:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 06:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of WikiProject Music guidelines being complied with. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are those ppl talking about that say this band is not on a label? It is signed to Drive Thru records which is an important indpeendent label and has released two albums under it, they have also toured nearly all of the United States and receieved considerable radio airplay. -BrowardBulldawg 07:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • They are? Granted, they do have a letter from a Drive Thru exec that expressed interest in their band. But that letter's from 2003, and Drive Thru Records would have certainly posted something about them on their website by now. I just went to Drive Thru's website and looked for Fallen Desire on their bands list. They're not there. And furthermore, "Fallen Desire" gets only 142 Google results, and only 8 of those (all of which are on mp3.com.au, which is not MP3.com) have anything to do with the band. --Idont Havaname 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL YELL, delete nn. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, possible vanity; btw, I want dark minions -) Lectonar 07:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this quote from their web page says it all: We are currently still searching for a singer! We have all of our stuff together, and we are ready to start playing shows, we just need that finial piece of the puzzle! If they ever find that elusive singer, and bring out an album, then they can have an article on WP. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and somebody show this guy how to turn off his caps lock. Radiant_>|< 09:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Garage band with no singer and a self made website. Vanity page. Abusive user shouldn't be tolerated. Possibly the bass player? MrHate 09:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I automatically vote delete when creators invade VfD and write in capitals. I'm usually right. Censure BrowardBulldawg. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Don't create articles about yourself. --Fazdeconta 11:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Utterly insignificant; delete. -- Hoary 12:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• delete. Dunc|☺ 13:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Page and page's creator are out of line and out of hand. Might as well put them out of mind, too. Jasonglchu 14:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WINP, this is verifiable info, etc... Sam Spade 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, WINP, but that doesn't mean that it is a census, listing of every band (signed and unsigned), &c. Verifiability is not a reason to keep an article - unverifiability is a reason to delete an article. Jasonglchu 17:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. The rest of this thread is further support for deletion that I will not restate. Gblaz 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - based solely on all the unreadable yelling above. --FCYTravis 22:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, period. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the guidelines at WP:MUSIC --Carnildo 23:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Tobycat 03:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and disruptiveness on VfD. Xoloz 05:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dawgman

Looks like advertising/vanity. Google for "Dawgman Spencer" gives 1 hit. Other strings in the article give a few more, but all seem to be centered around the ozonemag website. I'd say not notable. --Xcali 05:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 06:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very few Google hits (and the few hits themselves are not up to much either), no AMG page, etc. Not notable. And it is undeniably self-promotion. Someone needs to read Don't Create Articles About Yourself. --Jamieli 09:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons above. Let me note that this page was created by the same user who has been rather inflammatory in the Fallen Desire Votes for Deletion discussion. Here's to him getting banned soon. Jasonglchu 14:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable for now... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 15:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promo/vanity. --Etacar11 16:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. promo/vanity. Bad Dawg! No! Tobycat 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota High School Hockey, Boys'

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 06:04, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason not to cover this. Kappa 07:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, school teams are even less notable than the schools they represent. RickK 07:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.125.29 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 Jun 2005 UTC
  • The above user's second edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --G Rutter 07:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable reference for entire state. Blackcats 10:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Large school league, decent article, only two days old but showing promise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:17, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Modified article - high school hockey in Minnesota is significant. --Schulte 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are going to edit it further, please keep the guidelines at WP:NPOV in mind. --Carnildo 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every state has a set of high-school sports leagues, and there doesn't seem to be anything that sets this one apart. --Carnildo 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a list, not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep hockey leagues. (Including my local peewee league, if it ever comes up.) --Unfocused 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high-school hockey is big in Minnesota. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a notable hockey league and article has potential with some clean-up and organisation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please Yuckfoo 23:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be a notable hockey league. - Jersyko talk 01:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If anything adding some text in Minnesota State High School League should be all that is needed. Vegaswikian 05:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 05:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten article - bolstered History; cleaned up article --Schulte 06:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Great work! So Herb Brooks, who as team coach took the US Hockey team to a Winter Olympic gold in 1980 in the Miracle on Ice (we've had an article on that for nearly two years), played in the Johnson Senior High School team in this league. Neal Broten played in the same league and then played under Gophers coach Herb Brooks before going on to play 17 seasons in NHL and be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Another Hall of Famer, Phil Housley, is also a Minnesota Boys alumnus. This is brilliant stuff! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep although is that table at the end ok copyvio-wise? Proto 11:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The table is pure data, and probably not copyrightable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Hockey is a way of life for many in Minnesota, and the HS tournament is very, very important. Article could use some more text (as in the history section) and less table, but it's a great start. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Primary author here...Minnesota loves their boys' high school hockey. AиDя01D beat me to it, but hit the nail on the head with his way of life comment -- I couldn't agree more. --Schulte 05:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe someday, the collective users will remember that wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Indrian 03:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism_(word)

This simply lists a lot of stuff, it should really be at the Anarchism (disambiguation) page. As such I see no reason for it to stick around. harrismw 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary. Blackcats 09:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary has had anarchism since 2003-09-03. In any case, this isn't about the word at all. The article is mis-titled. Uncle G 13:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• This isn't disambiguation. It isn't disambiguating between different encyclopaedia articles entitled Anarchism. We already have a anarchism (disambiguation) for that (although it doesn't seem to be actually disambiguating between multiple articles by the same title, either). Nor is it about the word "anarchism". This is a list of movements and organizations that in some fashion or other profess, by their titles, to be anarchist. We already have a list of anarchist organizations for that. If you want to have "These aren't anarchist organizations!"/"Oh yes they are!" arguments, find some way of settling them on that page, without POV forking. Merge if GFDL requires it, which given the histories and the contexts in which this is mentioned on talk pages seems unlikely. Delete as useless and mis-titled fork otherwise. Uncle G 13:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete : did I say this is really getting silly? Saswann 13:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would say Delete... the edit-war between the capitalists and the socialists has unfortunately spawned an excess of articles with no logical reason for existence. *Dan* 14:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another fluff page, product of this never-ending revert war. Kev 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. carmeld1 04:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary fork. JamesBurns 07:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though having a redirect to the actual disambiguation page might help in discouraging recreation. -- Jonel 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This listing, and any problems with the article itself, are simply symptoms of the ongoing POV war in the anarchism wikispace. Wikipedia needs a conclusive means of resolving POV wars. — Phil Welch 00:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

James Sherriffs

New Jersey high-school teacher, otherwise unnotable. Calton | Talk 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Kappa 07:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. High school teachers are not notable in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability not established. carmeld1 04:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Attracts impertinent scribblings by students. (I've cleaned it out more than once of claims to royal lineage, 'nam, & cats Dystopos 13:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dragonus Humongous

a very minor part of Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears, in which even the main characters are not encyclopedic enough to merit more than a redirect page to the series. Burgher 07:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. The episode in which this minor character does not even have an article.Tobycat 05:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. carmeld1 04:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 10:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Corkman Inn

Non-notable pub, nonsense article. RickK 07:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 11:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

Non notable offensive slur. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - concur with Jeffrey. Blackcats 09:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV attack. JamesBurns 11:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but might deserve a spot on List of political epithets. David | Talk 11:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete. Merge minimally with list of political epithets (as we seem to have no list of religious slurs). JFW | T@lk 11:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously --Doc (?) 14:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Frequent use by one hatemongering group does not notability make. No one's going to come to WP looking for "Religion of Peace" in this context. ESkog 21:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, epithet, and unwarranted promo for LGF. Kaibabsquirrel 06:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 00:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Before The Blackout

Speculation. RickK 08:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. this is hardly idle speculation, as the release date is imminent and well-documented. Nateji77 08:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete since it doesn't exist yet (per WP:NOT a crystal ball). Radiant_>|< 09:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 11:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Would have been notable if the fans were already outside the record shops in sleeping bags and with soup in thermos flasks. As this is not the case, delete. JFW | T@lk 11:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While it is acceptable to write articles on well documented speculation (as per WP:NOT a crystal ball part 1), there doesn't seem to be much speculation on this beyond the fact that it will probably happen. Since there is no content to be added at the moment, delete and re-create, if appropriate, when the album is available. -- Lochaber 13:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 23:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. Even though release is imminent, there's no getting around the fact that it is not here yet. If it does indeed come out in August, then the article can be recreated then.Tobycat 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Lochaber. Hermione1980 23:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You don't need a crystal ball to verify that information.  Grue  14:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grue. Kappa 21:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article would be appropriate if information given was correct. The one track listed is spelled incorrectly and has a wrong length and the lead section lacks grammar and information. HarryCane 20:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:55, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Literature about Dar al-Manasir

This article has no encyclopedic content. RickK 08:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Dar_al-Manasir#References_and_External_Links or Dar_al-Manasir#Further_reading. Nateji77 08:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are right, it is now merged to Dar_al-Manasir#Further_reading David Haberlah 09:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Already merged. JamesBurns 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If it has been merged then this page should be turned into a redirect . - SimonP 21:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's safe to delete; the author who contributed all of the information to the article under consideration is the same one who merged the articles. Thus the authorship information is preserved, and we don't have GFDL problems. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 00:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Stop the Pop!

Was tagged as speedy as possible material by the soda vandal, but Google shows it's an existing organization [16]. Bringing it here instead. No vote. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - It's a notable campaign in Missouri, and gets over seven thousand Google hits [17]. Blackcats 09:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand - It's a notable campaign, and the whole problem is just expansion of the article to make it rich in content - which can be found on its official website. CrossTimer 09:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep and expand it too please Yuckfoo 23:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Would be nice if the ultradeletionists (by which I mean those editors who do practically nothing but try to rid WP of articles) would take the time to do the most elementary research before tagging articles as speedies. Grace Note 05:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as it is real. - It would also be nice if there weren't an editor who was going around pushing an anti-soda agenda by writing (often-fictional) articles using WP as a soapbox. Mgm did well by researching this and moving it from CSD here. -- Jonel 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable. Just some organization somewhere in the United States with some inane goal. This organization could vanish tomorrow and two years from now nobody would even remember it. Encyclopedias preserve information on things that made an impact in a particular field. I see no sign of impact here. When they have succeeded in getting Missouri to enforce prohibition on all soda beverages, then they deserve to be here. Indrian 03:47, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like a Delete to me. No encyclopedic content, no notability. --Quuxplusone 02:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 16:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chami William Pitaimy

I came across this page at radom when i was browsing through the dead end pages. It's apparently been here since January, but it doesn't link to anything and nothing links to it. As far as I can tell, it's patent nonsence. The first line says "Chami William Pitaimy was the Portuguese heavy-weight champion in the early 19th century and now holds the distinction as the oldest living man in the world." So supposedly the dude's around 200 now... Google has ten hits [18], and they look to be mostly copies of the original Wikipedia article. I guess it was probably just wannabe BJODN that nobody got around to dealing with yet, and I've probably wasted too much time already typing this up. So without further ado, delete. Blackcats 09:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 11:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Name doesn't even appear Portugese. Unverifiable, internally contradictory, all potentials for a massive hoax. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/nonsense. --Etacar11 17:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 16:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hindu Pushup

How-to yoga position, nowhere to merge it, delete--nixie 10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Re-write, perhaps re-name, but keep. We have pages on sex positions, so one on a pushup hardly seems unreasonable. Blackcats 11:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I should point out that this is not a standard position, it's one made by a personal trainer/yogi, so within yoga it is not notable. --nixie 13:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a standard position. I could see the lotus position having an article, but not this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title of the position alone could be construed as a vague or implicit religious slur. Jasonglchu 15:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - If a notable and verifiable position has a name that is a vaguely or implicitly religious slur, we should still have an article on that position. -- Jonel 19:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment; Regardless, it's non-notable. jglc | t | c 20:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. carmeld1 04:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Re-write, perhaps re-name, but keep. As a fitness dork, I belive that this excercise position is notable. Sorry if this vote/comment was done improperly. I have never spoke-up before. 67.167.120.201

Keep it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. I would support a possible merge once there is an article to merge in to. Also removing the (Part 1) from the title. Golbez 00:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Goodnight, Seattle (Part I)

