Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 28

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[1] 56 Google hits; forum results included. I don't think this meets the notability criteria / may be self promotional. Lotsofissues 23:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Svest 00:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not advertising. --bainer 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't know if I can vote, but this is goign against rules. --fpo 03:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure you can vote. And so can I :) delete. Radiant_* 12:00, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Advertising --JK the unwise 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Nice try, but please use the Yellow Pages instead. --Lenev 23:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- looks like a self-promotional duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duckling with a bull-horn. If famous, will spawn.--Simon Cursitor 07:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advert. Leithp 14:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable neologism and/or personal attack. Only hits for pav "role playing" are coincidental uses of the words, not as defined in the article. It would just be a dic def even if it did have any basis in reality. Niteowlneils 00:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note. New article is completely different than either of the two versions previously VfD'd via the discussions below. Niteowlneils 00:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now shown at Template:VfD-Pav and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pav in order to restore the archival of the previous discussions. Rossami (talk)

• Delete. I agree with Niteowlneils. Svest 01:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm in agreement. It's not encyclopedic, and is more insulting than anything. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above --Simon Cursitor 07:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is now a disambiguation. Grutness|^hello? 06:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this; then make a new entry for pav as a redirect to Pavlova. -- BD2412 ^think 19:47, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dictdef (at best). --fvw* 01:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Delete or else to be sent to Wiktionary. -Svest 01:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• E-delete. Neologism. I doubt Wiktionary will want it. android↔talk 03:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, Wiktionary explicitly deals with the notion of prefixing "e-" to every word under the sun in its criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 14:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 05:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, original research. Gazpacho 05:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, heavy point of view. Looks like somebody doesn't like being bullied on the internet. Nestea 02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasons above. Adm58 07:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have thug. utcursch | talk 10:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of notability, probable vanity. --fvw* 02:07, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Delete. Please --Wetman 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No reference to Limare in Neo-Pointillism history. --Svest 02:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. His web page can be accessed here. --Eleassar777 10:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Corto 19:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 02:09, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Sorry, but advertising is not allowed. --Lenev 23:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable. Advert. Website may cause headaches. Nestea 02:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 22:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 02:12, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I didn't see any either. While I was cleaning it up, I googled "pxlart" and got, like, 40 hits total.

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Pointillism. Radiant_* 09:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pointillism. --Eleassar777 10:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pointillism. Klonimus 03:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, plenty of art movements spawn a neo-xxx version some 50 yrs after they were popular. But as far as I can tell it hasn't yet happened for pointillism in any serious way. Pxlart use of the term seems to be a Neo-logism or an art movement of one. But also delete the article behind the redirect at Neo-pointillism -- Solipsist 12:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ever seen pictures or graphics that were pixelated? Thats electronic Neopointillism. Very influential artistic movement on the internet. Klonimus 03:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, possible neologism. Do not redirect. There's no evidence that this term is ever used, so redirect would falsely give WP's stamp of approval on a vanity neologism. "neopointillism" gives twelve google hits, and several of them are WP. Quale 22:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is a substub for a spell in the game Final Fantasy and probably should be merged or just deleted. Ganymead 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. No need to be deleted. --Svest 02:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tells no info about it, and I severely doubt any FF fan will search for it here expecting it to be covered. Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a habit of being unclear. I was meaning it should not be made into a redirect to Final Fantasy... Master Thief Garrett 11:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 05:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to merge, as there isn't any content to merge. — JIP | Talk 06:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• del FF-cruft BigFatDave 21:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to merge. --Carnildo 23:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft that probably has no potential to advance past substub status; what else can you say about it? --Idont Havaname 00:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Add a mention of it on the Final Fantasy page. Then delete this farrago. Grutness|^hello? 02:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a List of Final Fantasy spells. and redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• As a Final Fantasy fan, have just expanded the page to contain just about all the information it possibly could. It is now one sentence longer. Delete. (Also, I'd better go search for/VfD Aeraga, Waterga and Thundaga as well...) Marblespire 08:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh good they don't exist. How convenient. ^_^ Marblespire
• Delete-Unless I'm mistaken, we simply don't do spells or spell lists on Wikipedia. That said, you could write a lot about some RPG spells, if you got creative...-LtNOWIS 06:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I could see writing lots about Fireball or Magic Missile or whatnot since they've appeared in hundreds of games, but not this one. Master Thief Garrett 09:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, no content --Briangotts 02:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content and possible vanity. Linuxbeak 02:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Must be deleted before the guy turns 17! Svest 03:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable, no information, and obvious vanity. --Lenev 23:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense or original research, no google hits, delete--nixie 03:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. It's nonsense, POV, and original research at the same time Mcsweet 03:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 05:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Search in Altavista finds absolute zero hits. There clearly is no formally named movement or school of opinion called Clementianism. Down the flushatory with it. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 09:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - though well written, this looks like original research JoJan 18:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism, original research. Quale 22:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, probable vanity. --fvw* 03:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Keep. A CEO of a significant company aged under 30 is probably notable. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment: On second thought, this company does not seem to be that notable. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. on Tony Sidaway's basis that it is a likely hoax and certainly not verifiable. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proved not a hoax. Google has nothing on "Anthony V. DePano", "Anthony DePano" "Anthony De Pano", "Alatron International"... this would tell a story of a guy that has achieved nothing except a short lived job at daddy's company, except I also can't find a mention of an AOL CFO with this surname - currently it's Steve Swad, previously it was Joseph (Joe) Ripp (2001-2004), Philip Gross was at one point, Mike Kelly (98-01), Lennert Leader (1989-98) - I can't find any DePano. So I call foul.Average Earthman 08:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evident hoax. Supposedly CEO of a company whose actual CEO is a chap called Warren Stokes. [2] --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--Prem 14:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. void of encyclopedic value. --Mecanismo 20:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, probable vanity. --fvw* 03:48, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

This article is a duplicate of one posted a couple mins ago. It should definitely be deleted. I do, however, think that the guy is notable enough for inclusion.

• I've speedy redirected it to Anthony V. DePano, since it was just an exact duplicate of that article. If that article is deleted in the VfD above, then this redirect should go, too. (Note that performing this redirect is technically outside the VfD rules, and any editor may revert my change at their discretion). --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - void of encyclopedic value. --Mecanismo 20:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep CDC (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Bollington, does not appear to be notable besides being a local landmark.Ganymead 04:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge sounds good. Radiant_* 09:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major local landmark, also industrial history site. This has potential and should be kept as a stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge History of the site can be found here. The mill was built in mid-nineteenth century, and used as mill for about a hundred years. Hundreds of sites match that description. Dsmdgold 01:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, for potential to expand and to aid categorization. Kappa 17:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable industrial site. Klonimus 01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 09:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP, perhaps rename to "Adelphi Mill (Bollington)" as there is one in Maryland as well. It obviously has some years of history behind it, why not leave it there for someone who knows some of that history to expand it? Most historians (especially local historians) don't even know that Wikipedia exists. Keeping articles like this encourages them by giving them starting points for their contributions. We should be focused on involving people. Deleting articles like this will make local historians feel unwelcome, as if their contributions aren't worthy. --Unfocused 16:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Five edits, four to VFD.

