Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 14

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --AndyL 22:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• After the required five days of discussion the VfD consensus was to delete the article. However, as the article has new block-compressed revisions which are not supported by the new selective undelete feature and could result in data loss if deletion and undeletion happened the article cannot be deleted for "a month or two" until the software is updated. Accordingly, the article has been marked for deletion and protected until the software problem is fixed. --AndyL 22:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a personal essay (and a rather good one) based on individual research by a user who cannot accept the neutrality policy no matter how many times it is explained to him (see the talk page). There appears to be no prospect of him allowing it to become npov. He is of the opinion that his idiosyncratic views are fact because he has read many books and fully referenced his article. I think he needs to find another outlet for his views, as Wikipedia is not suited to his purpose. Wincoote 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is the best-written and most extensively sourced original research article I've ever seen. But it's still original research, so delete. Szyslak 02:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a research paper. It's too long and the primary author expects readers to follow footnotes to read other sources. I shouldn't have to read other sources to understand an encyclopedia article. Hedgeman 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not for original research. This (set of) article(s) is original research. Delete. Uncle G 08:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. --Sillydragon 08:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was rather worried about Wheeler's sanity when reading the discussion pages on this; a long walk or a cold bath might help him calm down a bit. It is clearly a well written and researched piece but as various people have said - it is original research. Brookie 16:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, pedantic original research about nominal linguistic shift in the usage of the word republic, not well-written, fuzzy-headed and rantish too. Does that about sum it up? Wyss 21:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This is not Original Research; it cannot be since all the information it contains appears to come from the public domain. It may be an "Original Compilation" but then, so are all the articles that I write. Extracting information from text books and other published resources is not Research. Besides it looks like a very scholarly article and a valid contribution to Wikipedia. ping 07:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • subsequently....withdrawing my vote to keep; I stand corrected on the definition of Original Research. ping 06:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note, rossb below responds to this in a way that's similar to my own thinking... except that I don't think any salvage effort would be worth it. Wyss 09:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much, perhaps most original research in the humanities is based on information that is in the public domain. In fact I doubt that there is any significant information about the classics which isn't in the public domain. Wincoote

• • This is Original Research. It may make use of published sources, but it uses them in a very idisyncratic way, to attempt to prove a particular thesis. Basically it assumes that when classical or other authors use the terms res publica in Latin, politeia in Greek, or commonwealth in English they are all referring to a particular constitutional form of mixed government, which in many cases is pretty evidently not the case. Delete (or possibly re-work under a title such as Constitutional theory of mixed government so as not to hijack the term "Republic").rossb 07:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, the talk page makes it clear that the article was written as soapboxing. But do you really believe there's nothing here that can be salvaged for other articles? Citing sources in support of original assertions is OR, but describing what sources say themselves is not. The article has a great deal of the latter. Gazpacho 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the main author wouldn't permit it and there are plenty of articles on related issues which can be worked on more constructively. The whole slant of this article is too idiosyncratic for it to be worth anyone's effort to try to turn it into something else, and no one is likely to want to deal with the hysterical reaction that would be the likely response of the main writer. Thus there is no realistic prospect of it ever becoming npov. Wincoote 09:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article rather hysterically describes a non-descript linguistic shift in a word's usage over the past 2500 years or so. Ironically, this shift appears to be somewhat less than average, and I sense that the author has some PoV political ax to grind (among other things). Wyss 09:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. (Note to administrator: but don't count this as a Keep if that would block a consensus to Delete). While there are some paragraphs that are original research and the article seems to have been written to present the author's somewhat idiosyncratic POV about republican or "mixed" government, I don't think it suffers from this more than a great many other articles, and there is a considerable amount of useful fact. The original research aspects can be cleaned up, although the attitude of the author on the Talk page suggests that this might be a bit of a battle. The basic problem I have with the article is that it overlaps the topic of Republic, and I don't see sufficient grounds for it to be an independent article. It should be merged with Republic, although I hesitate to set WHEELER loose on that article. By the way, I don't find this article terribly well-written. Yes: the sentences are grammatical and the diction and style are those of an educated writer. But it is a bit disturbing to see these labelled as "good writing" because the article is really too long, meandering, unfocused, and a bit muddled. --BM 15:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to reduce the outrage about the nomination I expected from WHEELER, but by the standards of 99% of articles nominated on here it is a work of genius. Still no sign of him surprisingly, and a consensus is established now. Wincoote 08:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Today on the talk page he basically called me a Marxist with "Jewish" thinking. Funny that, since being a descendant of resourceful, independant-minded anabaptists, their lingering influence strikes me at almost every turn of my life. He's only managed to strengthen my opinion that the content of this article is so riddled with hysterical agenda, any NPoV content would require much work to glean and merge, so my vote to delete it all does stand. Wyss 17:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • The problem with merging it with Republic is that although it purports to be about the concept of a republic, it's really about the use of certain words which would not actually equate to "republic" in modern usage, and about a certain type of mixed government which the author on very dubious grounds maintains is the "true" definition of a republic. rossb 15:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, I wouldn't suggest that it should be merged en bloc, but tather that the useful material and information from the article be worked into Republic. But if nobody wants to undertake that, it is also fine with me if the article is just deleted. --BM 15:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I somewhat agree, but ultimately fall closer to the direction of deletion. -Sean Curtin 02:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any salvageable content into republic, delete article - this title is pretty useless, and any links should just be changed. The article is really a mixed bag. It's written to present a particular argument, so it effectively becomes a personal essay. It's also not terribly coherent, and frequently synthesizes material in ways that give the whole product a strong feel of original research. However, the republic article is no great shakes either, and obviously this article is written as a critique of that one. Some elements could be saved, but what is really needed is someone with a much better grounding in the theory of political science to give the entire subject area a major rewrite. --Michael Snow 17:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've started editing the Republic article, initially the opening paragraphs, and will maybe do a bit more from time to time (not that I'm an expert). Actually I think we should be very careful what we import into that article from "Classical definition of republic". By the way I see from a link on Republic that Wheeler has now reproduced "Classical definition of republic" at Wikinfo:Classical republic classical definition of the republic. Wikinfo is probably a much more suitable vehicle for this sort of work than Wikipedia, so we shoudn't feel too bad about deleting all his hard work. rossb 21:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• We need people to go to the what links here page and delete links to the article. AndyL 05:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Watch out here comes Wheeler --Brookie 19:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The editors of Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal ( editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pp 265 & 267) have printed the right definitions:
  • republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry.
  • mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group.