Frasier is one of my favourite American sitcoms, but do we really need articles on individual episodes? Especially as badly wikified as this? Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 10:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 10:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Frasier is a major sitcom, and the individual episodes are thus notable. However, I would be all for merging all the episodes of one season together to one article if we have individual articles about every episode. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As with Pokemon and every Simpsons episode, we need to consolidate. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Lectonar 11:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd be in favor of merging by season, as Sjakkalle suggests, but at the very least merge with Goodnight, Seattle (part II) and however many parts it has. Or rename dropping the 'part 1'. Radiant_>|< 12:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• In general I'd also be in favour of merging by season however it seems from List of Frasier episodes that there aren't actually many articles to merge and the list is useful as it is. So keep for now as I think it's best that Wikipedia keeps the content. -- Lochaber 13:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Frasier is a notable series, and the episode is a fairly important one within series continuity. Jasonglchu 15:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as there is precedent for individual episode articles for other series (Star Trek, Doctor Who). Plus Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as there are some Wikipedians who are dedicated to create articles for every episode of Frasier. But if they are not as dedicated as the Star Trek and Doctor Who fans, then I might change my mind. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is only going to be one episode guide for Frasier, it should be this one or perhaps the first. Kappa 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep' this please and continue the work at List of Frasier episodes. Yuckfoo 23:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Radiant. JamesBurns 07:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Encyclopedias should not include TV episode guides. Indrian 03:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously, didn't you ever read Wikipedia is not paper before commiting yourself to this project? Kappa 21:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And in all seriousness, didn't you read the rest of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before commiting yourself to this project, because it seems you stopped after the first entry. That something is true does not make it encyclopedic. An encyclopedia and a database are two different things. I have nothing wrong with episode guides of Frasier, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Indrian 03:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to REDIRECT to Frostmourne and place that article on VfD. JeremyA 16:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frostmourn

nn Warcruft3, plus it's a one-word-different fork of Frostmourne (which I think may be a VfD candidate as well, but one bridge at a time). Delete. Marblespire 10:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to have individual articles about weapons WITHIN computer games, especially ones that have no real historical or mythological basis? Warcraft 3 is a good game, but it really only needs one entry in wikipedia... (unsigned edit by "193.119.133.40". ~Mbsp)
• At the least, Redirect to Frostmourne. jglc | t | c 18:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Skripsi and Skripsi Komputer

Neither of these articles provides any context, nor do their subjects appear to be notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Non notable. JamesBurns 11:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/ad for website. --Etacar11 17:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Ad for Web site. carmeld1 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks more like and advetisement than anything usefull No Clue 04:55, Jun 9, 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. Golbez 00:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Velasmooth

An ad for an intensive (and probably expensive) treatment for cellulite. Delete - no indication of notability, notoriety or particular success compared to the 1000s of other bogus cellulite treatments. JFW | T@lk 11:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I used this and it did wonders for mah cellulite. -Gangsta Walk 12:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this user's fourth edit, see Special:Contributions/Gangsta Walk JFW | T@lk 12:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me also note that this user has made several poorly written, nonsensical, or profane edits. Delete Jasonglchu 15:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad for NN snake oil. carmeld1 04:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Manpon

neologism from the Man Show, delete --nixie 12:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism Tobycat 04:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. carmeld1 04:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rick Kaseguma

Someone who wrote some software. Delete. JFW | T@lk 12:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non notable. Delete. --Lenthe 13:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn / vanity Tobycat 04:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. carmeld1 04:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Someones poorly written ad for themself? NN No Clue 05:05, Jun 9, 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. Golbez 00:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

MenNewsDaily

Blog with no notability. Delete. JFW | T@lk 12:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Too much blogging, too little notability. Delete. Jasonglchu 15:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Is this the same thing as "MensNewsDaily"? I recall it coming up a lot during the election, often showing up on GoogleNews. Going purely by a cursory Google search, however, it looks like nothing more than a small, non-notable group of sexually frustrated male bloggers. Delete unless much more evidence of notability can be put forth. Binadot 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any notable npov content into a conservative section of the masculism article (making sure to note that the site is not representative of masculism as a whole), or at least a link from that page. Also, btw, it's "men's news, not "men news" - MensNewsDaily. The article itself should be deleted though, and should not redirect to masculism, as it is not at all representative of the movement as a whole. Blackcats 19:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 07:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Modify it for more balanced (neutral) description of the website. It reads as if a person with a personal vendetta wrote it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Live Sex (Interlude)

This page is way too thug! Gangsta Walk 12:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Bindert

Lazy (though ably wikified) writing about an unremarkable high school kid. No, it's not patent nonsense. And it's not vanity, either. It's just been a patent waste of time in a high school computer class. (Just think, the kids could have been learning glockenspiel design, synchronized swimming, Farsi, dendrology, or principles of cryptanalysis instead.) -- Hoary 12:30, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Glockenspiel design? I think he's getting off lightly. Delete --W(t) 12:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think I even have to say why. Jasonglchu 15:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/joke/pointless. Take your pick. --Etacar11 17:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Aecis 18:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete prank. JamesBurns 07:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Grant Wilder Smith

Wikispam for a collegs students blog, delete --nixie 13:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Xcali 14:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - just another college student, seems non-notable. Jasonglchu 15:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blogger. JamesBurns 07:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

lives on despite deletion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hopskip

Non-notable drink, exact same text appears on Everything2 (not sure what their copyright is), doesn't seem to appear anywhere else online. --nixie 13:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Wikibofh 14:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: researched it and everything2 is not an unauthorized wikpedia mirror, so, listed hopskip on copyvio. Wikibofh 14:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Both for the copyvio and also because of non-notability. Jasonglchu 17:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 00:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group

Unix user group, nothing encyclopedic here, delete --nixie 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you advocate deletion of all LUGs? Many are mentioned in Wikipedia but this is the only one flagged for deletion that I could find Robertbrockway 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Too minor to warrant inclusion. Delete. Jasonglchu 15:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This user group has hosted the Aussie ISP mailing list archives for many years now. No vote. -- Longhair | Talk 17:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in its field of fostering Unix/Linux O/S (wow! since 1995). As notable as other entries in Category:Linux User Groups.--Takver 03:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll change to a weak keep, provided that someone cleans it up and adds information to the page to verify notability. jglc | t | c 16:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete pendingWeak Keep after addition of verifiable info. establishing notability of HUMBUG. Dystopos 18:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)/Dystopos 04:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Their site[19]. jglc | t | c 18:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Their history, according to the link provided: The first HUMBUG meeting was held on Friday the 8th of September, 1995. This was the first and only meeting held on a Friday night. Popular demand at this meeting decided that all future meetings would start at 3pm on Saturdays. We also had meetings monthly at first. We started having fortnightly meetings with the 5th meeting which was held on Saturday, 27th of January, 1996. - Does not establish notability. Dystopos 20:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have added information to the article, including: Humbug is one of the earliest Linux user groups in Australia; and HUMBUG hosted the third national Linux and Open Source conference in 2002. Googling on their full title gives 839 hits. The fact that they formed in 1995 for home Unix (and unix like) users when Linux was still largely unheard of is significant and makes them historically important. If we delete this entry, we might as well put up for VfD most of Category:Linux User Groups. Linux User Groups, like HUMBUG are important entries because they are the grassroots popularisers of a major operating system. We become less encyclopeadic if such groups are not included. --Takver 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is the only LUG I could find flagged for deletion, so in this sense HUMBUG is being specially dealt with. It is longer running than most. Disclaimer: I started HUMBUG so I have an inherent bias. Robertbrockway 05:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable long serving user group. - Longhair | Talk 16:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep since there was no consensus. I counted 11 delete votes, 9 keep votes, 1 mege vote, 1 keep or merge and one rename vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orleans Infants School

There seems to be no hint of notability attached to this preschool, other than the fact that User:NeilRickards attended it. He created the stub, and it hasn't been edited for over a month - so it's had plenty of time to grow - and, if every user creates a stub for their preschool, this is just going to spiral out of hand. Non-encyclopaedic, so it should be deleted (see below for the reasons I altered my vote). Jasonglchu 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. For people not acquainted with the UK education system, please take note that this is not a preschool. It is subject to inspections by the same agency that inspects all schools and it teaches the national curriculum. The last OFSTED inspection examined and praised teaching quality with respect to "mathematics and the reading, speaking and listening aspects of English." This particular school didn't do so well, apparently, teaching kids to write--this was based on the national SAT tests at age 7. It may teach children aged 4-7, but that is the age at which British children start attending school and learning to read, write and do mathematics. It's a serious teaching institution, not a nursery school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree; further readers please note that I have withdrawn my assertion for deletion, and changed to a weak keep. I'll probably start talking in the schools proposal entry, though - I still contend that not every school qualifies as wikiworthy. jglc | t | c 20:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. not notable See also wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St. Stephen's School, Twickenham. Dunc|☺ 13:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable stub. One month really isn't enough for organic growth, you need six months to a year. I don't see the problem with people recording infant's schools, or why things should "spiral out of control" if people made articles about them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, on this VfD entry (and several others), you have voted to keep. Might I ask why? I understand one of your reasons is that you feel as though it is acceptable to include minor entries because Wikipedia is not paper. I'm claiming that, even though Wikipedia does have virtually unlimited room to grow, its goal is still to be an encyclopaedic reference work. As such, non-notable entries, such as this one, must not be allowed to flourish. This school (and the other that you and I have voted on) is non-notable, has no listed well-known alumni, and seems to be just another minor educational facility. This is one step away from allowing every principal, teacher, or tutor to have their own wikipedia entry, which, I gather, is generally frowned upon. Jasonglchu 15:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Okay. I see somewhat where you're coming from, after reading Wikipedia:Schools. I still feel as though this article (and the others currently up for deletion) fails to meet the established criteria in that article, specifically that further NPOV information cannot be gathered. Jasonglchu 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:SCH in general recommends merging because these schools rarely seem to get deleted. Schools are public entities so it's very, very easy to acquire public neutral about them and present it in a neutral manner. For instance I added a link to the OFSTED report for one school and may do the same for this one. Schools appear in the local press, in political campaigns, and as premises for polling stations and the like.
  • And if this were to be merged,it should probably be merged to Richmond on Thames, which is the Local Education Authority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from, and it seems a good compromise. Jasonglchu 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:30, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on the local school authority. — RJH 17:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a PRESCHOOL, for crying out loud! --Carnildo 18:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know what you mean by a "pre-school." Children start school at age 4-5 (year zero) in the UK and are taught reading and arithmetic from the first day. it's a school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In the United States (and presumably some other countries) children are often sent to a preschool the year before public school begins. Such preschools are not public institutions and vary widely in quality and what material they cover, if any at all. Gamaliel 22:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Then this isn't a preschool. It's an infant school teaching the national syllabus, monitored by OFSTED and subject to quality control. We have nursery schools for children younger than four but mostly they're glorified childcare facilities. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will we see articles on day care centers next? Gamaliel 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. They don't call them the "formative years" for nothing. Unfocused 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely ridiculous to have an article on every single preschool in the world. How about every Kindercare while we're at it? RickK 22:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • That is highly unlikely due to the lack of active members of Wikipedia. We do not have 6.4 billion users. Celestianpower 22:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would say merge or keep. As I have said once or twice before, it's less intimidating to edit someone elses work than start afresh. Celestianpower 22:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Let's give it more than 30 days to grow. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it is verifiable and npov too Yuckfoo 23:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and describing it as a preschool is highly misleading. Kappa 23:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Rename to Richmond on Thames Local Education Authority and build a stong article at that page. Vegaswikian 05:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• All the kindergartens now, right? delete - Skysmith 08:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't misrepresent the situation. Kappa 08:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For years Wikipedians almost unanimously considered preschool and elementary schools equally non-encyclopedic, so just because a few relative newcomers want to turn Wikipedia into everything2.com, whether or not it's a preschool seems like picking nits. Niteowlneils 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry I had the impression that all wikipedians were equal, silly me. Kappa 20:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only point was that, the more familiar people are with Wikipedia, the more they value keeping the 'inclusion threshold' high, at least according to emperical evidence. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS I guess the other 'then versus now' point is that Wikipedia's current reputation is built on 4+ years of operating under a higher 'inclusion threshold' than has recently been put in place. I am just concerned what might happen to Wikipedia's credibility if we continue to cast the net ever wider, then wider, then wider, etc. ... Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Please explain the mechanism by which you believe wikipedia's credibility might be damaged. Kappa 07:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • It's rather an odd thing to say, I agree. Even taken at face value it's a little strange.
  • Niteowlneils, in his current user at least, only goes back a little more than a year, to February 2004. He's a bit of a newcomer himself.