• Delete not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Mecanismo 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bollington. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 14:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV, non-notable murder case. RickK 04:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not non-notable: two books have been written on it. This article was moved from the Yale page to reduce its size and clutter there, in response to discussion at that page. - Nunh-huh 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any court case that has generated two books is worthy of notice. Article is in good shape for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur wih capitalroadster. POV can be fixed. Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Leep see above gren 08:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dont kill. Klonimus 21:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Some notability. Megan1967 02:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• IfKeep, the Revise to NPOV. Otherwise it looks to me like polemic rather than history.--Simon Cursitor 07:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 01:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 14:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. RickK 04:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agreed. Fredrik | talk 12:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an article about a commercial software package, but that isn't advertising or we wouldn't be able to write an article about Microsoft Windows. This is a major package in the business (see the UCLA Stata portal). It has regular user group meetings in United States, UK, Germany, Spain, and Netherlands, and has had at least one user group meeting in Ireland, Australia and Italy. Not some little VBasic program written by a hopeful teen, but a product that many people will want to have information about. That's where we come in. We're Wikipedia, we write about stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a major software package that is used in a number of businesses and colleges. I think a cleanup is needed ASAP. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I added an image to the article. Please reconsider your votes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep assuming someone plans to cleanup for NPOV. Kappa 00:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable software. Megan1967 02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable software. I've removed some more ad-like language. Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 10:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, little chance of it becoming notable. Ditto for the gentleman in question. Article reads like fancruft. Mackensen (talk) 04:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 05:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, He is one of the final 10 on the first season of American Idol. However, this page needs much more information. Lack of information does not equal to cruft. --Arbiteroftruth 17:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete being on TV does not equal notablility. Besides, finishing 8th hardly screams notability. --InShaneee 19:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessarily cruft, but the article fails to give any decent information and is poorly written. Hermione1980 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to weak keep, pending expansion. I see the point of some of the other Wikipedians here, to an extent: He did make it to the top 10, he did manage to hang on for two shows, and the article doesn't look half bad for a stub or substub, after cleanup. However, if a few more months or a year pass without any real expansion being done—or if Mr. Gil continues to do nothing notable—I would then vote delete, if this came up on VfD again. Hermione1980 21:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The name 'Gill', with 2nd 'l' is that of a London Times correspondent -- ? risk of confusion ? --Simon Cursitor 07:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable American Idol finalist. Mike H 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on most of the AI top 12 finalists. The finalists are seen and voted on by millions. Gamaliel 07:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Kappa 19:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a "reality TV" contestant is not encyclopedic. This would not even make it as WikiNews material. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Notable American Idol finalist"??? Please. Non-notable. If Wikipedia has articles on other top 12 "American Idol" finalists they should be deleted too, unless otherwise notable. Quale 03:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not ridicule my vote. I voted a certain way for a reason. Be civil. Mike H 23:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep, pending expansion. Although American Idol contestants are of spurious notability, "notability" itself is of spurious merit as a criterion for deletion. Someone who cares should upgrade the article from substub status. If it can't be expanded, other article criteria apply and the article should be deleted. Dystopos 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. 141.211.138.85 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic. Grue 15:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, promotional, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. Mackensen (talk) 04:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was just coming to list this on VfD. 26 unique Google hits, most of which are discussion forums. Vanity. RickK 04:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm the fellow who wrote the entries for Thinking-East.Net and Registan.Net. I did so because I feel that they represent a corner of the blogosphere (so to speak) that shall become more and more important as Central Asia--the region they cover--becomes more important. In retrospect, I agree with you: the original entry was too promotional. Too much enthusiasm. I have since gone back into the entry and excised most of the URLs and biased material. Also, while Thinking-East does have a good reputation, some of its readers have raised concerns about its connections to the group KelKel. So I tried to mention that in the revised entry. Read it and see what you think. NYspaceman 05:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I appreciate your efforts, I'm afraid a website that gets 26 googles just isn't notable. Delete as such. Radiant_* 14:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, Interesting web-site but I'm not sure it merits an entry. Sorry. Leithp 15:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, Me again, the entry-writer. Thanks anyway, Leithp. Alright, my case for including Thinking-East is based very much upon its connection to the Tulip Revolution. Several of its writers were senior members of KelKel, the youth movement involved in the overthrow of the Kyrgyz government (and KelKel, by the way, has an entry on Wikipedia.) If a tiny website on the outskirts of the blogosphere has a connection like that, surely it may ultimately prove to be of some historical interest--if not historical importance? (Also: it is starting to get mentioned in Uzbek blogs.) Regarding the Google hits: a) is 26 too low or two high? and b) I removed almost all external links from the entry. NYspaceman 01:50, 2 May 2005
• Keep After reading the entry and web-site again, I think it does merit an entry. I don't think the "google test" is a particularly fair way of assessing this. Central Asian politics, as opposed to say Manga or MMORPG games or other "geek-friendly" topics, has a pretty scant showing on Wikipedia. This web-site seems to be a rare outlet for the voice of young people in Central Asia so is of significance, if only regionally. Have a look at it before you vote please, there are a lot more deserving candidates for deletion than this. Leithp 20:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, and now the author is link-spamming all sorts of articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nor worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Mecanismo 20:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Me again, the entry-writer. I communicated with one of the editors of the website. He said that they have a first-hand account of the Halabja poison gas attack in 1988, an interview with the nephew of John Garang, the leader of the south Sudan rebels (the editor said he went to school with this kid), and an interview with Yair Auron, who's the world expert on the Armenian genocide. All these articles they will publish in May and June. For a blog "not worthy of an entry" on Wikipedia, this is certainly impressive. (By the way, thanks for the support, Leithp.) NYspaceman 01:50, 2 May 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Article fails to establish notability. RickK 05:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• You're right RickK, but I cannot bring myself to vote delete on a chess related article. So abstain. Sjakkalle 06:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see there is a grave danger of this article being kept so, with a heavy heart, I now say delete. Sjakkalle 06:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Verifiable group. Keep and allow for organic growth. Non-"notability" not established.--Gene_poole 07:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable; I trust Sjakalle in this one. Radiant_* 08:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep it is verifiable Yuckfoo 16:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiable and notable are different things. Ben-w
  • Verifiability is not a criterion for keeping. This seems like just another business. How much do they charge for their services? RickK 18:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Verifiability is significantly more of a justification for keeping than "non-notability" is a reason for deleting.--Gene_poole 23:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the secret of chessboxing Klonimus 21:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 01:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at their website, this is a non-profit and a very small one. Other than the existance of the website, I can't find anything verifiable to say. Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. "Non-notability not established" is a canard. The burden of proof is backwards — It's up to those who vote "keep" to show notability. Quale 03:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Look like a commercial for a guy who wants to make money teaching people to play chess. I see no evidence that it is a non-profit organization, no indication of 501c3 status... Wikipedia isn't a place for free promotion, is it?--JonGwynne 04:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 14:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable murder case. RickK 05:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be non-notable to RickK, but it was of significance to Yale University. I moved the article from the Yale page to reduce its size and clutter, in response to discussion at that page. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Alright, Nunh-huh. I'll vote keep then with some reservations. Sjakkalle 06:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added on a reference to the book written on the subject, which probably has some bearing on whether it was "non-notable" or not. - Nunh-huh 06:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, then I'll take away my reservations too. Sjakkalle 08:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Book indicates notability of case. Capitalistroadster 07:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Written books show notability. Also, his murder changed security on campus as noted in article. Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons noted above. Bbpen 13:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this seems important Yuckfoo 16:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see dead people. Klonimus 21:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete source material. There is no such thing in law as a "redistricting warrant." Gazpacho 05:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Consists of nothing but the original source material, and the title is inaccurate. Firebug 06:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Historic event--I even heard of this in London. Moved to Texas Ten. Marked for cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the underlying incident is well-known and encyclopedic, but at the time this was nominated for VFD, the article contained nothing but a scan of the arrest warrant (which was misleadingly titled Redistricting warrant). Firebug 00:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the artcle now deals with the underlying incident. I would like to see it moved to 2003 Texas redistricting controversy or some such title rather than the ambiguous Texas Ten. The Redistricting warrant redirect could probably be safely deleted. Dsmdgold 01:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to move it where you like. I have no special preferences and your title would be more descriptive if seen in a category listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I probably will move it once the VfD is done with. Dsmdgold 19:32, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 03:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. —Xezbeth 14:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable, already mentioned in the relevant shows' articles. Gazpacho 05:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Good stub for a term in common use to describe this event, which is still remembered after about forty years. If it's mentioned in the shows' articles, all the more reason to have an article linking all the shows describing the event in more detail. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikitionary I don't see the stub growing much since the term was applied to an event. Vegaswikian 05:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, and useful because it's linked from various shows. Kappa 00:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and void of content. --Mecanismo 20:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable event, and it appears that this term is actually used to describe it. Important in the history of U.S. television. Quale 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As already stated, this is an important milestone in TV history -- the moment when the number one network at the time (CBS) changed its programming philosophy, and in the process, ushered in a completely new era of "realistic" TV comedy (All in the Family, Maude, M*A*S*H, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very important moment in TV history. It was a shift from light-hearted, inoffensive television, to bolder, sometimes controversial television. This article should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.202.206 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Very little verifiable info. Doesn't even say which part of Southeast Asia this particular Long Beach is in (Singapore, maybe?). As it stands there's nothing there worth keeping. Grutness|^hello? 05:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 02:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable JoJan 18:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