Where did this information come from????????????????????????? In 1995, This is a definition that says that a republic is mixed!!!!! So where in the republic article, is this """"mixed"""" answered and spoken about?????

And if you read the Bibliography section of the Classical definition of a republic, you would see that there. It is all there. Why don't you people read?????

• Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a PHD in Political Science wrote, "It will be seen that the classical and scientific meaning of that word remained unchanged for 2300 years, not withstanding the scandalous ignorance displayed by editors, teachers, college professors, stump orators, and other irresponsible persons who are prominent in the public eye." (Menace of the Herd, 1943 pg 2.)

To the charge of "original research"--What the heck is Ball's and Dagger's definition come from? Von Kuehnelt has degrees in philosophy and economics and a PHD in Political Science and he doesn't know what he is talking about?

• Cite your sources is ""Wikipedia"" policy!!!! Without sources and references and quotes, any articles ARE USELESS TO COLLEGE STUDENTS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS. I write my articles so that college and graduate students can use my work to further their work.

I am rewriting the convention of an encyclopaedic article. I am thinking outside the box. With the internet and this format, we are not confined to a publishers and written paper format. Our articles can be expanded to be really useful and much more academically fruitfull.

• I am writing an article so that a sixth grader, who has no classical reading, can understand the concept and theory. I am writing an article, per Wikipedia, that an Asian kid or a South American kid can understand who don't have all the references close at hand. Many don't have bibles--How can they not understand the impact the Bible had thoroughtout the Protestant and Roman Catholic Worlds, without it being referenced.

• The Greeks and Romans are the 'Root and Foundation of our civilization. Cut them away, and we are lost. This article is neccessary to understanding our ancestors actions both in Rome, Early Modern Britain, and Colonial America.

• Your ignorance of the matter, your bad education, your propagandist teachers, your lack of reading of the classics and your lack of wide reading, is not an excuse to label my work "original".

Your actions of delete, are proof positive that I have to include a lot in the article because of the lack of classical education, classical works, and an understanding of Greek philosophy; Classical culture, Classical thinking, and Classical milleau.

• The Discussion page is just that---A DISCUSSION PAGE. And I will use it for a soapbox if I want to. That is what it is there for.

• I do acknowledge that some of it is a little "Original" research because Logic and the principle of non-contradiction requires it. For example, the British word for commonwealth is the same for republic. If England Tudor was called a Republic, how can the following roundheads under Cromwell call it a Commonwealth. Paramenides principle will come into play. The Principle of noncontradiction. Immediately any teenager or sixth grader is going to come upon immediate confusion. It's right there. W/O a little bit of clarification, the confusion disappears. Paramenides principle comes into play. It must be used.

• What many of you forget is that COMMONWEALTH is for everbody not just for the people. What about the "commonweal" for the Aristocracy? HUh???? What about the "commonweal" for the Monarch, his family and relatives? What about them???? That these groups of people don't deserve the "Commonweal". A republic/commonwealth is a for a concern for ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE REALM. Some how you people think that the common weal only is for the lower class---That is BS.

When you say that the Commonwealth is only for the lower classes, you are turning the Commonwealth into a democracy!!!!!

• Modern people have a habit of liking to tell other people what to think. With the inclusion of many quotes, I have made the article much more interesting for kids. I let the people speak for themselves. It is much more clearer that way. Here is another inovation. That will enhance Wikipedia as the place to go. Let the words speak for themselves instead of me telling or interpreting what they said, which will propably be the wrong way any way.