That's correct, I only have 18-19,000 edits in about 15 months. Most recent knee-jerk 'keep' votes are coming from people with about 4-8 months here, or less. My 'my contributions' pages give most of the handful of IPs I've editted from. I have never editted under a different account. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Searching the deletion archives for 2003, I find no records of any deletion discussions relating to elementary schools. None. The earliest elementary/junior school deletion debate I can find is in May, 2004, barely a year ago. The result was deletion, A grand total of eight editors, including the nominator, were involved in the discussion.
  • The next elementary up for deletion was Meriwether Lewis Elementary School in July last year, just eleven months ago. A grand total of twelve editors were involved in that discussion and the result was delete but this was complicated by a copyright issue.
  • Dodd middle school, listed the very next day, barely scraped a result that the closer interpreted as "rough consensus [to delete] (10 delete, 5 keep, 2 anon votes)". Clearly there is no truth to any claim that there has been near unanimity on the question of elementary schools for years. Wikipedia simply hasn't been considering the issue for long enough for that to be true, and the figures, such as they exist, are far from suggestive of unanimity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD recordkeeping changed dramatically around 9 months ago (give or take--I don't have an exact date). Anyway, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find older VfD discussions. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I tracked deletion discussions back as far as 2003. The first deletion log page in the current format is:
    • Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2004_December_25
  • That is preceded by:
    • Wikipedia:Archived delete debates
  • which tracks deletion debates back in month-per-page format as far as July, 2004, then a page for May-June, 2004 and another for January-April 2004, preceded by:
    • Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003
  • All deletion discussions May 2004 and after are held in Wikipedia space in a page with the current format. Some April 2004 discussions are in template space, others in the current form. Prior to April 2004 discussions are stored on the talk page corresponding each article which is linked from the above archive page. Are there some deletion discussions that I missed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Quale 21:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - preschool or otherwise, it's NN Proto 11:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preschools and elementary schools are not encyclopedic, and any grade range school with only 14 displayed hits is most certainly not. And how is "Many children from Orleans Infants move on to St. Stephens School." "Verifiable"? Not from the hits I see. Niteowlneils 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What does "fourteen displayed hits" mean? Surely you're not relying on google to tell you all there is to know about a school! If an article contains unverifiable information, the solution to this problem is to remove the information. Deleting the article is not necessary in such cases. Could you explain why you think infant schools (this is not a preschool) are not encyclopedic? In what significant operational way do they differ from high schools, which also have teachers, pupils, sports teams, premises, curricula and community links? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don;t think high schools are encyclopedic, either, but at least most of those years are remembered by students--for most people earlier grades are mostly a blur. And, given that school attendence is mandatory in many countries, which particular school one attended isn't necessarily that formative over their entire lifetime. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infant schools have athletic teams that compete with other schools? Never seen that, but if it's true, no wonder modern youth are showing so many more signs of stress. Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, for the record, it may be apples and oranges, but I am bothered more by excessive microscopic fictional bits than schools, and even more by inclusion of 'current events'[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy] than either schools or fictional bits. Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • "Many children from Orleans Infants move on to St. Stephens School." This page from St. Stephen's verifies that Orleans Infants graduates have priority placement in the school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That page says "If {emphasis added} St. Stephen’s School is over-subscribed, priority will be given as follows:", then criteria number six is "Children at Orleans Infants School, with priority given first to those in public care, then on the grounds of proximity." That states policy, which gives zero information about what happens in reality--just some theoretical "if"s. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete any more of this stuff and the Random Page function would be unusable.  Grue  14:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's an interesting argument (though I question whether a random page function is more important than content). As a test, I hit random page fifty times. I got one school article. Clearly schools are not a problem for Wikipedia's random page function, even if one were to agree with the proposition that all school articles are "fluff". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand the idea of "unusable". What is the Random Page function for anyway? Kappa 16:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I used to use it to find cleanup candidates. Of course lots of school articles are in need of cleanup, so arguably only getting one school out of fifty clicks (and it was a fairly well written articles at that) is a BAD thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's there for finding something interesting that you otherwise won't find. If there would be a one-line substub for each preschool in the world like that one all useful content in Wikipedia would be outnumbered. People are wasting time on wikifying these articles, but no one reads them, because there's nothing to read. Everyone who has any relation to that school knows everything in that article already. Everyone other just doesn't care. What's the purpose of it's existance?  Grue  16:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You've made two statements for which you provide no evidence:
      1. "People are wasting time on wikifying these articles, but no one reads them, because there's nothing to read"
      2. "Everyone who has any relation to that school knows everything in that article already. Everyone other just doesn't care."
    • Once you get beyond these evidence-free statements I don't think there's a lot to the anti-school argument.
    • Schools are of intense interest to many people, particularly parents. The sheer amount of online information about each school in my country is quite formidable. Nearly every school is inspected once every five years and the inspection reports are online. This is an inherently encyclopedic piece of information. With schools on Wikipedia we can (and are in the process of) map every single US public school to the related school district and municipality. This enhances the articles on the municipalities themselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School has a history of nearly 100 years, undoubtedly notable. —RaD Man(talk) 17:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both one of my great-aunts and one of my great-great aunts lived more than 100 years--does that automatically make them notable/encyclopedic? Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per what Radman1 said -CunningLinguist 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sigh. I really wish I did not care so much about wikipedia, because then I could just sit back and laugh at the irony that all the trivial information being bandied about from pokemon to preschools will ultimately doom the project to a level of triviality approaching that of many of its articles. Indrian 03:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this another "random page" thing? Kappa 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Naufal Waffle

A 16 year old wannabe producer[20], vanity, delete--nixie 13:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur, fails WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another poseur. Jasonglchu 15:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable vanity. Tobycat 04:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bingo the clowno

falsh animation of no note, delete --nixie 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: A web animation; gets about 3900 google hits, approx. 10% of the total for "Badger Badger Badger". Notable? Meelar (talk) 13:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Never heard of it, but 3900 is a good number. Does this make it encyclopaedic? Jasonglchu 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: did you look at any of the Google results? Most of them are nonsensical word dumps in casino sites. "Bingo the anything-o" fills these pages.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of this, Delete. jglc | t | c 18:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the correction. Should have looked closer, but I figured the nonsensical wording would be unique. Meelar (talk) 18:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Tobycat 04:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. carmeld1 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge. Golbez 00:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Stronach

Does not meet the criteria for biographies, delete --nixie 13:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: full text is "Andrew Stronach is the only son of Frank Stronach, the Canadian auto parts magnate. While Andrew has only spent short amounts of time in the family auto part business, he shares his father's passion for horse breeding. He is recognized as one of the keenest analysts of horse bloodlines." Meelar (talk) 13:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Put information into Frank Stronach and/or Belinda Stronach and delete. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Frank Stronach (the redirect won't hurt). -- BD2412 ^talk 15:32, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not inherently notable. JamesBurns 07:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, merge with Frank Stronach if/when he deserves his own article. --YUL89YYZ 13:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. -GrantNeufeld 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable by himself. From Frank Stronach: He is married to Elfriede Sallmutter, also from Austria originally, and has two children: Belinda and Andrew. This little mention is the most that Andrew Stronach needs. Oh, and I'll probably remove the red links to Elfriede Sallmutter and Andrew Stronach from this sentence if Andrew gets deleted. --Deathphoenix 19:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Frank Stronach and redirect. - Ar 14:58, 2005 Jun 12 (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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Duli Yang Maha Mulia

Not in English, and probably not an article

• Abstain for now. Judging from What links here, this is the lyrics for the state anthem for the state of Selangor in Malaysia, which suggests some notability. I'd suggest putting it on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation, and returning here (with a signing account) if no Malay speaker steps up to the plate and fleshes out the article. Smerdis of Tlön 18:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid stub, confirmed stub. Smerdis of Tlön 18:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's the lyrics to a song, it should be transwikied to Wikisource (if there are no copyright problems) or deleted. --Carnildo 23:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a lyrics database. JamesBurns 07:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if translated, assuming Duli Yang Maha Mulia is indeed the title for the anthem of Selangor. The lyrics themselves should go to wikisource, but state anthems deserve articles. -- Jonel 19:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just flat out "keep" from me as it is now. -- Jonel 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing here but the lyrics. Are you proposing to keep an empty article? --Carnildo 20:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A stub essentially saying that is the state anthem of Selangor would be fine until someone put in more information. I don't want to convert it into that until I'm sure it's accurate though. -- Jonel 02:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • FWIW, the lyrics given are seven brief lines. If it can be confirmed that this is indeed the state anthem, these are the lyrics, and someone includes some sort of brief writeup about the song, I'm not sure that the Malay lyrics couldn't be kept here, or that it's extended source material that should go to Wikisource. I also don't see any realistic copyright issues. Smerdis of Tlön 04:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is common practice to include the lyrics of national anthems on Wikipedia: see Category:National anthems. That said, this page is particularly weak. It still should have gone to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English before being listed here. Physchim62 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Context and English translation now added. Our colleagues at ms: have verified that this is the state anthem of Selangor. Physchim62 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the state anthem of Selangor, Malaysia. Yosri 10:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Kappa 21:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Abdul Henderson

Marine with minor role in Farenheit 9/11, does not meet criteria for biographies. --nixie 13:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful into Fahrenheit 9/11 and delete. — RJH 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per RJH -- StopTheFiling 18:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep since there is no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

River Oaks Elementary School (Prince William County)

Unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 13:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well written, excellent stub. If not kept, merge to Prince William County Public Schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let me reiterate, Tony, simply because an article is well written, concise, or informative doesn't alter the fact that it is being written about something with no encyclopaedic value. Jasonglchu 15:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Okay. I see somewhat where you're coming from, after reading Wikipedia:Schools. I still feel as though this article (and the others currently up for deletion) fails to meet the established criteria in that article, specifically that further NPOV information cannot be gathered. Jasonglchu 15:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: in that case it can be merged to the school district, Prince William County Public Schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Fair enough. I could see how that would be both encyclopaedic and useful. Jasonglchu 16:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with local school district article. — RJH 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:38, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a school. Hey, that's wonderful, but we don't provide listings and indexes of all of any thing in the world, unless the things in their particulars are worthy of discussion, and especially not as separate articles. There is no point in "every church" or "every restaurant" or "every mall" or "every factory," and not in "every school," either. If people want us to replace the county records office, the Yellow Pages, and the national records, then they're not waning us to remain an encyclopedia. Geogre 17:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do I detect a glimmer of a merge vote there? On the idea that we're not Yellow Pages or whatnot, indeed we're not. I think we can do a much better job, presenting encyclopedic and neutral information rather than commercial information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:31, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generic stub. Gamaliel 20:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Considering the number of schools in its district, it's already getting too large for each to have a similar sized brief there... and this will be expanded if left as a stub. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. Unfocused 20:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 22:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Excellent start of the article. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep because it is verifiable and neutral no need to erase this Yuckfoo 23:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason not to have an article on every school. CalJW 05:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Prince William County Public Schools and delete - Skysmith 08:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't see the necessity of applying notability to schools. Kappa 21:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Prince William County Public Schools and delete - and why is everybody repeating themselves once more... :( Radiant_>|< 10:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN Proto 11:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just keep all the NPOV verifiable schoolcruft. --Barfooz (talk) 03:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 17:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable -CunningLinguist 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its a shame really. Wikipedia would be well on its way to being a good encyclopedia if not for trivia like this. Indrian 03:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I can see how this article makes it harder for random page users to find slightly more important ones, but eventually they'll figure out how to use wikilinks or the search box. Kappa 21:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ali Shah Timuri

Owner of a mini cab company, doesn't meet biography criteria. --nixie 13:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Tobycat 04:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Owner of a big and well-established minicab company. Clearly notable enough. Grace Note 04:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encylopedic, not verifiable and reads like a vanity page. Owning a cab company is not enough in my opinion, so it may also be not notable. Vegaswikian 05:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 05:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 05:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arland D. Williams Jr. Elementary School