600 google hits, at least 20% of which seem to be for a completely different Stacey Lynn. NN? Grutness|^hello? 05:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, she is quite well known and I get 17,000 hits on google Moumine 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Appears notable. Megan1967 01:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a non-notable model who appears in a non-notable (fitness/swimsuit/cheesecake?) calendar. Quale 03:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. She's appeared to be popular within the Canadian fitness model community some time ago, but according to This thread at Musclemag, she appearently is no longer a fitness model, but a bartender. --LBMixPro^{(Holla back!)} 07:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable models should not be expected to continue their modeling careers into middle age. Dystopos 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Change to Delete (Unless someone hits a goldmine of notable information). There are no 17,000 hits for this person, whose name is actually Stacey Lynn Boetto. All references lead back to this calendar series, which lasted from 1999-2001. It's possible, if it really was such a hot seller, that the calendar is notable. Stacey, apparently, is not. Dystopos 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those who think she is notable can expand the stub. Since her notability is based entirely on her exposure, maybe a good PD photo would be enough to schwing my vote. Dystopos 20:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with what Dystopos said.--Unfocused 16:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Five edits, four to VFD.
  • Please sign your posts. I don't appreciate my opinion being impugned anonymously. I still agree with what Dystopos originally said, but apparently, 3 years of national exposure as a "best selling calendar" girl, if only in Canada ;) isn't good enough for some of you to leave as a stub. --Unfocused 18:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obscure and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Mecanismo 20:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coulda been a contenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Portuguese language dicdef (and not even for the word used in the title!); not worth even making a redirect, and we already have everything relevant here in English. If there is some way we can speedy this, I'm for it, but I couldn't think of a grounds. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign incorrect dicdef in Portuguese. Jmabel, remember to link up the heading to the article when nominating. Sjakkalle 06:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JoJan 18:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 23:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy, unsourced list. POV magnet. Duplicates Category:Stalinists, which was deleted by a WP:CFD vote. Firebug 06:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As anyone can clearly see, Category:Stalinists, does not exist, so how exactly can there be any duplication? TDC 20:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The category doesn't exist because it was deleted via a WP:CFD vote. That was my point - that the article should be deleted for the same reasons. Firebug 17:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• (added colon to above link) —Wahoofive (talk) 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree. Gets my delete vote. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• POV magnet indeed. The POV article enemies of the People's Wikipedia must be purged! --Calton | Talk 07:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If sourcing is the only issue, it could be easily added. I should also note that we have a List of Fascists (not sourced on the page and including a category of “Possible Successors”) and List of people described as neoconservatives (a list that handily survived its VFD) and absolutely no one self identifies as a necon, but many of the individuals in the list did indeed describe themselves as Stalinists at one point in their lives. TDC 19:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • List of Fascists specifically states: "This is a list of persons who self-identify as Fascists or a variant". List of people described as Stalinists is different because it includes people who never called themselves Stalinists, but to whom the term was applied as a slur. I don't feel that this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Firebug 19:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of the people on the list, like Pablo Neruda, Michael Redgrave, and Kim Jong Il are/were self described Stalinists. Just because there are no polemics in The Nation, the UTNE Reader, or Adbusters decrying this (like the neocons) does not make it any less verifiable. TDC 20:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • And List of people described as neoconservatives? Sam Spade 19:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If that list were nominated, I would vote to delete it too, unless sourcing was provided for the entries. I also think that the "Possible successors" section should be removed from List of Fascists, and that the entries on that list should be sourced to indicate where the individuals described themselves as Fascists. I would not have an objection to a List of Stalinists if it only included people who actually self-identified as such and sourcing was provided for this. Firebug 19:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I have included a comment on Talk:List of Fascists indicating that the Possible Successors section should be removed for the reasons stated above. If no one wants to defend that section's inclusion, then I will remove the section as unsourced POV.
• Keep, not an issue for VfD, take it up on Talk:List of people described as Stalinists (unused, btw). Sam Spade 19:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Editors!!! Oppose rootless cosmopolitans who engage in Bourgeois deletionism!! Onward to the victory of Inclusionism! Klonimus 21:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated by Firebug. These individuals may have supported the USSR in the 1930s, 1940s -- not so unusual at the time -- but that does not mean they are "stalinists" and I strongly doubt they would have self-identified as such. -- Viajero 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Gamaliel 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, POV magnet. --Carnildo 23:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. No definition of a "Stalinist" and original research. Wikipedia contains excellent resources, and information, and this is not one of them.--Lenev 23:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These lists, inexact as they are, can be useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, apparently original research. No definition of what a "stalinist" is, or how a playwright known as a Fabian Socialist could be counted as a Stalinist. If kept, it should include after each listing a link to exactly who called the person a Stalinist. -Willmcw 00:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced, POV, unverifiable. Slac speak up! 00:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't believe Stalin ever considered himself a leader of a distinct intellectual or political movement, so the list ends up being people who, at some time in their lives, spoke of Stalin in a somewhat approving way. Approval is not allegiance. Gazpacho 00:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. This has, I think, the makings of two or more good pages, but mixed together like this it ends up being a polemic. There are avowed Stalinists: H. Bruce Franklin, under whom I studied, Kim Jong-Il, and (missing from the list) Bob Avakian. There are politically-oriented entertainers who happen to have supported the Soviet Union in one respect or another during the Stalin era, many of them identified with Popular Front politics that were not narrowly Stalinist: Paul Robeson, Charles Chaplin, and (missing from the list) Pete Seeger. There are some very odd inclusions: Frida Kahlo was a close associate, and almost certainly a lover, of Leon Trotsky. Yes, she followed Trotsky's doctrine of giving qualified support to the "deformed Workers' State" that was the Soviet Union, but are we saying that Trotsky was a Stalinist? There are some whose inclusion in the list borders on slander: Henry Wallace accepted the political support of the Communist Party USA, but he never endorsed them in return. Et cetera. As a hodgepodge of these things, the list is useless and borders on slanderous, given the degree to which Stalinism these days is an epithet. This would be like a list of Fascists that included George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Henry Ford. In short, I don't think an encyclopedic list can be constructed under this particular title, but this could be the seed for several useful pages. I'd suggest moving this to List of Stalinists, editing out those who are not self-described as such, and starting several separate lists: List of Popular Front cultural figures, for example. In each case, though, given the controversy attending this, I'd like to see clear criteria for inclusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 02:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and edit for accuracy. "People described as" is passive voice and too subjective. Who's doing the describing??? The list is prone to major inaccuracies, for example, it currently inclues Frida Kahlo, who dated Stalin's arch nemisis Trotsky. Maybe a list of people who are actually documented to have expressed a strong fondness for Stalin and his beliefs? --Blackcats 06:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A pretty obvious keep. If some listings are original research, they should be removed, leaving the persons verifiably described as being Stalinist (shouldn't be too hard to do). Further, I'm not sure how 'being a POV magnet' means the page can be deleted under the terms of the Deletion policy, or are we all ignoring that now? Perhaps it's time we actually started enforcing that agreed, accepted policy to prevent spurious page listings such as this one. Dan100 20:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These "list of" articles are only marginally helpful to readers. Ones which are likely to attract vandalism and controversy are not worth the trouble. This one has all the markings of a vandal-magnet. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No agreed definition of Stalinist means no way to verify and guarranteed constant disputes. No sources given. Not a helpful list for researchers. It would be better to create Category:Stalinists if desired. Quale 03:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete axe-grinding. — Helpful Dave 13:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Stalinist", like "Fascist", has become meaningless over time. This article will simply fuel bickering on the left, with Trotskyists claiming that every socialist besides them is a Stalinist, the social democrats calling everyone to their left Stalinist, and the Stalinists deleting everyone but Albanianists, etc., etc. —Seselwa 22:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly there are verifiable sources of (notable) persons who have been referred to thusly. -- BD2412 ^think 09:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Described? Who describes?--Prem 14:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As Firebug puts it. --Mecanismo 20:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The criterion is clear and the list is perfectly manageable. No reason to delete. Grue 15:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but use less iffy language, especially in definitive cases like Neruda. J. Parker Stone 05:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. No agreed definition of a Stalinist, absurd, we have an article Stalinist, that is pretty clear about the definition of what a Stalinist is.
• 2. original research, once again, absolutely not. Although the potential for OR is certainly here, it is here in all articles. Many people throughout the 20th century have either called themselves, or have been called by others with cause, Stalinists.
• 3. POV magnet, does that mean we deleted every article involving the Israeli Palestinian conflicts?
• 4. All issues as far as sourcing can be dealt with in the article or on its talk page.