An article about a primary school so notable most of it is about a plane crash. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article does look a bit unbalanced and could benefit from a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with a local school district article. Much of the content focuses on Arland D. Williams Jr., and is redundant with that article. — RJH 17:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school has a story to tell, although as Tony says, it can use a clean up. DS1953 17:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The school does not have a story to tell. A person who happened to live in the same town as the school has a story to tell. --Carnildo 18:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keepity and cleanup. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's already an article on Williams. Without the duplicate material this is a generic stub. Gamaliel 20:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. "Needs a cleanup" isn't a valid reason to delete. Unfocused 20:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just because somebody may be of questionable notability doesn't mean that everything named for them is notable. RickK 22:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up by shortening the reference to Mr. Williams. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but it should be cleaned up too Yuckfoo 23:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We should have an article on every school CalJW 05:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Matton. Vegaswikian 05:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Until there is enough to say about an individual school for it to merit its own article (which is NOT the case here) MERGE into an article on its parent school district. Dogmatically voting to keep as an independent article based on the generic subject without regard to the state of the actual content is really revolting. If all those who claim to care so much about schools would actually spend time structuring these bland posts into useful content, none of these would be placed on VfD in the first place. Postdlf 06:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did you check to see whether those voting keep had done any school editing? I don't think you did. I have just looked at every keep voter on this discussion, and failed to find a single one who does not engage in school article cleanup. You're putting the cart before the horse in any case; WP:SCH recommends merge as an alternative to listing deletion, and this is likely to be far, far more effective because no discussion is involved, you just do it and move on. If all those listing for deletion would just carry out that minimal act of maintenance we wouldn't need to have *any* schools listed on VfD. And that would be a good thing. It seems that May VfD closings are heading for 100% keep, and I really don't expect June VfD closings to be any different. Wikipedia doesn't like to delete school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with your last comment—I wish people would just merge these useless stubs rather than listing them for deletion. As to your first comment, my apologies to those who have actually cleaned up school articles, but I so very rarely see it happen during a VfD discussion (if ever). The typical story is that the "article," containing little more than an address, is listed for deletion and a parade of generic "keep" votes appear that bear no specific relationship to the content of the "article," which remains just as pathetic at the close of the discussion. More people would vote "keep" if there was actually something worth keeping when they're considering their votes. Postdlf 16:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • To a large extent, the specific content of the article is not relevant to the deletion. The article is being put up for deletion due to a "lack of notability." This is inherant in the topic, not the content of the article. Either the topic is notable or it is not, regardless of the article's content, or so it seems to me. If nominators are here to contest the notability of schools, they can expect repetative keep votes as well as repetative delete votes, because most every nomination is the same debate. If nominators want articles improved, merge them or send them to cleanup. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:41, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
        • Yes. It's all in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If only people would read and act on it, we'd see fewer VfD listings that end in "keep" or "no consensus" or "merge" as schools seem to do 98% of the time (and I really *mean* 98%!) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you're being unfair. I think so many people are voting keep (and there do seem to be a lot of them) precisely because the school articles are often cleaned up. You mean you really think more people would vote keep? I'm surprised at the idea! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mattoon, Illinois unless expanded. If the school is notable it is only on a local level. I will bite both the deletionist and inclusionist camp here.
  1. Biting the deletionists: You know (or should know) that articles about schools will always be kept. So there is not much point in nominating them just so you can make your delete votes. Being bold and merging this immediatetely requires only two edits, as opposed to the three required for nominating this for deletion.
  2. Biting the inclusionists: Er... Postdlf has already done this, I concur with a lot of what he says here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
     • Okay, fine. See my reply. I do resent the implication that someone who doesn't agree with deletion of an article should do cleanup on it (VfD is not, or should not be, cleanup) but as it happens those whom you castigate here do not deserve it because they have all cleaned up school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
       • I'm not trying to bite very hard. Sorry if you were offended, and I have think your efforts with school articles are admirable. :-) But I think that very short two-liners might as well be merged, and then unmerged later if someone wants to expand it, and my agreement with Postdlf was that it was not neccesary to vote an outright "keep" on twoliners. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - schools are generally not notable. Cedars 08:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mattoon, Illinois and delete - Skysmith 08:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 21:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for once we have a notable school~! Proto 11:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep quite notable school -CunningLinguist 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh well, at least all these trivial articles will provide an object lesson on how an internet project can become hopelessly bogged down in trivia when a more serious wiki-style encyclopedia of knowledge comes along. Indrian 03:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• changing Keep vote to Neutral. I am the original author of this article, and I need to confess that I did not follow the WP:SCH guidelines. I was working on the article about the plane crash the school's namesake was involved with. As school articles are not my forte, I need to abstain, and will be satisfied with better judgement of others in this matter. Vaoverland 04:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andre Ardiantoro Muliana

Resumecruft, this guy can use photoshop and is a webmaster, Delete--nixie 13:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Edit: move to user page Aecis 14:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete: This user has contributed nothing to the en.wikipedia since his registration (presumably sometime around 17:40, 30 May 2005) except for a handful of comments on the New User Log, Alphabetical List of Wikipedians, the list of Indonesian Wikipedians, and this vanity page. jglc | t | c 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Please remove this page now. It serves no purpose. William Flowers 13:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St. Stephen's School, Twickenham

Non-notable primary school. Dunc|☺ 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This nomination has no corresponding vfd template on the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It does now. Also, see the VfD entry for Orleans Infant School. Jasonglchu 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia should cover local education by including verifiable information such as this. Kappa 15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Kappa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an area schools article. — RJH 17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:37, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing there. We are not the Yellow Pages, and substubs that have "school" in their title are not inherently better than those that have "Digimon" in their title. If there's nothing to say, then it doesn't matter if it's unsaid about an indistinguishable school or trading card. If we're out to preserve "local information," then let's merge all these to geo articles. Geogre 17:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Funny, you say there's nothing there but I get the school's OFSTED inspection report giving a detailed breakdown of the school's performance. Which one of us is right? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Comment. At this point, with yet another school looking to be heading towards a majority to keep, I usually mention what a good bit of advice is contained in WP:SCH. A person who has read it need never take a school article through VfD again. Just be bold. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless substub. Gamaliel 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. Unfocused 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 22:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it does not need to be erased Yuckfoo 23:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Keep this and keep all articles that meet the criteria laid out in WP:SCH. Life's far too short to waste on voting on every single school article someone places on VfD just because in their view schools are not important enough for their encyclopaedia. Given the opposition to deleting schools, it should be clear that there is absolutely no consensus for deleting any on the basis of "notability". Can we not just have subscription lists where we vote keep or delete once and for all and avoid this eternal nonsense? Grace Note 23:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. CalJW 05:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Vegaswikian 05:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Twickenham and delete - Skysmith 08:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Twickenham and delete - Radiant_>|< 10:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable - wikipedia is not toilet paper Proto 11:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No Wikipedia is not toilet paper, in fact, its not a paper encyclopedia of any kind. We therefore have room to accomodate articles such as this. -CunningLinguist 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah, I see now. Wikipedia has a large amount of space, so we can just ignore all standards. As long as a select few of the articles are good (say, one hundred thousand), several hundred thousand more are medicore, and several million more are just plain bad, an impartial observer would think the one hundred thousand good ones illustrate the level of quality on wikipedia despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And here I thought that falling in to the trap of doing something just becasue one can was going to hurt wikipedia in the long run. My aplogies. Indrian 04:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I just don't see where the urgency is to delete articles because you think they're "bad". Make them good! Grace Note 04:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont see how this article "ignores all standards" at all. As Grace Note just noted, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If the majority of the articles are "bad" it is solely because they have yet to be worked on. Just because an article is not in a highly-polished finished form does not mean it merits deletion. Also, I was not arguing that we should keep this article "just because we can". I was merely stating that any argument that we should not keep this article because of space constraints is invalid. Therefore I was arguing that we should keep the article because we (as this VfD vote has more or less proven) as a community beleive it should stay AND because we can logistically have it stay. -CunningLinguist 07:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A rational and impartial observer would measure wikipedia by the total amount and accessibility of information. Deleting useful but below average article just to make a better impression on random page users is not an honest way to represent wikipedia. Kappa 21:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I think that a rational and impartial observer would measure wikipedia by the total amount of encyclopedic information. If the majority of wikipedia articles are not encyclopedic, then it will not be well thought of as an encyclopedia. There is a faction here that believes an encyclopedia should include every scrap of information in that ever has existed. This is not the point of wikipedia, otherwise, we would not have a list of what wikipedia is not. As wikipedia is not paper, it can include much that a paper encyclopedia cannot, but the information still needs to be encyclopedic. Indrian 03:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • We can differ on whether school articles are generally encyclopedic, and on whether a given school article is encyclopedic. I think it's readily apparent that Wikipedia very rarely regards school articles as irretrievably unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced that rational and impartial observers on the whole spend their days in "measuring" Wikipedia. Some might even be quite impressed to find a short, informative article on even the most banal of things. Personally, I am deeply impressed at the quality of our breadth of coverage. Yes, there are rubbish short articles, but so very many good ones too. And I take a delicious pleasure in making the former into the latter where I can. Grace Note 04:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Very well said Grace Note, I completely agree. I personally find an amazing part of Wikipedia to be when I find articles that a traditional encyclopedia would not cover, such as say on pop culture info. No we should not just cover any scrap of information imaginable but at the same time, this is not just any other old encyclopedia, I think we are trying to go above and beyond that. -CunningLinguist 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orleans Park School

No evidence of notability. Just another crap article about a school Dunc|☺ 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Another good school stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's no consensus that schools need to be specially "notable". Kappa 15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an area schools article. Will these school delete attempts ever end? — RJH 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into an area schools article. NeoJustin 17:32, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "Special" notability is one thing. Being definable for any characteristics whatever that make it different from a donut shop (building with kids in it) would be nice. Having a character, a history, or anything else that demonstrates that this is an entity that has a unique place would be a real bonus. Geogre 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - reasonable stub. DS1953 17:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless substub. Gamaliel 20:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. Unfocused 20:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 22:16, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV stub. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just another crap nomination. CalJW 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Twickenham. For those who rely on WP:SCH as a justification you should really read WP:SCH#Method_for_creating_school_articles and you would see that articles like this are not how it should be done. Vegaswikian 05:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say I agree with it if I hadn't read it. That may be how it should be done but it isn't how it was done in this case. If someone wants to merge it, I won't quarrel but I also don't advocate it. It's perfectly valid as an expandable stub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Twickenham and delete - Skysmith 08:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Twickenham and delete. Radiant_>|< 10:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'll vote to delete every crap fluff article about schools until there's an article on every supermarket, pub, McDonalds and street. And for the love of God I pray that never happens. Proto 11:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on keeping school articles on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 22:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools belong on Wikipedia. -CunningLinguist 16:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is quite a depressing place these days. A noble attempt at creating an interactive, informative, encyclopedia being slowly ruined because an apparent majority of users equate random trivia with knowledge and virtually unlimited capactiy as a call to elmintate all standards. I hope wikipedia can correct itself, but if it does not, I hope the next project that attemps to realize this goal does a better job. Indrian 04:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article makes wikipedia more informative, and deleting it hardly makes it more interactive. I agree that wikipedia is a depressing place, but I'm determined to stick with it and preserve as much value as possible. Kappa 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As am I. I find it unfortunate that we disagree so fundamentally, but I realize that you are doing what you think is best. I assure you, my motives are just as noble. Indrian 03:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it depresses me most that we keep having this pointless debate Yuckfoo 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Law at work

Blatent advertising. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 13:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. - DS1953 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Adverts go to Wiki-Hell! -- BD2412 ^talk 15:25, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: "Law at Work is a forward thinking organisation delivering employment-related legal services in a way that combines the strengths of a traditional legal practice with the flexibility of a consultancy model of delivery." I submit this sentence meets the criteria for patent nonsense. Would you want your lawyer to write like that? Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. A surprising amount of marketing-speak meets that criteria. --Carnildo 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't Patent nonsense, but it is blatant advertising. Too bad the CSD criteria doesn't list spam as a CSD. SWAdair | Talk 05:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Babson Stock Exchange

Virtual stock exchange run as a college project, delete --nixie 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Poorly wikified, also blatantly promotional. Delete Jasonglchu 15:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete school project promo. JamesBurns 07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Middlesex school