I would also like to stress my original point that every single reason for a delete could be applied to any number of articles in Wikipedia, and most appropriately List of people described as neoconservatives, but that article was kept during a recent VFD. TDC 19:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

All that considered, I would say that if someone's Stalinist position can't be demonstrated plainly enough for List of Stalinists then they shouldn't be on such a list at all. List of people described as neoconservatives exists because, regardless of NC's status as a political movement, labelling people as NCs is a widespread journalism phenomenon. I don't believe the same could have been said for the "Stalinist" label. Gazpacho 22:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re. 1. Stalinist is a redirect to Stalinism. Stalinism is somewhat well defined, but Stalinist isn't. This is something of a paradox, but it is reality since Stalinist is a loaded, generally POV term almost always intended as a powerful slur in the U.S. This has been true in the U.S. for about 80 years, so it isn't a recent development. Quale 22:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:38, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Substub, unlikely to become more than it is now without resorting to advertising. --Jemiller226 06:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm sure this is notable (Alexa ranking: 11,171). Notable company and website. Could include history of site, statistics and some notable books they've published to begin with. Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Possible web vanity. Radiant_* 09:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

  I think that 300,000 hits for "lulu.com" rather suggests some notability. --Henrygb 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity press advert - Tεxτurε 18:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into print on demand. I believe lulu is notable. I've used them myself independently of landing on this VfD entry. Brighterorange 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per google/alexa results. Kappa 22:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub for a commercial enterprise. But beware of using Alexa results--a company that supplies to a relatively small market may be significant but have a low Alexa rating; I've also seen low Alexa results cited as a reason to delete an article about a PAPER magazine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to show in the article that it does in fact have notability. --Idont Havaname 00:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't imagine any company would write such a boring vanity article. I've seen many mentions. --Alcon San Croix 01:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to indicate that this company is notable. Quale 03:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 18:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. N-Man^talk 20:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 01:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete encyclopedic relevance not established. --Mecanismo 20:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, and I redirected to Dr. Seuss. —Xezbeth 14:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Trivial biographical information about a person for whom there is no indication of notability. Even if this were to be kept, this is not the title it should have. Oh, and it's in Portuguese. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic, vanity. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dr. Seuss —Wahoofive (talk) 16:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as Wahoofive suggested. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as JIP puts it --Mecanismo 20:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If that fails, re-direct to Dr. Seuss. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Not encyclopedic. It's an interview about architecture, in French. Nice pictures, though: if they are not copyvios, we should use them somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• It's from the same user,pierregrenier, who brought us espace du montage (a part of the article nominated herer) and ARCHILAB which are also up for vfd or already vfd'ed...I've left a message on his talk page concerning the images...and Delete, btw Lectonar 10:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe this can be speedied as a recreation of Espace du montage. Kappa 11:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Several of the voters at the prior Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Espace du montage said that a recreated article (in English) might be acceptable. This is a different, far longer article still in French. I don't think we can speedy it but, not being translated, I think we can delete it. It also has many hallmarks of a copyvio. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 14:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable secondary school. This page is simply a list if statistics and also appears to be a copyvio.Ganymead 06:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Then rewrite it. VfD is not Cleanup, added to which non-"notability" not established. Keep.--Gene_poole 07:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge salient facts with geographic article. It's just an average secondary school in Burton-on-Trent. Only of any relevence whatsoever to those who live in Burton-on-Trent. There should probably be a short list of the schools in Burton-on-Trent in that article, but they don't need huge articles as they are just normal, everyday schools (don't get confused by the visual arts thing, that sort of title is now pretty much normal in the UK, and still only significant in the local area). Average Earthman 08:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Earthman. Radiant_* 08:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. This school is interesting, not just to people of Burton-upon-Trent, but to people interested in history (going back to 1531) and education of ethnic minority children. If merged, it should be broken back out when sufficient "salient facts" are accumulated to make a separate page the best way to organize them. Kappa 11:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree about the breaking out part Kappa mentions. Radiant_* 12:02, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please, the school is like 500 years old Yuckfoo 16:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jimbo, forgive them for they know not what they do. Klonimus 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• it's a rare event, but I'll vote to keep this notable school. Running since the 16th century does the trick. BigFatDave 21:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A school with nearly five hundred years of history and which appears to have contained a merger of government and non-government schools makes this notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep obviously since this school has close to five hundred years of history worth documenting. —RaD Man (talk) 02:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. It's a decent article, not that it would matter if it wasn't. Oliver Chettle 04:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Staffordshire and delete - Skysmith 07:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean merge/redirect? I was under the impression that merge/delete was invalid. —RaD Man (talk) 14:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think he means merge content and then delete this page ;)... which as I understand it is a valid option, the wrong one here... but it is an option. Keep  ALKIVAR™ 02:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. For some reason I thought a merge vote also meant an obligatory redirect for page history purposes. Guess I was wrong. —RaD Man (talk) 05:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The redirect can be deleted, but only if the histories are merged as well as the content. I understand that this is a hassle for the admins, so merge/delete is discouraged. Kappa 06:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; secondary schools are notable, and this one has a history dating back to 1531.--BaronLarf 02:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.
  1. ALL schools are notable in their respective communities.
  2. They're also a perfect way to interest and involve the next generation of Wikipedians.
  3. Shouldn't we have article stubs for schools if only to hold a place to put famous alumni from that school?
  4. Keeping some schools and deleting others sends a message of elitism to the students that degrades the value of the deleted schools.

I cannot comprehend the logic of anyone wanting to delete ANY school! --Unfocused 17:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Five edits, four to VFD.

• Keep, although I can understand why this school was initially nominated (copvio), it is no longer reasonable to delete this historical 16th century school. Tallyman 17:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concur with Tallyman. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles about schools belong in Wikipedia -- what purpose is served by the deletion of an article concerning an institution that really affects people's lives? --Zantastik 19:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Over 100 years old. Noisy | Talk 10:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Some kind of vanity article or a personal attack. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep--it is relevant to this page, which is referenced in one of the help guides here. --Jemiller226 06:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I still say delete. "Quack orff missie" deserves a mention on the page widening article, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. — JIP | Talk 07:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Page widening. All a troll wants is attention and I see no reason for obliging this one by expanding on his bio. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing there worth merging -- it's just one troll attacking one forum, and he doesn't even seem to be particularly original about his methods. --Carnildo 23:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit & Keep - If we forget the troll aspect, this entry is more about an infamous feud between a corporate giant (LonelyPlanet) and a small time author, something that has gone of for the best part of five years. Whether the trolling aspect is necessary is questionable however, it tells another side that is often forgotten and is often asked about among the thousands who are familar with the saga that has encompassed the battle to establish whether plagiarism/theft of research has taken place. In short, it's a poor entry that should focus less on trolling more on the facts of a real interesting story.
  • Note: Above edit by 172.201.213.177. --Carnildo 18:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it begs for an article renaming and some rewriting. --Mecanismo 21:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to what? Re-write how? --Carnildo 22:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it - it's a good historical internet piece.
  • Note: Above edit by 202.147.44.203 --Carnildo 00:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I can add a few more details as I'm familiar with the history.
• Delete not notable. Grue 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, probably vanity piece by the troll. — Asbestos | Talk 09:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect CDC (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary of non-notable person. Reads like it was copied from a newspaper, too. RickK 06:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Founded a town. Maybe merge into the town he founded. Grace Note 06:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing worth keeping in that article was that he founded Port Alsworth, Alaska--I've merged that into the Port Alsworth article. Redirect. Meelar (talk) 06:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Now merged. Redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. All founders of towns are notable. N-Man^talk 11:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir as above. Radiant_* 20:46, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect nothing to merge. Megan1967 02:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect now that it's been merged. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article and the article SCOT are essentially redirects to each other. Completely devoid of actual content. Delete if it can't be expanded. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SCOT is now an ordinary redirect to Social construction of technology, which seems to be now reasonably informative for its size. Keep. Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 6k googles is probably worth it. Keep. Radiant_* 09:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Article was expanded. I withdraw my delete vote and vote keep instead. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please Yuckfoo 16:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Now a perfectly good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable enough. Megan1967 02:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect (already done) CDC (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a copy of Juan Carlos I of Spain 青い(Aoi) 07:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Gazpacho 09:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the duplicate, but maybe the title can be redirected to List of Spanish monarchs?
• Redirect as above. --Carnildo 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied this as a fork. Please feel free to recreate as a redirect to List of Spanish monarchs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've created the redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Sjakkalle 08:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's lyrics to -rock the Casbah gren 08:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could probably even be listed as copyvio. P Ingerson 08:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lyrics are not inherently encyclopedic. Probably a copyvio. Sjakkalle 09:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a copyvio, according to what I understand, and not inherently encyclopedic. And the title is wrong too, it should be named after the song. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's mistitled lyrics, not an article. Likely copyvio too. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. The name of the article is fair use, but the contents would be a copyvio. -- 8^D ^gab 14:14, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Copyright violation -- see the history of the lyrics.ch site to see what happens with sites that keep lyrics posted. An article on "Rock the Casbah" is acceptable. RickK 18:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Well done, Rick K. We already have an article on Rock the Casbah. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio CDC (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book review which is inherently POV. Probably a plug as well. Andypasto 09:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as promotion. Rewrite as article if book is actually notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I would highly encourage a rewrite - This has been on the top of the most linked to articles without an article list for a very long time. Lotsofissues 11:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be CopyVio. I have added a notice to the page and blanked it. I believe that a CopyVio means that a page should be blanked even if it is up for VFD (if this is not correct policy then please correct). Cheers. TigerShark 11:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct. Copyvio trumps VfD. Note that we may decide to delete it anyway even if it turns out not to be copyvio. Radiant_* 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, exactly, is it one of the most linked articles? I'll bet it because one person has made a ton of articles linking to this one. What if all of those articles are copyvio's too? -- 8^D ^gab 16:57, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
      • Aaaargh. So I randomly picked one of the articles linking to this one - David Jones (VC) - and of course it is indeed a copyvio (although only a paragraph of it). -- 8^D ^gab 17:20, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
        • Articles from victoriacross.net have been migrated to Wikipedia. That's why at the bottom of every one it says "This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference (http://www.victoriacross.net) with permission." and that's why when you go to victoriacross.net it says "The Victoria Cross Reference is migrating its content to Wikipedia - you can help" at the top. I don't know whether the victoriacross.net owner planned to migrate non-VC recipient articles as well, like book reviews. Geoff/Gsl 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The recipients of the Victoria Cross can be very notable without this particular book making the cut at all. This book has two Amazon sales rankings that I could find, the better of which was worse than 1,500,000. There is no evidence that this is a notable book. Delete the article about the book and unlink it in all the recipient articles. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite, Keep. I noticed that the reason the book is linked in each of the 40+ articles which reference it is that it is listed as a source for each of them. Conceivably, someone interested in WWI VC recipients might like to know about the book which purports to discuss all of them. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper, and a book can be notable and at the same time have a very specialized audience. -- 8^D ^gab 03:38, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Delete, as MacGyverMagic puts it --Mecanismo 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