School substub, (not in Middlesex). Pity it couldn't teach its students how to capitalise proper names. Dunc|☺ 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Not a substub, correctly identifies school name, location, school type and grades taught. Does so concisely and that is no crime. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Doesn't matter how well the article's written, it's still unworthy of inclusion. Jasonglchu 15:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concise, and wikipedia should cover education as well as it can. Kappa 15:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems to fail to meet the established criteria, in that I can't find NPOV info on it. Jasonglchu 15:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll agree with "concise" at least... to put it mildly! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-verifiable. Proto 15:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Proto says it's not verifiable and Jasongichu says he can't find NPOV information on it. Googling on Middlesex-School concord, I find Cross country racing records compiled by NEPSTA, driving directions by Tabor Academy, AISNE information (Independent schools organisation), and so on. There's plenty of stuff if you look. This is a real school, its existence and status as an independent is verifiable, and getting neutral information can be done the same way we usually research articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: All right, you win on this one - I'll go along with it. I still maintain that the Orleans Infants' School, and the one in Twickenham, should be Merged. Jasonglchu 17:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is that a keep vote? I don't close school VfD's (for obvious reasons) but when I do close VfDs I like to be sure. Are you changing your vote or is it still del? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into a school district page. — RJH 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a school. What makes this box of youth different from all other boxes of students? When did Wikipedia become the Yellow Pages? No notability whatever, no character, no thing to write about. Geogre 17:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:35, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good to see some more schools on VFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:39, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Substub. Gamaliel 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schoolcruft. RickK 22:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination cruft. Please do something that will benefit Wikipedia instead. CalJW 05:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Concord, Massachusetts per WP:SCH. Vegaswikian 05:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • With the notable added, it would be more difficult to merge this cleanly. So I'm changing my vote to Keep and Cleanup the article as it now stands it is only a boarderline stub in my opinon and the stub template may no longer be required. Vegaswikian 22:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Concord, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 08:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is a one-liner. Merge with Concord, Massachusetts. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep based on the alumni list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Well Kappa just uncovered a whole slew of prominent alumni, including the current governor of New Mexico, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a mayor of Philadelphia. I guess that makes this article deletion-proof. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Excellent stub with a truckload of notable alumni. —RaD Man (talk) 22:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep highly notable -CunningLinguist 16:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Highly notable" is it? I wonder how all these users have heard of all these places and know enough about them to make this call. They must all know these places from personal experience, since the stubs on wikipedia do not give enoguh information to establish notability. Either they know about these places from their own life experience, or they are making a judgement call without any information at all. An encyclopedia created by those who reach decisions without proper research, sounds a bit dodgy to me. Indrian 04:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The campus was designed by Olmsted Brothers, and Peabody and Stearns were the architects used for the main buildings.... a National Scholarship Program for the school, the first of its kind for a secondary school"... Sounds pretty notable to me, even though wikipedia should have the minimum possible requirement of "notability" for inclusion. Kappa 20:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good enough for an article PeregrineAY 17:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• keep please this is more an article than a stub Yuckfoo 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Now, the Bayonne Board of Education article has virtually no content, so I will call this a merge with that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robinson School

More primary school cruft. Dunc|☺ 14:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Primary schools are not normally notable. Proto 14:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good stub, verifiable, no reason to delete. Kappa 15:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect into Bayonne Board of Education unless it is expanded. — RJH 17:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Added a bit of the school's history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: 4 walls and students, nothing to set it apart from other institutions. Geogre 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Proto and Geogre. NeoJustin 17:34, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generic stub. Gamaliel 20:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. Unfocused 20:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schoolcruft. RickK 22:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete primary schools--nixie 23:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please the article is off to a good start Yuckfoo 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At least until the re-opened discussion on schools comes to consensus. --M412k 00:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. schools do have a place here, and this one has been around almost a century.--Aristocratac 02:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please do something useful instead. CalJW 05:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can think of nothing more useful than creating a high quality encyclopedia through the creation of quality articles, the improvement of articles on worthy subjects, and the elimination of trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia. I am sorry that you and I seem to share different goals. I want to create a worthy product for consumption. Indrian 04:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Bayonne Board of Education as stated in WP:SCH. Vegaswikian 05:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Bayonne Board of Education and delete - Skysmith 08:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 21:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:10, Jun 10, 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 Vince Lombardi. No reason why not. Golbez 00:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Marie Lombardi

This is the widow of someone notable. That is the only thing said about her here, and I fear she isn´t notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry on her own right. Aecis 13:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: She appears to have been active in charity shortly after his death, but on-line resources are slim. I am undecided as to delete or keep. Wikibofh 15:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sub-stub. — Phil Welch 00:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 00:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

50 Pence

Utterly non-notable garbage. Delete. Proto 14:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete apparently a spoof song, and that's it. This one is clearly no Weird Al. Wikibofh 15:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as re-written I think it's a small but notable article. Changing my vote accordingly. Wikibofh 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a notable spoof, "in da pub" gets 4,110 google hits [21] and received airplay on BBC Radio 1 [22] Kappa 15:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I definitely remember this spoof. It's a worthwhile one and, while kind of goofy, achieved enough notoriety to warrant inclusion. Jasonglchu 15:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable but needs a rewrite to remove POV. 23skidoo 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I can handle that. Jasonglchu 16:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Done. I think it's slightly less colloquial and also more npov now. Feedback would be appreciated, if you feel it's still not up-to-standard. Jasonglchu 16:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, I think. No listing for either 50 Pence or Get Rich or Claim Benefit at either artistdirect or allmusic. A Google search for "50 Pence" "Get Rich or Claim Benefit" returns 67 unique hits. Nothing at amazon. RickK 22:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a MUSIC entry, it's an internet meme/fad. jglc | t | c 23:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Where in the article is there a single mention that this is an Internet meme? RickK 21:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: As an internet meme, 67 unique hits doesn't really provide notability Proto 08:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I got 4040 Google hits for "in da pub." Tim Ivorson 22:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Most definately. Celestianpower 22:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable - fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 07:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Which guidelines? jglc | t | c 18:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:MUSIC. RickK 19:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Rick, let me remind you again - this is as much a music entry as AYBABTU is a video game entry; which it is not. AYBABTU is a pop culture figure that happened to have its source within a video game - its notability does not rise from Zero Wing, but rather for the internet phenomenon that came out of it. jglc | t | c 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Ivorson 08:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to British Fifty Pence coin. Dunc|☺ 09:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to 50 Cent. — Phil Welch 00:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, or in the alternative, merge. Marginally notable. Alai 20:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it should be on its own, not merged with 50 Cent or redirected to 50p coin or whatever, as this is quite notable. secfan 13:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly good article about a remarkable parodist, which has little to do with the 50 pence coin.Ratiocinate 03:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 00:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Granville Mall

Tagged by Monkeyman at 2005 Jun 4, but not listed here. no vote.--Nabla 14:45, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep and expand Granville Mall is a pretty big part of vancouver being situated on granville island... either keep or merge with granville island. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 15:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but major expansion needed, including the addition of an introduction. There is precedent for notable areas getting their own articles. However I disagree with Sasquatch's suggestion of merging with Granville Island as these are two different parts of Vancouver. This article refers to a section of Granville Street a couple miles north of the island. 23skidoo 16:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. Needs expansion. - Longhair | Talk 17:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An interesting conclusion to draw when the article contains no information of note, and none at all that is verifiable. Indrian 04:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've categorised it. CalJW 05:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Granville Island, or delete. Article has no meaningful content; "On a weekday, the Granville Mall is used by Over 1,900 buses" is not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 10:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 20:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 BOTH. -Splash 20:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Dsoundzand Sam downie

Relisting - seems to have been blanked by anon and lost process, no vote --Doc (?) 13:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Only comes up with 155 hits on google, mostly self promotion on other websites. Also, see Sam downie for more of the same. Not sure its a speedy so i'm putting both pages up on VfD. Nominator abstains due to lack of information in this subject. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 14:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I would have voted speedy under A3, just links to somewhere else. Wikibofh 15:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Frjwoolley 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no apparent reason to keep it. Paul 05:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

G-BVTF

This is an article about a registration mark used on one not-particularly-notable aircraft. Please tell me we don't want to set the precendent of including articles like this. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also many dozens of similar articles by the same author.

• Comment: I've added VfD notices to all of them and directed the discussion and voting here. --Xcali 22:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Entire list

1. D-ANFH
2. EI-CDH
3. G-BLDE
4. PK-RII
5. 4X-BAC
6. G-BGDC
7. CC-CHR
8. ZS-SIO
9. G-BGDF
10. N902PG
11. N954PG
12. LV-ZYG
13. G-BGYL
14. PH-MCV
15. 5Y-QQQ
16. TC-OAK
17. D-ALAI
18. PH-KZP
19. G-BVTF
20. PH-BDN

• Delete all of them. --Xcali 15:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that individual articles for individual aircraft are a bad idea although I wouldn't rule them out as a class - G-MEAN, the Interceptor's helicopter is potentially deserving of an article, for instance. David | Talk 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My god, there's an article on Interceptor? I remember that. I disagree with the phrase "It was received well critically and by viewers", which seems very much unlike my own recollection; it was awful, everybody hated it, it was a joke, it flopped terribly. Er, whilst I'm at it, delete G-BVTF. Make it go, make it go away.-Ashley Pomeroy
    • I liked it. Yes, Annabel Croft was rubbish but Sean O'Kane was good, and the series didn't flop: it got reasonable ratings but became a casualty of internal ITV politics. There was quite a fuss in March 1990 when its cancellation was announced. David | Talk 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, however, I would like to see an article on G-BOAC. Bollar 15:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've got to disagree with you on that. Why is G-BOAC any more significant than other aircraft of its class? It might deserve a mention under Concorde. --Xcali 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I can think of a couple of reasons -- First off, as the second Concorde built and one of the test aircraft, holding several records, it is more notable than the remaining fleet. Wikipedia has entries on other notable aircraft of a series, such as China Clipper. If BOAC had been prescient enough to name their fleet, we'd probably make an entry here using the aircraft's name instead of registration and I doubt the entry would be questioned. Second, BOAC has nmemonic value, and it's one of the few registration numbers I can associate with a notable plane. Bollar 16:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all of them. Obsessive detail. He should create his own website. --Red King 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. We have quite a few articles on individual noteworthy aircraft, but none of these can be described that way... --Rlandmann 01:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. I have to agree, the individual generic 737-200s and 737-300s are all so identical to each other that it is meaningless to make separate articles on each indivisual airplane. This is in contrast to cruise ships which are usually built individually (or in small series, and not by the hundred). I suggest that if an airlines fleetlist can be found, that an external link to it be placed on each airliners article, in that way readers can easily access information about individual planes if that's what they want. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• D-LEET. Radiant_>|< 10:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Haiti. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caco

• Merge. Can't tell what this page is supposed to be.--Ian Pitchford 21:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Changed vote to merge with Haiti --Ian Pitchford 14:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless there's a better name for it. You might try a {{cleanup-context}} tag in cases like this. Kappa 16:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Haiti, which already contains this information. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see it in Haiti. Kappa 23:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Haiti, is mentioned in the article withour context so this would be useful there --nixie 01:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Haiti then delete. JamesBurns 07:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Armegh

Believe this "placename" to be a fabrication and vandalism Djegan 15:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Typo for Armagh. David | Talk 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Couch gag

This article clearly needs a rewrite, but it isn't really notable enough to have its own article, since it is already covered in The Simpsons Sonic Mew 16:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hardly article-worthy, not to mention that it is badly titled and unwikified and everything you don't want in an article. -- AlexR 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything that needs to be said in this is already said in The Simpsons, as stated by Sonic Mew. Jasonglchu 17:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. What would be next, description of hair of Simpsons? This was intended as serious encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Or redirect. DJ Clayworth 21:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DS1953 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Shame! Most definitely redirect to existing Simpsons couch gag article. "Couch gag" is an established term, and they are one of the most interesting recurring gags in the show. sjorford →•← 23:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable non encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Simpsons couch gag. carmeld1 11:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NeoJustin 18:07, June 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Gregory Cochran. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Pathogenic theory of homosexuality