0 Google hits According to article formed last week, paper of the "Allied Republic" Delete Lotsofissues 11:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete micronation/hoax/joke/unverifiable Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Microcruftopia. -- 8^D ^gab 14:08, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete all micronationscruft. RickK 18:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Øyvind Vestrheim" + Viking generates one google hit [3], and that one does not seem to be about football. Viking F.K. does not seem to have Vestrheim on the team either, the list of players is here. Also terms like 2003/2004 season discredit the article, because the Norwegian football season is played during the summer, and not over new year. I thought Egil Østenstad was Viking's top scorer. Sjakkalle 11:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense. bbx 04:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, vanity Andypasto 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I totally agree. --Svest 12:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't forget Hyldgaard and Lars Hyldgaard. -- Uppland 08:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:User:63.231.167.247 submitted Wiktionary:suisare to Wiktionary, and User:63.226.184.127 submitted this here. See the Wiktionary deletion discussion for reasons that this is not a word. Given that there's no such word, there's no person/concept/place/thing for an encyclopaedia to describe. This article is basically a fabrication from whole cloth. Uncle G 14:32, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Delete neologism. (If the talk page were its own article it could be speedy deleted as patent nonsense). --Angr/_comhrá 05:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. More a protologism than a neologism. Angela. 06:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

That may be. But since "protologism" is itself a neologism, I don't use it. --Angr/_comhrá 08:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edited article to acknowledge word as a neologism.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Currently an unwikified advertisement. Delete S.K. 14:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad, notability not established. Martg76 16:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Quale 08:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As Martg76 puts it. --Mecanismo 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A computer program created by a professor to assign a random grade to student's tests. Thryduulf 16:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even though I am now terribly curious as to what cockaltions are. If the professor is handing out random grades, this is information that ought to be publicized somewhere, but not here. — Smerdis of Tlön 18:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Without an explanation of the algorithm used, this page just appears to be a student complaining about a professor's scoring system. — RJH 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Maybe (lighthearted) personal attack. -- 8^D ^gab 18:59, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Speedied. Patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is also vanity. Thryduulf 16:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this appears to be a recreation of a previously deleted page - the original talk page, last edited December 2004, is still there. SteveW | Talk 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If SteveW is correct, this should be a reason for a speedy delete. Martg76 16:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so.

• Really? Replace entire page with an article on the Maluf musical style, as listed on List of genres of music: G-M. — RJH 18:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You don't think so what? It is a recreation, but the first delete was a speedy, it didn't go through VfD, so let's let this run its course. Delete, of course, nonsense. RickK 18:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't really understand why you want this article to be deleted, guys. Just because it's a celebrity article? Or maybe a Brazilian celebrity? U2, Michael Jackson, they are all here. Picado
  • The above is really User:82.121.139.13. Your accusation that we are voting against this guy because he's Brazilian is offensive. You don't really try to claim that this nobody is in the same level of notability as U2 and Michael Jackson, do you? No, you're just trolling. So why am I bothering to answer you? RickK 22:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Carnildo 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. This is a computer science student who hasn't done anything notable yet. Also, planning on becoming the president of Brazil, without actually running a national election campaign or even do something at a local level in politics, doesn't warrant an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I think this entry should continue. A simple search for maluf at www.google.com.br returned 167,000 results!
  • this edit by 82.121.141.221 (talk · contribs)
    • That doesn't mean all these hits relate to the person in question. Mgm|^(talk) 08:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—vanity. -- JeremyA 00:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am a professor at Unicamp. This is a practical joker, not serious. He has vandalized the article about the University. User:Rsabbatini.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 John Hornby CDC (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain whether this is nonsense or just a very poorly written article about a non-notable adventurer. The title is also incorrect (should be John Hornby). Thryduulf 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This seems to be a real explorer - when I Googled John Hornby I discovered that there was an explorer by this name who visited the Thelon (not Thenton) River in Canada and got 213 hits for "John + Hornby + Thelon". He also has a "Hornby Point" named after him. Not sure if he's particularly notable, though. For the moment Keep and move to John Hornby and I'll see if I can find out anything useful about him. SteveW | Talk 16:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 213 hits isn't notability, and none of the stuff mentioned above seems to have any mention on this site. I tried Thelon River, Thenton River, and Hornby Point on this site, and no articles exist. They probably aren't very significant geologic/geographic features. --Idont Havaname 00:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although we're all very fond of Wikipedia, it's nowhere near complete yet. The Thelon River crosses the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada. The lower 545 km are designated a Canadian Heritage River by their federal government, and it's between one and two km wide along that section. (The whole thing is about 900 km.) Here's more information, and there's a map on this page. Not having an article on the Thelon River doesn't mean that Hornby isn't notable; it means that Wikipedia needs an article on the Thelon River. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'll change to keep, then. --Idont Havaname 03:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As Google test points out, numbers aren't everything. Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but if you search "John + Hornby + explorer", you will quickly find two articles or excerpts from the Journal of the Arctic Insitute of North America, apparently based out of the University of Calgary. [4], [5]. They at least suggest the possibility of a reasonable expansion, although some of our Canadian Wikipedians may have to go find actual paper references. Soundguy99 04:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real explorers.--Gene_poole 05:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real explorers who have geographical places named after them. Send it to the Cleanup taskforce or write a quick stub. Google hits aren't everything. Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable enough. "He made prodigious journeys and left his name scattered over the Barrens, but the man himself is far more interesting than his deeds." - Quote from L. M. Forbes, review of: George Whalley, The legend of John Hornby (London: John Murray, 1962, 367 pp.), in: The Geographical Journal, published by the Royal Geographical Society, Vol. 129, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 359-360. From JSTOR. -- Uppland 08:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. John Hornby is probably notable—he was a Canadian naturalist who died in an interesting way and about whom at least one book has been written (see previous comment). Since he died in 1925, it's not particularly surprising that his Google score is a bit low. On the other hand, this article needs to be fleshed out to at least a decent stub if it is to be kept. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, will be easy to expand with this vfd on the talk page. Kappa 11:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand as well as renaming as John Hornby. Notable Arctic explorer.Capitalistroadster 09:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now created an article for John Hornby. We don't need this article as a result and there is little to merge so Delete.
    • Redirect to Capitalistroadster's correctly-capitalized and interesting article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orthographic errors aren't worthy of redirects --Mecanismo 21:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. CDC (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an orphan. The information is already in The Revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas. Martg76 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as duplicate content. Megan1967 02:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Article filled with junk

• (nomination by 130.126.8.172)
• Redirect to Howard Stern —Wahoofive (talk) 17:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Howard Stern had a redlink pointing here. Speedy delete under CSD criteria G2, G3, or A1 — take your pick. Let the redlink stand. Uncle G 17:26, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Speedy back to redlink as above. Kappa 17:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. RickK 18:57, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think the content that is currently on the Category:Lists of pieces page should actually be merged onto List of pieces, making this the top-level page on the topic. — RJH 18:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I take it what you mean is there should be a page called Lists of pieces (currently an evil redirect to Category:Lists of pieces). This page is supposed to be a list of every piece ever written, a ridiculous idea. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ouch. Delete. Radiant_* 20:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lousy title, too; I expected to see something about the Sphinx's nose and maybe the torn Jello box that the Rosenbergs allegedly used as a password. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Carnildo 23:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 02:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another unmaintainable list. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not that there's anything wrong with lists, per se, but this is just too much. I like the idea of a Lists of pieces (List of lists of pieces)?, which would contain maintainable sublists. Antandrus 04:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --RobertG 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All list articles should be converted into a category article. That's what they are for. --Maciel 17:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That's crazy... --minghong 18:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page is a self advertisment and SPAM, content of this sort is not needed on Wikipedia. (Turbinator) 19:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Qualifies for speedy delete too. Deus Ex 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as content-free. --Carnildo 23:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I redirected it to an existing article on the same subject Ashibaka (tock) 23:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Plain vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this page and the link on Kathryn (name). — RJH 18:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for a delete, but there's no point. Smoddy, thanks for your civility and open mind, but I happen to know that this article is nothing but Urban Dictionary-esque banter. The guy who made it often shows me these pages (he is not the same as the "Ultimate Ninja" vandal) he makes about our classmates. I usually give them a dismissive sigh and a roll of my eyes, assuming Wikipedians will soon root them out, which has always happened until now. You are a more patient person than I, but your recommended solution is right on the mark. I will carry through with that now... but don't be surprised if in the future, this person merits a real article. Kathryn's a lovely girl who will go far in life, but for now she's nothing to write a Wikipedia article about. Much love, BDD 02:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• well, if you know the guy creating these articles, maybe you could ask him to kindly knock it off. Sure, wikipedians will eventually find and delete it, but we all have much better things to do. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the "VfD" notice specifically says "do not blank this article" so I've just reverted it back to the original. I'm sure you were just trying to help, but the VfD stuff is one of the few "serious" policies around here. The article is seems to qualify for speedy, so I've also just tagged & listed it as such. Soundguy99 03:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I... er... I really suck at a lot of Wikipedia's technical aspects. I thought I could delete the article. Sorry about that. Just consider mine a firm delete. And don't worry, Soundguy, I have told this guy to stop before, but he happens to basically be my best friend; you'll have to forgive me if I allow other Wikipedians to axe his work regularly. --BDD 03:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, hell, then you can just sneak into his room when he's asleep and whisper subliminal messages into his ear. . . . "stopwritingdumbWikipediaarticlesstopwritingdumbWikipediaarticlesstopwritingdumbWikipediaarticles."  ;-) Sorry if I sounded cranky. As far as the "technical aspects", hey, no worries. Like I said, I figured you meant well. In fact I might be wrong about this meeting the speedy deletion criteria. I guess we'll find out. Soundguy99 06:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in case it doesn't get speedied (it's currently a candidate). --Angr/_comhrá 06:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is speculation, not factual information. Tony Blair does not intend to stand down for at least 3 years. There is no need for this page. Delete. Deus Ex 18:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Crystal ball, and the title isn't even spelled correctly. Delete. Firebug 19:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Purely speculative. --rbrwr^± 20:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto and for poor spelling--Doc Glasgow 21:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal ball violation, title is incorrectly spelt and localised (other countries also have Labour parties) Average Earthman 22:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation. Megan1967 02:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Hooey or original research or something; the phrase "uterine succession" comes up blank. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Move to matrilineal succession, and delete all references to nonsense neologism of "uterine succession". There is, after all, no such thing as "testicular succession", but we certainly have patrilineal succession. -- 8^D ^gab 19:48, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • Upon review of the options, delete - I'm redirecting both matrilineal succession and patrilineal succession to primogeniture. -- 8^D ^gab 19:52, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Matrilineal succession. Its not usually called uterine succession - every baby comes from a uterus so it's a meaningless title. Megan1967 02:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; no redirect: no Googles at all. I'll change my vote if someone can show any use of this apparent neologism in a serious publication. The term (and entirely speculative remarks about it) shouldn't be included in primogeniture unless some sources can be cited. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wrote the article. The name "uterine succession" came as derivation from terminology in sociology, where "uterine kinship" etc refer to kinship in unbroken female line. There, "uterine" and "agnatic" are parallel terms. Upon reflection, I concede that probably "matrilineal succession" would be a better-known title for this information. The information itself is true and I stand behind it, therefore I vote for its KEEPING. As comment to a suggestion above to redirect this to some "primogeniture", that will not be correct, since primogeniture is only one form of succession, and there are a plentitude of other forms, such as seniority, tanistry, election, appointment, rotation... Thus, such redirect will give readers a misleading picture. Regarding such comments, it is desirable that persons who do not know nor have thought through the subject in question, refrain from deleting contributions of others who know the subject better. 62.78.106.215 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per the anon's comments, perhaps it would make sense to change the redirects at matrilineal succession and patrilineal succession to point to our article order of succession? It's a broader article than primogeniture, and covers more flavours of succession. My vote to delete uterine succession still stands, as the term remains a neologism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • order of succession is rather long article already, and I think it is yet growing, as certain forms of succession are not equally presented there yet. Thus, I foresee a point where people would like to have a series of sub-articles, and "order of succession" being their synopsis and sort of 'list of contents'. "Matrilineal succession" could well be one of such sub-articles, as already is another thing, "primogeniture". signat:The same "Anon".
    • I think matrilineal succession can easily be worthy of a separate article; but certainly, let's not confuse the issue with primogeniture. One can perfectly well have matrilineal ultimogeniture. - Mustafaa 21:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A quote: "The uterine ancestry of an individual is a person's pure female ancestry, i.e. a matriline leading from a female ancestor to that individual."
• I also can find no use of this particular phrase. Without verifiable evidence, delete as original research or maybe neologism. Rossami (talk) 01:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The correct term appears to be matrilineal succession. Do not redirect as there's no evidence that the term uterine succession is actually used. It appears to be nonsensical and illiterate. Quale 04:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia should not be the vehicle by which this neologism spreads. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - SimonP 23:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This page does not seem to be describing a design pattern but more an element of object encapsulation. It seems to be defining an aggregate pattern as a design method that allows data members to be operated on by routines built into their containing object. This is a fairly trivial property of OO design.

Asides from this semantic issue, the article itself is littered with terrible English, with many spelling and grammer mistakes that render it virtually unintelligible. The code examples are entirely unelucidiating, and much of the information is described seemingly from the perspective of a Perl programmer, rather than being a language agnostic description of the methodology. Movint 18:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Movint

Never listed on vfd, no vote --Dmcdevit 00:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Aggregate patterns are an important concept in many fields (sociology, economics, psychology, criminology)... of course, this article ain't it, and there's enough junk there now for me to think that it would be better to start with a clean slate. -- BD2412 ^think 02:26, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as necessary. If someone writes about other aggregate patterns, move this to Aggregate pattern (programming) or somewhere. Kappa 06:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article needs major work. Klonimus 17:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vanity page User:Corto 19:12, 28 Apr 2005 (unsigned)