One person's untested speculation does not constitute a scientific theory and does not warrant an article in an encyclopedia. If kept at all, it should be mentioned in the article about the one who promulgates this hypothesis, Gregory Cochran. Citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory'. --Tabor 16:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Gregory Cochran is very well known scientist, with articles in the Economist about him, including his theory on [high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past]. In stead of censoring this issue, allow the article's facts and arguements to be marshaled in the discussion page. Articles on the Pathogenic theory of homosexuality An Evolutionary Look at Human Homosexuality and here by Harvard professor Caleb Crain originally published in Out magazine, August 1999, pp. 46–49. 'Gay Germ'. If Out magazine can air this theory, I'm sure Wikipedia can too. Side note: perhaps it would be a good idea to take 5 seconds and research the issue on Google instead of, in my opinion, an unneeded VfD debate. --ShaunMacPherson 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The book The Puzzle. Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of male homosexuality., notes found here lists Gregory Cochran as a source of further reading. As much as people may not want this theory to exist it does and is not Wikipedia's job to censor ideas which appear mainstream enough to be in the economist, in books like the one above.
• The 'reliable sources' you cite are a blog and a personal web page. Gregory Cochran is a physicist. Caleb Crain is a writer (not a professor, not affiliate with Harvard) with a degree in English who says of his blog at harvard.edu: I started this blog mostly because it was free. Harvard Law School, which I didn't attend, was offering to host blogs by anyone with a harvard.edu address. Google hits just show other people reporting that Gregory Cochran has said something provocative. Also, please review Scientific_theory#Characteristics before characterizing something as a scientific theory. --Tabor 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638 [high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past] metions the theory as well, it's out there as a theory, it's not our job at Wikipedia to surpress these theories but to describe them in a NPOV fashion. If the article was in Out magazine that means it is 'main stream', main stream enough that it isn't the sole ravings of one unknown scientist, but a well respected scientist - and the theory has been around since at least 1999. Let's do some research and put it into the article instead of deleting it 30 minutes after it was created. --ShaunMacPherson 17:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Again, all that article has to say about this topic is once sentence that says, And more controversially still, he has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection. At most, that belongs in the Gregory Cochran article. Out magazine recently reported that Elizabeth Taylor's dog Sugar recently passed on -- appearing in Out magazine does not inherently make something worth documenting on Wikipedia. Even the primary source you cite (article from Out says): It is worth repeating that there is no evidence for a gay germ yet. and At this point, there is only speculation pitted against speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for putting forward rampant speculation as legitimate scientific theory (which requires that a conjecture be tested and shown to hold true to the empirical evidence, among other things). --Tabor 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Then say in the article it is 'rampant speculation', if indeed you can find such a quote. So far there are a number (3?) of mainstream sources I've quoted that talk about this issue, be it a theory or conjecture or however you wish to classify this concept. How many sources do you want from your statement "citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory'", there are a variety of theories that are wrong, and controversial yet if they are in magazines and come from known scientists then it seems to me it has a place on Wikipedia. Raise objections with the article in the article itself. --ShaunMacPherson 17:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:NOR. Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to "votes for deletion" (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out. --Tabor 17:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to be wrong, we'll take it one point at a time. You said "and ideas stemming from one individual". But it doesnt stem from one individual but at least two: "Paul W. Ewald (1), a biology professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts, and Gregory Cochran (2), an independent physicist in Albuquerque". You quoted "individual who is not an authority", but they are authorities, one is a biology professor and the other is an indepentnt physicist who is known (same source). --ShaunMacPherson 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Did you miss or from a small group of such individuals? --Tabor 18:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Did you see what a neologism was? It is a coined word, the idea that germs cause homosexuality doesnt seem to be a neologism, and if you'd like to verify (which you should have done before putting it up on vfd) that this idea only comes from one person (it doesnt) and they are not authorities (they seem to be) then please present your citations. --ShaunMacPherson 18:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• RE: "it seems to me it has a place on Wikipedia" ... sure, the place would be Gregory Cochran, not a separate article with a POV title that presupposes homosexuality is pathological and that promotes it to the level of a theory. --Tabor 18:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hopefully you've read the gay germ article entirely, since you've quoted from it at least once so far, and noticed at the start of the second paragraph: Paul W. Ewald, a biology professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts, and Gregory Cochran, an independent physicist in Albuquerque which indicates two people, why should this theory go into one person's page (Gregory Cochran) and not the other? Perhaps you advocate this idea be placed in multiple articles of individuals across Wikipedia articles for those who support or comment on this theory? ShaunMacPherson 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)-- 18:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, can you tell me what Ewald has said about it? --Tabor 18:23, 8 Jun 2005

• Since you are the one putting up the article 30 minutes after it was created, and I'm sure with good reason, then the onus seems to be on you to justify why you want to delete it. I welcome your input and research to justify deleteing it. Since you say "One person's untested speculation" and it is at least two, and "Citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory', and I've given 3 citations perhaps you were a bit hasty in putting this up for vfd since it seems both reasons you gave for doing so are wrong. --ShaunMacPherson 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Delete unverifiable junk. Shaun's suggestion that the pros and cons of the supposed theory be debated on the article's talk page is contrary to WP policy. Maybe Gregory Cochran should be VfD'd too.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• At least two scientists (and professor) disagree with you, Paul W. Ewald and Gregory Cochran here. Since there are multiple links to entries from reputible sources (do you object to TheEconomist?) then it isnt unverifable junk. As for deleting the article on Gregory Cochran, what is the basis of this suggestion? --ShaunMacPherson 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. So this guy's saying that homosexuality is a disease, or is he saying that the chances of becoming a homosexual are affected by exposure to certain pathogens (disease-causing agents like bacteria and viruses)? Either way, it sounds like something that you'd hear from a person with an anti-gay POV. I don't think we need this in Wikipedia, thank you.--Chanting Fox 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It is from more than one person, Tabor's characterization that this is "One person's untested speculation" is incorrect as Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the idea. Perhaps more people do as well, not much research could be done since it was put up on VfD only 30 minutes after creation.

• Keep Its a real "theory" although the proper term is probably hypothesis, this is a real person, who is really listened to by real people, thus it is encyclopedic to keep these ideas here even if the community at large thinks they are ludicrous. This is again, abuse of the VfD. Clean up, Move, and plain old editing are more than enough to save this article from POV or Junk status. Also, try to avoid turning the VfD into a personal convseration please?--Tznkai 18:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Firstly, I think that what this Gregory Cochran has been promulgating is utter rubbish. But that is irrelevant. If this theory is, as Tabor has said, the unverifiable ramblings of a small group of men, it has no place on Wikipedia, so then my vote would be delete. But if it is a more less established scientific theory, I would vote keep and send to cleanup. Oh, and Shaun, although your defense of this article is inspiring, toning down your defense won't do you any harm. Aecis 18:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree it needs a lot of cleanup, the article was put up only 30 minutes after it was created. I really never saw anthing quite like it <sigh> :o). Please help, especially with the wording (The mob that follows me around takes care of my spelling :).--ShaunMacPherson 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Like everything else it has to be NPOV but I don't think that the solution is to keep anyone from explaining the theories, however offbeat they may seem to the average reader, if there is some support for the theory. Quashing it immediately after someone tries to work on it is not a reasonable thing to do IMO (unlike what we do to vanity, spam or some of the other dreck we see here). DS1953 19:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If we are going to assert support for the theory, could someone please provide at least one source that meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Science_and_Medicine? --Tabor 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• It is from more than one person, Tabor's characterization that this is "One person's untested speculation" is incorrect as Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the idea. Perhaps more people do as well, not much research could be done since it was put up on VfD only 30 minutes after creation. --ShaunMacPherson 18:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that this has been put up on VfD doesn't mean that no research or no edits are possible, Shaun. It's what happened to Upton, Warwickshire, and those edits turned the article from a certain delete into a certain keep. It just means that those edits might turn out to have been in vain. Aecis 18:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ewald is evidently quite careful about what he says on the topic; I don't know that "support" would be quite the word. From your own source: In a carefully worded e-mail, Ewald, for his part, asserts only that "the argument about infectious causation of homosexuality is a feasible hypothesis and should be treated as such—no more and no less." Untested hypotheses are not Wikipedia material unless they are newsworthy in their own right, such as cold fusion. If other editors believe that a single sentence in the Economist reporting what someone has "suggested" and an article in Out magazine constitute sufficient newsworthiness to overcome the lack of any peer-reviewed scientific publications, so be it. I personally have no objection to a Gregory Cochran article, and think that where this belongs. --Tabor 19:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • While I would be the first to agree that the germ theory has about as much scientitic credentials as GWB, this is parable to the Intelligent Design theory. While less known than ID, it is equally rejected by science, but still equally notable, IMO. Flaged as a stub, plenty of time for it to improve with an accurate and complete discussion about its merits and considerable flaws--Tznkai 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Equally as notable as intellingent design? Are you serious? --Tabor 22:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to subsection at Homophobia, after the level of reporting has been raised. --Wetman 19:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Goofy, perhaps offensive, theory - but seems to be notable enough. Could benefit from information about scholarly criticisms and rejections, but that is a matter for clean-up. --Doc (?) 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • One problem is that if an eccentric notion is not widely publicised and not widely believed, as well as being far outside what is established in mainstream science, no scientist is going to bother criticizing or rejecting it; no one is going to give it a second thought, because no credible scientific source is going to publish it. --Tabor 22:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The book The Puzzle. Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of male homosexuality., notes found here lists Gregory Cochran as a source of further reading. As much as people may not want this theory to exist it does and is not Wikipedia's job to censor ideas which appear mainstream enough to be in the economist, in books like the one above. --ShaunMacPherson 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Noone in here is saying that it should be deleted because it's not politically correct. The issue is whether or not this topic is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. We can't just include every brainfart simply because it exists. And I'm still not sure whether this is notable enough. But then again, YMMV. Aecis 10:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a web page about the book that cites Gregory Cochran for further reading. Someone's web page about the book, not the book. In fact the same personal web site you have already cited. As with the blogger you mistook for a Harvard professor, please try to examine sources carefully and not distort the origin of the information. --Tabor 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If you say so, although I'm not sure what quality of research you expect when you put up articles for deletion 5 minutes after the topic was started. If you want more information than research it *before* putting it up for deletion, thanks. --ShaunMacPherson 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • You could also have researched the theory further and for instance have written the article in Word before posting it here. Noone is forced to come up with an article out of the blue. The quality of your research is not determined by the time between the start of the topic and the nomination for deletion. To paraphrase you: if you want us to know more about the topic, then research it *before* creating the article. Aecis 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Gregory Cochran but stop calling it a theory. It's nothing of the sort. The article says even its supporters acknowledge it's pure speculation with no evidence to support it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The difference between 'theory' and 'speculation' is semantics - theory can mean little more than 'hunch'. Since we have Flat Earth Society why not other dubious 'theories', if they are notable enough --Doc (?) 00:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is flat-out wrong, despite what the creation-science crowd would have you believe. Theory is a well-defined scientific term and means something quite different from hunch.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the difference between the meanings of 'theory' and 'speculation' is semantics; semantics is the study of the meanings of words. The difference between the meanings of 'cat' and 'dog' is semantics, as is the difference between the meanings of 'black' and 'white'. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Gregory Cochran for reasons noted above. --FCYTravis 00:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps a broader article about Cochran's idea that conditions that the layperson would expect to be "bred out" might all be caused by microbes would be a better idea. The hypothesis he's putting forward is not unscientific -- and nothing like as offensive as some are trying to make out -- but it's not a widely pursued line of thought. Does that make it not worth coverage? Well, he's got a bit of press -- on the gay germ angle -- so it's been noted. We shouldn't be judging the notability of scientific, or quasiscientific, ideas on our own account but merely considering whether they are part of the general discourse on science and things scientific. This seems to be to me, but I don't much like this particular article. So no vote from me but I'd like to see this merged into a less contentiously titled article (avoiding the word "theory").Grace Note 07:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does have standards for scientific and medical topics ... see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Science_and_Medicine. This comes nowhere close. Not only is it unpublished and without peer review, there is not even the slightest attempt at empirical validation. It is nowhere in the neighborhood. Not even close. Sorry ... guess I am venting here. Sometimes it seems that Wikipedia is willing to drop all standards of reliable information in an inflated interpretation of NPOV and the lowest possible barriers of "notability". :-S Tabor 02:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gregory Cochran and turn into a redirect. Note that media publishes comments based on newsworthiness, not based on scientific criteria. 1 supporter + 1 tentative comment do not make this accepted scientific theory - Skysmith 08:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge' into Gregory Cochran. I agree this is original research, and wuold only be notable wrt Cochran himself. Axon 10:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gregory Cochran. Wikipedia doesn't need a page on every unsubstantiated hypothesis ever proposed and Cochran is not a significant figure in this research area. --Ian Pitchford 14:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the theory. Why put it under one person's article instead of the other's? The idea that if something affects the fitness ability of an organism to procreate, and that it has been around for a lengthy period of time, germ theory of disease, then it is likely not genetics but a pathogen that is the cause. That is why people think that schotizophrenia is a caused by a pathogen, and that it has been found that ulcers once thought caused by stress or genetics has a bacterial cause from helicobacter pylori. --ShaunMacPherson 08:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep even though the theory is very likely complete junk, there are people out there promoting it; and WP is an excellent place to present NPOV information about itIt seems . -- AlexR 10:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gregory Cochran. Megan1967 06:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gregory Cochran. It is only one example in Cochran's hypothesis, and it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. He appears to be the main proponent of the hypothesis, probably getting mentioned whenever it's mentioned. Offensiveness or non-political correctness in science shouldn't be taken into account when considering deletion. --Nectarflowed ^T 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge. Golbez 00:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thread necromancy

Has been transwikied to Wiktionary, not much potential encyclopedaic value about this. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If it's already in Wiktionary, then delete. — JIP | Talk 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with bump. Kappa 23:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Kappa. Radiant_>|< 10:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to bump, not something you would search for in the dictionary.  Grue  14:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Witness_(rapper)

Non-notable: I live in Delaware, a scant 60 minute drive from Philadelphia, and am an amateur graf artist and emcee very into hip-hop culture. I follow the local scene, and have never heard of this artist. To my knowledge (and google's), he has no albums released, nor has he appeared on any major tours. A Google search reveals three vanity entries[23][24][25] on various websites, all open to anonymous editing, seemingly a copy-paste job by one person. Even if he is talented and has something of a fan following, so does my rap crew [26] and countless other unsigned, virtually unknown bands and artists. Unless someone has some reason as to why he's encyclopedia-worthy, I say this is both a personal entry as well as a vanity one. Delete Jasonglchu 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wallawallanonnotable --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 00:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