• Keep. Perfectly good subject, could use a little cleanup tweak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deputy editor of a nationally distributed magazine with nearly 1 million circulation. Hmmm...that would be a keep.--Gene_poole 05:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Gene pool. I'd love the article to be wikified and have a lead before it jumps into her bio, though and I will do that myself if no one beats me to it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So important that the editors of the Jane Magazine article didn't bother to mention her. Gamaliel 08:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• :( Really? I guess I did the rewrite for nothing then... 131.211.210.12 10:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (MacGyverMagic not logged in)#
• Comment. Stephanie Trong has been deputy editor of the magazine since, I think, November 2002. This should of course be in the article on Jane Magazine, but the article there at present is only a stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We don't even have a separate article on the number two person at General Electric. Deputy Editors don't make the cut for an independent article. Redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We probably should have an article about the number two at General Electric. One reason I'd want a separate article about a journalist like Trong is that she's done lots of work that doesn't conveniently fall under her time with Jane. I could post ext links to stuff like her interview with Bowie (for Jane) but she's done literally hundreds of interviews, many with famous people, and not all for Jane. I couldn't just shoehorn it into the Jane article, really, it would probably be best to have it under Trong, because when people read one of her interviews, they're reading Trong, not "Jane", whoever that is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Being an deputy editor of a rather non-notable magazine does not make one notable. Long established notable magazines like Time have had dozens of assistant editors and those assistants are still non-notable. Quale 08:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Quale's reason. --Chill Pill Bill 03:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Arcadian 04:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity, not relevant, obscure. --Mecanismo 21:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done a minor rewrite. 131.211.210.12 08:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There is not even an article on 'Jane' Magazine. The article on the founder is a single line. Looks like vanity to me. Corto 13:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we don't have an article about Jane magazine suggests only that we should have such an article. Obviously this isn't vanity because the person in question is deputy editor of a big-selling national magazine. Amazon ranks it 18th in style and fashion magazines, below Marie Claire but above ELLE. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Doctor. 10 Google hits. Non-notable. --InShaneee 19:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Despite being an academic, it is not evident from the article he has made enough of an impact in his field to be notable. Deus Ex 21:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Google Scholar lists 117 citations for a paper by an SR Denmeade at John Hopkins (so likely to be the same person), with others with 55, 39 and 34. Average in medical science is about 5 [world average of 5.15]. So he's not utterly non-notable. Since the original creator was still expanding the article on the day it was listed on VfD, and this was only the day after it was originally created, I'd say an article on a doctor who has published at least one high-impact papers deserves a bit more time to see if the creator can expand further. Google also shows he is the named recipient in a number of research programmes funded by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and The Prostate Cancer Foundation. Give some time to expand - slap it on pages needing attention and see if the IP expands it more. Average Earthman 23:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with Average Earthman. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Some notability. Megan1967 01:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

POV, original research essay. WP:NOT Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. Author is relating personal experiences, opinions. -- 8^D ^gab 20:55, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly (not very good) original research. (Shouldn't be userfied, as it's not suitable material for a User page.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, clearly an essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Deus Ex 21:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Carnildo 23:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree chance0, April 28, 2005
• Delete. Original essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

A band from Lynchburg, VA, that broke up in 2001. Article doesn't establish notability. Googling Fireghost + "nate garrett" (one of the band members) = 0 hits [6]. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dead band vanity. -- 8^D ^gab 20:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Gamaliel 19:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 15:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is the Advanced Placement exam schedule for May of 2005. This is not encyclopedic and will not matter to anyone in a few weeks when the exams are over anyway. Sheldrake 20:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And if they don't learn how to spell "calendar" they won't do well on the exam either. Delete —Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted: nonencyclopedic: little or no context. Mikkalai 20:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Spam —Wahoofive (talk) 20:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo of run-of-the-mill fansite. Just like any other site out there. Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, TBoM is a good bionicle site and deserves a chance to stay on Wikipedia
• Delete. Obscure, irrelevant, not worthy of encyclopedic value and probably a vanity page. On top of that, an acronym should be capitalized--Mecanismo 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 23:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Article appears to be religous proselytizing, and non-encyclopedic. I vote Delete Wikibofh 21:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. True, it appears so but it is an interesting encyclopedic subject. The article needs a major revision in order to focus on spiritual healing instead of Muslim spiritual healing. It concerns all other human beliefs. Svest 00:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Salvage the useable parts as a merge and redirect to laying on of hands. Soundguy99 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, do not merge since "laying on of hands" is not the only form, see Christian science. Gazpacho 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up. Needs universalist treatment (definitely has Islam-centric POV at present). Could subdivide out into sections like Judaism/Islam/Christianity/Other. The phenomenon has existed in biblical accounts since Elijah and before, occupies about 20% of Christian bible texts, and interest in it was more seriously revived by Christian Science starting about the turn of the 20th century, about the same time mainstream Christianity in the US came under active challenge from the scientific revolutions. Chris Rodgers 04:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure, the subject is definitely worthy of an article, but is any of the current content? It's a nice essay giving some good advice, but I don't see an encyclopedic article in it. Maybe move it to Wikibooks or something. - Mustafaa 06:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This needs alot of work. Many different types of spiritual healing. I.e Judaism feels that God outsources his healing powers to doctors. And hence sick people must seek medical help for their ailiments. Christian science has a whole theology around it, which is very different from spiritual healing in pentecostalism. Klonimus 04:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the subject deserves a keep, the article demands a delete. Nothing in the current article is of any use in creating an encyclopedic article. Start over from scratch. Quale 04:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Quale. Gazpacho 20:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject is fine, but all content needs to disappear so that a proper article can be written. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we need a vote for Blanking I keep the article as a stub, but remove the extant content? Klonimus 20:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to faith healing. I was going to clean this up (ie: delete 99% of it) and turn it into a stub, but it seems to be more or less synonymous with, and well covered by, faith healing. I'm going to add the link to Quranic healing to faith healing, though.

Oh, I don't think deletion would be a good idea - this term seems to be fairly widely used. --Kieran 14:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some fixing up on faith healing, and mentioned the term spiritual healing there. I think it should be ok to turn spiritual healing into a redirect to faith healing (or vice versa). --Kieran 15:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to faith healing. Sam Spade 01:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This website is brand new and not really significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. -Branddobbe 21:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, it was intended to be a private home page for a particular group of people and therefore not of general interest. 24.62.250.124 21:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for both of the reasons mentioned above. (I was the one who put the Rinkipedia online in the first place.) --Ciaran H 21:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• I am the author of this article. I did not know it was for private use only. Delete. — JIP | Talk 04:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perrsonal use site. Can it be speedied, because author agrees? Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as both the author of the website itself (User:Ciaran H) and the author of the article about it (me) want it to be deleted, I figure it should be speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the criteria for speedy deletion, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to allow for it. One of the criteria is "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." Unfortunately, the page has been edited by others since it was created, so it doesn't fall under that category. I don't know how strict these rules are, though. --Ciaran H 09:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax. No such earldom. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain The article does not state that the Countess is a peer in the House of Lords. Titles can be granted with no peerage included. The article simply states that she votes Conservitive in the UK and Republican in the US. Noticed the VC was also removed from the author(?); I've made similar mistakes when making editions to other articles. Whether the title really exists I do not know, but sounds plausible. One could always called Buckingham Palace or The Home Office for authentication. KCD Not remotely convincing - and I think it is for the author to cite verifiable sources (DeBrette's or Burke's Peerage??) which he fails to do --Doc Glasgow 08:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh come on, the VC is just a dead giveaway. Average Earthman 23:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nil on Google & I have relations who live near W'mere & DNK of this. But the background is detailed and may lead somewhere. Abstain --Simon Cursitor 07:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt that very much, as not one single peerage reference makes any mention of such a title. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ha! B*llocks! Only life peers are now created - and never by QM and an hereditary VC for bravery in combat... wake up! --Doc Glasgow 10:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI :: Not so -- I've forgotten the title but RH William Whitelaw was given an hereditary peerage not so long ago. of course, this is England, and we're all know to to Bilderberg degenerates so .,..-- Simon Cursitor 09:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, a handful of hereditary peerages have been given comparatively recently, but only to people like Whitelaw with no sons so the title would not be inherited in practice, a very British fudged compromise. The whole article is full of implausibilities to anyone who knows much about British titles and awards, but the most obvious is that it is obviously inspired by Lady Windermere's Fan, a fairly well known play by Oscar Wilde. Delete PatGallacher 13:03, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
      • The Earldom of Stockton, created in 1984 for Harold Macmillan, has now been inherited by his grandson, and there are several other heirs if his line dies out. (And this "Windermere" title isn't simply "implausible" - it can be stated with absolute certainty that it doesn't exist.) Proteus (Talk) 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Whitelaw and Macmillan both got their peerages in the early 80's - and were notable exceptions. Since then no non-royal hereditaries have been created. A hereditary to a royal lackey is thus implausible. This article is however quite amusing. Doc Glasgow

• Delete. In fact, this is almost a speedy by the patent nonsense criterion. James F. (talk) 19:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Proteus (Talk) 20:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish Leithp 08:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Duplicate entry of SC Johnson & Son Inc., which is the full and proper name of the company Chicago god 21:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So redirect it. RickK 21:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Call me bold. I've redirected the page to SC Johnson & Son Inc. as suggested. No need to vfd the redirection fo duplicate entries like this. Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Non-famous individual. This article was created in conjunction with Samuel Stoddard but not deleted along with it (see Stoddard's VfD page). -Branddobbe 21:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to RinkWorks. --Idont Havaname 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Megan1967 puts it. --Mecanismo 21:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nonnotable film critic, vanity. Only 56 unique Google hits for "J. C. Maçek" (not even including the III), and most of those are actually his reviews. I have a movie review website with more hits than that, but I don't deserve an article. RickK 21:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Only 38 hits for "J.C. Macek", which is the way that I'd think most users would type his name. --Idont Havaname 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 21:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Quale puts it. --Mecanismo 21:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting... I show 14,600 for "j.c. macek" on Google

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page, but rather well-written. I cannot easily determine notability. No vote. ugen64 22:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vanity page and not relevant to Wikipedia CSD. User:Jasonbig

• This is just a puff piece about Michael Champion and serves no biographical purposes (User:Jasonbig, who created this page originally but did not format it correctly)

Actually the vfd was deleted

• Keep -- for a "puff" or "vanity" piece it seems remarkably even-handed; it mentions allegations against Champion, etc. He also gets a mention on NUS President Kat Fletcher's page. If NUS politics are notable at all, then Champion is and this page is. Ben-w 00:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Well-written vanity doesn't get a pass. Quale 04:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The originator certainly has no reason to stroke Champion's vanity. Timrollpickering 14:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know that? Do you know the originator? Quale 04:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Near vanity, but article subject holds significant office at a significant school. He's not famous, but we aren't printing on paper, are we? --Unfocused 17:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Five edits, four to vfd.

• Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Quale puts it. --Mecanismo 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, vanity. Grue 15:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relevance debateable. Bencohenuk15:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a vanity - SimonP 23:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, self promotion. Largely copied from user's user page. Not notable, musician with no released albums. R Calvete 22:30, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Actually, I Userfied the original of this and so he just recreated it in User space. I already told him about this, but he recreated the article anyway. I'll suggest he desist. RickK 22:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 22:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bogus. Neutrality^talk 23:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-verifiable, not notable. Kaldari 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, of course. Passes the pokemon test, and it's an actual game that hundreds of students have played...in six states! Kaldari, why'd you do a copyedit if you think it's non-notable? ---FoodMarket ^talk! 04:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof is provided that this thing actually exists and is actually notable. Gamaliel 04:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I think notability is evident... not sure how I can prove it exists... maybe the next time the weather is nice i can send some videos of the dozens of students playing it? If we can have an article about every episode in a tv series there is a place on wikipedia for invented sports, especially one as widespread as borgolf. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 04:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You can provide a link to a news article or webpage about the game. It is a requirement of Wikipedia that information in articles be verifiable and that editors do not conduct original research. Gamaliel 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • i'll look for a link ... haven't seen one yet though and people have been asking me about the game, which is part of the reason i saw a need for the wiki article in the first place. I'm sure you appreciate how some topics, though less notable, lend themselves much more to Internet coverage than others and i think borgolf falls into the latter category, unfortunately. Still don't see how this is original research any more than other articles, i didn't have any role in the game's invention and didnt even play it till the last day in nashville... "George Bush is the 43rd president," is it original research if i counted the ones before? ---FoodMarket ^talk! 04:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I read verifiable and I see that wikipedia does rely on published references, but I think that some value has to be assigned to the fact that borgolf is the sort of topic that achieves notability long before the mainstream media takes notice... so how to do an article? should wikipedia wait? ---FoodMarket ^talk! 04:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Generally, yes, we should wait. Wikipedia has no need to "scoop" anyone and a great need to be easily verifiable by any future reader/editor. Patience is a virtue when deciding to write about events that are still current. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 29 hits, most other uses? Unverifiable and/or neologism and/or original research. Given the timeless, universal nature of Wikipedia, even if it can be proved college students in 6 US states have played the game in the past couple months, I'm not sure it's a big enuf blip in the universal timeline to have an article (at least yet)--I suspect a LOT of "games" that have been 'invented' on US colleges that won't pass the test of time. Niteowlneils 06:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would answer that unlike most spur of the moment "invented" college games, this has spread to six states. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 12:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm with Niteowlneils, but from the other side. If this *does* take off, the article will just have to be retrometabolised. Review in 6 months--Simon Cursitor 07:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until it takes off. RickK 19:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Borgolf has spread to Florida University? Funny, that doesn't exist, unless you're Lorraine in a MADtv segment. Delete, dubious. Mike H 22:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • haha oh come on, i think you know i meant University of Florida -- this is wikipedia, if you see an error, correct it. Florida was at the tournament that weekend. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 01:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did the college equivalent of a Google test; I searched under "groups" and "interests" on thefacebook, which has over a million college students. Surely if it's so popular, at least one kid would either have created a borgolf club or have borgolf as one of their interests. Funny...for every university listed, no results were found. Mike H 22:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • thefacebook is great and i am as big an internet nerd as anyone but just because something doesnt google or is not listed on thefacebook doesnt mean it's doesn't exist or is not verifiable -- if anyone is from any of the schools listed in the article, please come forward if you've heard of or even played the game, jeez. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 02:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and apparently nonverifiable. Quale 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, unverifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is worth maybe a one-line remark in the Team America article, but this article itself isn't even really about the George Clooney character in the movie, but about all of the celebrity characters in the movie. RickK 23:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Or possibly a partial merge/redir to the movie article. I found the version I first saw[7] pretty marginal, and unrelated to the George Clooney character, but now it has diverged even further[8]. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not www.PuppetMoviesInDetail.com. The entire content related to G.C. is "George Clooney...Killed by a grenade explosion." Niteowlneils 06:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Conti|✉ 00:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

The article has now been moved to Part of Team America, and the VfD header stripped off. I've restored the VfD header, but there is still nothing in the newly-named article which is keepable. RickK 19:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Are we going to list each and every cameo/lookalike used in all the movies ever made? Master Thief Garrett 00:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 01:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete AlistairMcMillan 05:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 15:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable even though he is the author of the Wave Structure of Matter Theory Cutler 23:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Hello. I am responsible for putting this page up. Could someone please offer me some more advice on how they think this page should be cleaned up. Thank you. Haselhurst 04:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and definitely clean up. Megan1967 01:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and major cleanup, including de-orphaning the article. --Mecanismo 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the page to the best of my ability - so if people are still unhappy can they please be specific as to what further things should be done. The page has a link to it from Wave Structure Matter and History of the Wave Structure of Matter (which I have just spent past 6 hours improving!). Thanks, Haselhurst 06:25, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax. Nothing links here. There is a spoiler header, spoiler of what? A movie? A TV show? And why is the image of "Elizabeth Tudor at age 13" supposedly labeled Mildred as "Queen of Poland"? Queen of Poland? RickK 23:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: This should be speedied. It's pure nonsense. --Durin 23:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Love the dating! So she wasn't born until 1885, but her husband died in 1817? Speedy. :-) --Idont Havaname 23:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am a big fan of 2ch, but this list has been stagnating as a useless duplicate of 2ch.net's boardlist for a long time, without any major attempt at translation. In the meantime http://4-ch.net/2chportal/ has completed a translation. I don't think this article is useful any longer, and although 2ch has 5 million users I don't know whether a boardlist is enyclopedic. Requesting a judgment on this. Ashibaka (tock) 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, unencyclopedic, no content. Heaven forbid if anybody ever decides to link all of those boards. RickK 23:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikisource? External links can't always be counted on to stay up. --SPUI (talk) 06:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wikisource if possible. Kappa 07:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete list articles are better suited as category listings. --Maciel 17:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the we will see the list anyway when we visit 2ch. --minghong 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this list, it is quite interesting. (\/)OO(\/) 18:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above vote is by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#GRider_sockpuppet_theatre. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RadioActive 05:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 23:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect.

• Redirect Collins.mc 23:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ah, Horse$hit. Lol, sorry I just had to do that, but seriously, its totally useless.
• Redirect to Liar paradox, which discusses this same concept that the title is getting at, but validly. The This sentence is false article is fodder for BJAODN. --Idont Havaname
  • Sorry, correct timestamp should be: --Idont Havaname 23:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liar paradox. Firebug 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cute. Redirect, as above. -- 8^D ^gab 02:48, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liar paradox. Sjakkalle 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liar paradox as suggested above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I took the liberty of adding to BJAODN.
• Given the uniformity of the above comments, I have taken the liberty of making This sentence is false a redirect to Liar paradox. Thanks,
  Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable forum with 160 members. RickK 23:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. 600 posts/day is notable only if we were making a Web guide. Ashibaka (tock) 23:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't know this place had a thought-police. --Sennaista 00:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. See also TheChequereblag, apparent misspelling of this article; should also be deleted. android↔talk 00:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 02:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and TheChequereblag. Just another website. If 160 forum members gets you an article. I want one myself right now. Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Orphan, likely advertisement. --ChrisRuvolo 23:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable Ashibaka (tock) 23:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Nestea 02:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 10:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as above. --Mecanismo 21:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notable. --minghong 18:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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