MatchDoctor

Delete as advertising. The author has been spamming related pages with external links to this and affiliated sites. Joyous 17:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the article is now mirrored at MatchDoctor.com Joyous 18:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- business / web site vanity - Longhair | Talk 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad spam. DS1953 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Was unaware this was not accepted
• Undelete Check out Adult FriendFinder
• Strong delete. Advertising and the last two comments are just more of the same. jglc | t | c 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (although I think the reference to Adult FriendFinder was just meant as an example of a similar entity that does merit an article. This one doesn't. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:31, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Fair enough; but why is that user voting undelete, then? jglc | t | c 20:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My guess would be that "undelete" = "keep," and that the anon user doesn't realize that anon/new user votes are discounted. Joyous 23:16, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (empty now) and the MatchDoctor.com too (ad). Pavel Vozenilek 19:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Random internet hookup sites are non-notable. As vote history shows, the undelete votes were placed by 66.176.76.58. Look at this person'scontribution history. Undelete votes should not count if the user doesn't post ID. (~ ~ ~ ~) MPS 22:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you all think about the other contributions by this user? jglc | t | c 15:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this user contribution history demonstrates that intent is to promote non-notable dating sites. Check out all the diffs. MPS 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy del Business adverisement, non-notable. Also consideration of link spam on several articles. <>Who?¿? 19:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would appeal to whoever it is that cleans up this entry to also take a look at this user's other entries. jglc | t | c 20:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:09, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Rescue Cat

This was tagged as VfD by someone else, I'm adding the entry here. Weak delete unless proper context can be established. — JIP | Talk 17:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I have no idea what game this is from! Even with context, it doesn't seem worth keeping. Unless it can be merged somewhere? Sonic Mew 17:51, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Uncertain. Clearly it's a Yu-Gi-Oh card, and there is a category with 29 of them....but I have a hard time thinking they're notable...but wiki is not paper as well. Wikibofh 18:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to something about cat adoption, which is probably what people searching for this would be really looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note After a Google, I found a picture of this card, and it's really, really, really, really cute: Here's a pic. No change of vote, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Aww. jglc | t | c 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, people wouldn't type this in unless they wanted to know about the Yugioh thing. They might type "cat rescue" though... Kappa 23:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clubs 2005

Not notable; maybe when it's completed an article would be appropriate. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, possible ad. Not sure what this supposed to be about. Title is certainly misleading. carmeld1 06:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sequanne McCargo

Why do people write lame-ass vanity like this? And why can't we just speedy it? -R. fiend 17:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 17:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either it's vanity, or it's an attack page. I believe we're discussing a semi-speedy process for these at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:55, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC) (why, yes, I did change my signature again). ;-)
• Delete. 65.104.189.195 19:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Toss it, and let's get that semi-speedy process up and running. jglc | t | c 19:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 22:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable, attack page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either vanity or attack page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:07, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Sunder

• Merge with a larger article about online organizations. However other groups as Sturmgrenadier should also be merged into the larger article. --Magen 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you change your vote from Delete to Merge on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sturmgrenadier? ChronoSphere 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I reflected it on Sturm's VFD page. Magen 14:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable advert for a MMORPG group. Wikibofh 17:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Habap, Destinova1 and Chronosphere are all members of Sturmgrenadier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.55.121.15 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Added Destionva1 to list ChronoSphere 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • This is true; Habap has made some non-Sunder related edits, but Chronosphere has only made Sunder-, Sturmgrenadier-, and his own talk-page-related edits. jglc | t | c 13:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I like to think my work on paratroopers (506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, Lynn "Buck" Compton, and Operation Market Garden), in copyediting (Nathaniel Eaton, Police of Italy, and Nonperson) and in general military history (Henry Johnson, Rufus King (Civil War General) and Harlem Hellfighters) would make it seem like I am an actual Wikipedian. Most of my last 50 edits are in fact on this issue and over the last few days, but I would think it is not the majority of my Wiki-ing. --Habap 14:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with this; that's why I say you have some non-Sunder edits. Chronosphere, on the other hand, has no evidence of signing up for Wikipedia for any reason other than to work on the Sunder page. jglc | t | c 15:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've been on wikipedia for a while, though not much of an editor - i'm a lurker by admission. Though I would imagine that shouldn't have any weight on the matter - my logic and reasoning should count over why I am here. And this is something that I have knowledge and a vested interest in. Isn't a passion for a subject matter the way many articles get written on wikipedia? If we had a ban on people writing or commenting on articles they have a vested interest in, nothing would get written! :D I want to see entries on online gaming organizations in this Wiki - its not a fad, its not some small thing, and I believe its notable enough to deserve an entry on this Wiki. I orignally voted a weak delete on this article due to it being a blatant advert, saying that I would change my vote if it was edited not to be. It was edited corespondingly, though I still think it could use some work - so I also changed my vote. ChronoSphere 16:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Retain Apparently, they have over 200 members, which is above the example low threshold of interest. A similar page exists for Sturmgrenadier. Oddly enough, Sunder is made up of former members of Sturmgrenadier. Together they claim a thousand members. Perhaps significant, perhaps not. Maybe an article on multi-game online gaming units should be created that contains information on all such groups? --Habap 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the 200 members claim is true, 200 members isn't nearly enough for an encylopedia entry by that criterion alone. Plenty of newsgroups, forums, lodges, and local organisations have thousands of members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Also, neither of the two Sunder URLs given in the article have any Alexa rank at all: SunderHQ and Sunder Radio (Alexa ranks the top approx. 7 million sites on the web). This is startling for a group whose claim-to-fame is its online activities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we should give them a chance to change it to an encyclopedic article instead of outright deletion - there's already a notice about NNPOV there. Though I have to admit they themselves wrote it and would probably not like having to gut the article to put it as NPOV. If nothing changes there before the delete timer runs out, I'll vote for deletion. In the meanwhile, I'll add a notice that its a candidate for deletion - its not on the page at the moment. ChronoSphere 21:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Its an Advert right now. If it gets edit to be non-advert, NPOV, I may change my vote. ChronoSphere 00:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, the new edit makes the page more factual instead of NNPOV - and please keep in mind that both myself and Habap have been reverting vandalism of the sunder page. We both feel that online gaming organizations are not a small thing anymore, and feel that they deserve a mention within Wikipedia. ChronoSphere 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 00:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable advertising ploy. --Wetman 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with a larger article about online organizations. It's unreasonable to expect something that's been around for less than 6 months to appear on Alexa. There are also a number of equally prominent gaming organizations that don't have entries in Wikipedia, such as Conquest www.conquest-guild.org, Afterlife www.afterlifeguild.org, and Fires of Heaven www.fohguild.org. All of the aforementioned organizations have been around longer than either Sunder or Sturmgrenadier, and have had a much larger impact on gaming in general, regardless of their memberbases. Frankly, this dispute seems to have erupted out of a vendetta against Sunder on the part of Sturmgrenadier, as both users Habap and ChronoSphere are current members of Sturmgrenadier. It's notable that both have voted to delete the Sunder entry, but to retain the Sturmgrenadier entry, in spite of the inherent similarities of each organization and each entry. --Vyrus 18:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I am clarifying my point in my earlier comment. Retain, along with the half-dozen other such pages for Maza, Team 3D, Sogamed, NiP, Theafers, and Phaze II among others I didn't find in a quick search. I've got nothing against Sunder and, since I don't play WoW, hadn't heard of it until the editing of the SG page. As one can see on the Talk:Sturmgrenadier, I have been campaigning to keep information that indicates Sturmgrenadier is not "perfect". I have created a stub for Online Gaming Organizations and have posted on the Talk:Online Gaming Organizations page that it might be appropriate to list, but not describe these organizations there. --Habap 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The similarities between the Sturmgrenadier article and the Sunder article are superficial - Sturmgrenadier is larger, older by almost 5 years, is ranked on Alexa Sturmgrenadier.comand has been mentioned in mainstream press by USA Today on June 24th, 2003. And as you may note by reading the text next to my vote above, my rationale behind voting was because the article was a blatant advert - not because I am a member of SG. Please take care to read the discussion in its entirety before making declarations on editors intentions. Please also note that I had changed my vote as a result of the subsequent edits to the article, as I said I would, since I had originally voted a weak delete, contigennt on the article remaining the way it was originally written. ChronoSphere 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Let me note that this is Vyrus's second edit; the first is an entry on the Sturmgrenadier talk page. These are the only edits he has. jglc | t | c 20:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the origins of the issue, it appears to have started in the 29th of May when an unknown person added the paragraph on Sunder to the SG page. Neither Chronosphere nor I was the one that VfD'd this article. I know that there are others (one from SG who has been chastised for it) who are not registered and are actually committing anonymous vandalism to these pages. --Habap 20:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Established in January 2005"? Come back in January 2010 and see if anybody cares. Quale 21:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. This page is merely an advertisement for them. --SunWuKong 05:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- non-notable, not really encyclopedic, plus what Quale and SunWuKong said.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

scamper

Dicdef, already transwiki'd, no possibility for expansion (and neologism in my humble opinion).--InShaneee 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense without context. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• This wasn't a transwiki candidate in the first place. I took the tag off it once. Wiktionary has had scamper, with a proper definition, since January. Please check Wiktionary before applying the tag, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary. Compare what Wiktionary has with this rubbish. Uncle G 19:40, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 07:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus which means status quo is maintained. Golbez 00:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Scooby Doo's Enemies

Appears to be an extended synopsis of the plot from Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, which repurposed old Scooby-Doo villians for use in the feature film. Doesn't seem to be a need for this article on Wikipedia; what is actually needed right now is to expand the Scooby-Doo series guide into an episode list. FuriousFreddy 18:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Material should be put in Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed and Scooby-Doo series guide. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT: list of minor characters.  Grue  14:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT. Kappa 20:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:FICT. NSR 20:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Peter A Barnard

non relevant- vandalism-i put a speedy delete but it was removed Melaen 19:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although I do believe your speedy delete was properly removed. There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load to hasten the deletion process on some articles, but vanity is not vandalism and under the current procedures cannot be speedied. DS1953 19:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all deliberate speed. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:28, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete and support Speedy as either attack page, nonsense, or vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP; I would question the rectitude of the speedy delete removal, as this page seems to be not vanity, but rather an attack page. jglc | t | c 20:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/joke. --Etacar11 22:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal attack. JamesBurns 07:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The very first version of the aticle included the word "twat". This is vandalism/attack/kids with nothing better to do who keep vandalising this VfD page. func(talk) 17:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Reverted a blank by 172.201.209.78. Am adding this to my watchpage and will revert if I find any further vandalism. jglc | t | c 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: nomination withdrawn, with no delete votes. Kappa 07:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lik-sang.com

Lik-sang.com is very short article about "website that sells video game accessories" and doesn't feel notable or informative. There are also pure ad pages for products SmartJoy and Super SmartJoy, linked from here and from nowhere else. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the site is notable please close the VFD. The article looks bit thin for such a known and used site, though. Pavel Vozenilek 02:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, highly notable in its field. Kappa 23:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep it is very notable plus half a million google hits too Yuckfoo 23:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very big imported games site (probably the biggest actually) definitely has some notability attached. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:15, Jun 9, 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. Golbez 08:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Remnant Pokémon

non notable and messy Melaen 19:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with you on a subtle point; the Missingno and Mysterio pokemon glitches are well-documented, scrutinised parts of the Pokemon games. That is why they are covered in those articles. This article is factually incorrect, as well: Pikablu and Houhou are now canonical pokemon. This article is redundant and should be deleted. jglc | t | c 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, outdated and irrelevant information. --Sn0wflake 00:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant fork. JamesBurns 07:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outdated, not very useful to anyone Sonic Mew 11:50, Jun 9, 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. Golbez 08:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Imhotep (video game)

the article is too generic , how many videogames fall under this article's description Melaen 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unless it is expanded with even a little more descriptive text. The game doesn't even appear on MobyGames. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think that this is even a published video game - probably Shareware/fanware. jglc | t | c 20:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete even though "fighting in the times of life" sounds fun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no useful content. -- Infrogmation 01:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lid 13

non notable in my opinion Melaen 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Also in the opinion of Google. A look at the "Comments & Criticisms" section in the entry makes me fairly certain that this is a joke page. jglc | t | c 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not pass BJAODN, do not collect $200 wikidollars. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete The originating author's IP originates from Illinois. The David Motley mentioned in Lid 13 could be Director of Public Relations for the City of Waukegan, David Motley.--AI 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Band vanity. From the article: “I don’t understand... this isn’t music at all.” Delete per WP:MUSIC, no indication of notability/albums/tours meeting the music guidelines. Barno 18:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Gwernica

No context on a band that's admittedly "small-time" (read "Not notable under the WP: MUSIC guidelines".) Deltabeignet 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Guernica as possible misspelling. --Dmcdevit 21:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 07:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Gargantuous

does he exist in star wars? it was proposed 4 times for speedy (not by me) Melaen 20:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say he doesn't; at least, he is nonexistent on Google. Other claims in the article are as spurious as his name: time travel does not appear in Star Wars, nor does drug use. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense and vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 20:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't deathsticks count as drug use? Geez, I'm a nerd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. So does spice. Anyways, delete without source.-LtNOWIS 02:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Jon Hart
• Delete. He doesn't exist; no Dark Lord of the Sith has ever travelled to Canada; utter garbage. jglc | t | c 21:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Darth Deletous. Hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:47, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified by any credible Star Wars sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This non-canonical fanfic must turn to the Deleted Side of the Wikipedia, per WP:FICT. Barno 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Purely unverifiable fan fiction. Nufy8 12:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete w/ extreme prejudice. This isn't even not-bad fanfic. Time travel to Earth? Bull. --maru 01:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE; no data or location to merge to. Golbez 00:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mcgirr

• stub about elementary school in British Columbia; no evidence of notability, nor any content to make it unique. FZ 20:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved. Andrew pmk 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 00:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested in WP:SCH. Vegaswikian 06:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a school district article (Category:School districts in British Columbia) — RJH 15:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lol, we have a chance there!  Grue  14:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Balle Balle

An incorrigible foreign language dicdef. Already been transwikied. --Dmcdevit 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, verging on nonsense. --nixie 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bastard Horse

non notable and by the same user who vandalized Sheffield

• deleteMelaen 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete pointless non notable article Jtkiefer 21:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal flagon. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:53, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete band (or duo) vanity. --Etacar11 22:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. DS1953 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and important note: All these votes for deletion were removed by anonymous user 212.159.46.35. He has also removed the VfD tag from the Bastard Horse page. I'm putting this VfD entry on my watchlist and will revert it whenever (if ever) he blanks it again. jglc | t | c 15:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NeoJustin 18:04, June 9, 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 to Goth. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Batcaver

The term is already mentioned in wikipedia in Batcave I think this article doesn't add any useful information deleteMelaen 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable place for a redirect. CDC (talk) 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Goth. --Sn0wflake 00:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medieval land terms

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All of the definitions here have been merged elsewhere, and this title offers no redirect. So, delete. --Dmcdevit 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful explanation of terms in context - room for expansion in discussing the rise and decline of their use. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Keep quite useful--Melaen 22:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody said dictionary definitions aren't useful, just not encyclopedic. --Dmcdevit 22:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - think that a collection of terms explained in context to each other is more than a dicdef. DS1953 22:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I use this page all the time. There are many such "lists" on Wikipedia (even a new "best of lists" featured article category). The notion that every article must be like a traditional book-bound encyclopedia is not accurate. These are not dictdefs, just short summaries with links to main articles that contain fuller treatments. Stbalbach 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not just that the article is useful and provides helpful context; the assemblage of all these terms in one place makes it encyclopedic. But the article's title is perhaps not the most descriptive or likely to be searched on, and should be renamed. -EDM 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fine and useful summary. I like it. A redirect link for Medieval real estate terms should probably be created. --Unfocused 22:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. Also since it's been merged, it has to be kept. Kappa 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense. For GFDL requirements, the old article's contribution history gets included in the parent article's history when information is merged. We do not have to keep the merged article or even a redirect. Also, no non-VFD pages link to this article except two which can easily be changed. No vote; I would think this could be merged to a section in another article, but failing that, the consensus pushes me more toward Keep than I would have leaned. Barno 18:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comment - The old article's contribution history does not get included in the parent's. Please read Wikipedia:Merge again. Especially note where it says "Merging should always leaves a redirect in place. Even if you think that's rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place anyway - it's generally established that superfluous redirects don't harm anything." -- Jonel 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting list. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please its very useful Yuckfoo 23:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Per BD2412 and WINP. Blackcats 10:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - very useful and just like many other lists Djnjwd 19:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- with a good summary up front the information would become more than just useful. WBardwin 05:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Conservative Judaism (magazine)

it defines conservative judaism it doesn't mention any magazine

• delete Melaen 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This one was a speedy deletion, actually. Postdlf 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ok sorry --Melaen 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised you were able to delete it, considering how hard it is for deletions to work right now. RickK 22:34, Jun 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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hater

Non-encyclopedic, a dictdef that exploded. Twaddle. RickK 22:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Rick. Karol 22:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• tagged as copyvio - end of discussion --Doc (?) 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Doc. RickK 22:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no problem deleting this but you may be wrong on the copyvio. The first half of the "hater" definition was created over two years ago and the second paragraph was added by another user (or user name at least) over a year later, and still more than a year ago. The web site you cited in your copyvio notice, on the other hand, has no entries in the Internet Archive, while the Wikepedia page appears twice. Though not dispositive, it strikes me that it is more than likely that the other site lifted the definition from Wikipedia, not vice versa. Why should we have to start rewriting articles just because other sites take Wikipedia works without attribution? DS1953 23:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not very knowledgeable about the internet archive - I realise I assumed bad faith from WP editors rather than an unknown website (an unsafe presup). Happy to be guided here, should the copyvio be left to run? --Doc (?) 00:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OK I'm removing copyvio tag. Debate reopened - I vote delete as per RickK --Doc (?) 12:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 19:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like notable part of raver subculture.  Grue  14:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grue, notable stereotype. Kappa 20:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, it is something that should be kept. Maghris 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment made by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:05, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Adam Lopez

Vanity by User:Adam Lopez. Some of the information is disputed as well, see the Talk page. The User is also spreading much of the vanity through various articles. RickK 22:57, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest we revert the article back to the 16:49, 2 Jun 2005 UTC version when it was still a stub, and remind User:Adam Lopez of Wikipedia:Autobiography. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Concur - as much as I hate self-publicity, [27] does seem to indicate notability, so keep for now - although I'm open to other arguments --Doc (?) 23:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and here is why. I want everyone to open the history log on this article and click on the first few edits. His range was Bb9? One and half to two octaves higher than Minnie and Mariah (the queens of the whistle register). I mean, IF I wanted to do an autobiography, I sure as well am going to add date of birth, and other life crap to make the article at least appear encyclopedic on the outside (vane maybe :-) ). But I sure has hell do NOT need to guess my vocal range, or whatever. The record was a C#8, but he hit E8 (which is higher) on the show? Why wasn't the record for E8 (its just as easy to prove E8 as C#8 if its happening in the same context, no?). I think this is NOT Adam Lopez Costa the singer, but a poser who needs reversion and possible blocking. Read my comments on Talk:Adam Lopez. Antares33712 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, looking back at whistle register, I remember how the articles talk of the extreme altitude in a C8. Soon after, 152.163.100.7, writes about Artimius Rollins hitting a brief C#8. I removed that, and other info was added about melisma and staccato (both rather separate concepts). Suddenly the info was back with he uses melisma and staccato and a brief C#8. Its as if the person is using the extreme note and pasting a "X does it better". I really believe 152.163.100.7 and User:Adam Lopez may be related and if the article talked about C9, he would have hit E9. See my point? Antares33712 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and remove the links in other article. Wikipedia is not the guiness book of world records and this guy den't appear to be notable beyond that.--nixie 01:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and de-link inbound links, in agreement with nixie and noting doubts mentioned by Antares. Not encyclopedically significant even if verified. Barno 18:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I guess I'm missing something. We do NOT know that this user is THE Adam Lopez, and secondly, why isn't this encyclopedic. As a true fan of the human abilities in the whistle register, I think it is good to know that their is documented evidence of men being able to pitch in those altitudes. That it isn't just a "female club". I won't disagree with verifiability being immportant and vanity being bad, but I worry that Wikipedia is becoming a "if Google doesn't have it, it has no business existing", type of forum. There is a website (I think its on free hosts) that has a RealAudio clip of him pitching the Bb7. I only agree the discrepancy between the text and the Guiness link is BLATANT; however, while he may not be important to the world en mass, he is important to fans of the whistle register (for which there are a few) and is QUITE encyclopedic, if for no other reason that for historical posterity. Females in club do exist from time to time, but he is about the ONLY example of a male in this extreme altitude Antares33712 21:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, there is a lot of useless crap on here, may as well keep this 205.188.116.135 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a few facts need verifying and so on, but I see no reason to delete -- sannse (talk) 10:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure about that much range, but as a valid Austrailian pop singer and session vocalist, he is pretty notable 64.12.116.138 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand This is a biographical piece, so things such as date of birth need to be included here. However, the man is a celebrity and his vocal capabilities are clearly unusual, so I reject the notion that this article is somehow vanity (barring, of course, the possiblity that Adam Lopez himself actually cares enough about wikipedia that he wrote the article himself).

It can't be vanity as I created the article and I do not personally know the guy :-) Antares33712 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just checking, is't a decision meant to be made after 5 days of open posting's? Delete or not?

Supposed to be after five days, but may extend it slightly. Runaway delete ones usually are the only ones to end early or at five days. Antares33712 20:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wiki Whack

Wiki Whack this - and if you don't know what that means then delete the neologism --Doc (?) 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trying to hard to get into BJAODN. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:25, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete (probably should have been speedied - vandalism or nonsense) DS1953 23:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. --Sn0wflake 00:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted it; absolute nonsense  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:21, Jun 9, 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. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jared Siegel

While there does seem to be a College football player named Jared Siegel, the young artist discussed on this page isn't findable at Google. This page is probably vanity and should be deleted. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DS1953 23:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and self-promotion. jglc | t | c 15:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable
  • Vote by User:65.32.181.16, who is the creator and main contributor to the article. Even though anonymous users are allowed to vote, it is preferable to get a username and log in to prevent suspicion of sockpuppetry. Also, remember to sign your vote with four tildes (~~~~). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yatton Village Social Club

There are lots of social clubs. Having a fire doesn't make this one notable. Edward 23:27, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Keep. No reason not to include all social clubs, however many there are, so long as the information is verifiable and presented in accordance with NPOV policy. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. Grace Note 23:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds very much like advertising. --Sn0wflake 00:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - OK, I can almost see keeping schools. But an article on every bar in the world? We'll run out of not paper real fast. --FCYTravis 00:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FCYTravis made me laugh. --Xcali 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete, some bars & social clubs are notable, this one isn't - I live 20 minutes away from Yatton, have driven through the village to its railway station countless times, and have a friend who lives there, but I'd never heard of it before reading this article. Thryduulf 07:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 17:58, June 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; most social clubs have nothing verifiable beyond a name, maybe a meeting location, maybe a pale semblance of a purpose, and officers which change every year or more in fashions not conducive to maintainability. Their events and activities aren't even close to encyclopedic significance, except maybe a very few such as the Friars Club Roast. Grace Note is incorrect, in that "notability" for WP purposes isn't subjective; it's about objective facts like widespread coverage by mainstream media, or ongoing published controversy in the major journals covering a field. None of this is shown in the article or vote comments. Barno 18:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's a bar that serves alcoholic drinks. And - Get this! - it has a pool table, snooker table, dart board, table skittles, and a jukebox. How unusual is that! Grace Note is wrong. Verifiability and NPOV are not the sole grounds for encyclopaedia-worthiness. (If they were, 11111 would have stayed.) Delete. Uncle G 19:27, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh come on, Grace Note. RickK 21:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a worldwide guide to places where one can get drunk. carmeld1 02:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The place does have some local cultural significance, but the page has never managed to reflect this; few other users have shown any interest in updating it, detracting from its utility. Burn the asylum

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nikos Djorjis

0 Google hits on the name. I'd say he's not notable. --Xcali 23:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No google hits indeed. Likely vanity--M412k 00:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very little reference anywhere --Aristocratac 02:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline, for sure, but why exclude someone who has a small following? You get more hits in Greek btw: Νίκος Τζώρτζης.Grace Note 05:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC criterion.  Grue  14:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

ABOP

Looks like a vanity page to me... quercus robur 23:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revise that- actually looks like a pack of lies! quercus robur 23:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - either way, it doesn't look Wikipedic. FreplySpang (talk) 23:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - This is information about a band, not vanity. Jesusjones

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