• User talk:Wheeler/Confusion over term republic

• As a Greek, I am writing an article for Sixth graders and for College students. All can use it with the simplest of language, thorough for those ignorant of classical millelieu and sources and thorough referencing for graduate students and teachers. All may use it.

• I will not confer legitamacy for deletion by voting either way. I am not going to validate this deletion by voting. This needs to be withdrawn!!! WHEELER 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia's natture means that any article, at any time, can be nominated for deletion. It's a simple matter of process, and faith in community consensus. Lacrimosus 00:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that some material is original. I am defining it in all its parameters. I will delete the article except for one sentence about it being "mixed" That is unrefutable. To keep all the links already established on Wikipedia and to keep it in the Category sections, I think it advisable that only ONE external link from Wikinfo on the original page. I think that this is the best course available at this time. Without a "Classical Republic" it will be hard to understand the Republic of Venice, the American Constitution, the English Constitutionalists like John Aylmer and Geoffrey Elton and others. In a couple of years, when this gets thrown around some; it can be put back on its original page.

I have personally bought Founders and the Classics, and The Theory of Mixed Government in Antiquity at great personal cost. I have through interlibrary loan am getting James Blythe's Mixed Government in the Middle Ages. I am continuing my research as fast as humanely possible.

I hope this arrangement satisfies all.WHEELER 14:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes, "Talking to a professor of a big American university, a specialist in modern German history, I remarked that Hilter was a demogogue like Cleon. 'Cleon?' (He remarked.) "Yes, Cleon of Athens", (professor:) 'Ah, that's antiquity. It's none of my business." This phenomena of specialization is by no means restricted to the United States; it is beginning to be worldwide, invading all studies and knowledge as a new form of docto ignorantia. WHEELER 15:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler, the only reason you have a computer and the leisure time to tap on its keyboard is because human societies tend to specialize. Did the prof deny AH was a demagogue or something? Wyss 19:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you read the Scriptures?---There is nothing new under the sun. If you read the classics and esp. Aristotle, that a certain dictator at that time, formed a club of men much like the SA and SS, to protect himself and further their objectives w/o being interupted. All this happened before already. As George Santayana has said, "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Sad. I can go thru the classics, and see Hitler throughout them--already portrayed. One must read, the classics, theology, philosophy, literary criticism, history, etc. and to have a "real experience" of the world, to really know the world and make sense of it. Sadly, we still haven't learned from the Greeks and we are going to repeat the same mistakes. Tyranny comes out of democracy. Never fails. WHEELER 21:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True enough (except that tyranny will come out of my cat, too, if you let it). However, that doesn't change anything. The VfD concerned an article which is original research. Wyss 06:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"A republic, in its basic sense, is a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however defined), rather than from an hereditary principle."

This is now the definition of a republic. "Sovereignty derives from the people". Just like Hitler wanted. Hitler received his "power" from the "people". einine volkisch republic...(I can here the crowds from history:) Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! WHEELER 15:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hitler ran a bit of a scam, didn't he? Moreover, he wasn't elected by a majority but rather maneuvered his way into a coalition government which he then handily took control of through a combination of adroit politics and mass propaganda (not to mention judicial murder). Wyss 19:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at this definition. "A republic, in its basic sense, is a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people". What is the difference between this and a democracy? This is what a democracy is. Again, the principle of identity. Why say the word republic if it is the same as democracy? Again, why say "democratic republic" when republic is the same word as democratic? All this is illogical. Does Republic and Democracy mean the same thing? If so, why seperate articles? My head is spinning with the complications of what I am reading. It is obvious we don't have a clue. Lost in space again.WHEELER 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So on the one hand you're saying that sovereignty deriving from the people equates to Hitlerism, on the other that it equates to democracy - you can hardly have it both ways! Actually of course there's a great deal of difference between the notion of th e"sovereign people" as in the French and American revolutions, and the quasi-mystical Nazi concept of the "Volk". I do wonder however whether the "Republic" article might better be defined in terms of "citizens" rather than the "people". rossb 08:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In current usage a republic is a type of democracy, is all, usually characterized by intermediate layers of elected representation and some sort of executive branch. No scandal there, no lost in space. No surprise there's been some natural linguistic shift over the past 2500 years. What's interesting to me is how intact the word has remained compared to others. Wyss 19:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think a republic is most commonly defined in what it is not. The French republic, the republican constitution of various American states, and archetypically the Roman republic, were all so defined specifically in opposition to hereditary monarchy, especially of course monarchies that were perceived to be oppressive. The concept of a republic seems to have originated with the Romans, looking back from the days of the empire to the republican arrangements that had preceded it, which in turn were defined in opposition to the monarchy of the Tarquins. The Greeks, with a different history, and a more analytical approach, classified states as monarchies, oligarchies, or democracies, or indeed some mixture of all three, but aarguably did not have need of the precise concept of a "republic". Indeed one could argue that the Greeks didn't, and don't, have a word for it: the word politeia fundamentally means "the government", "the body politic", and so on in general terms, rather than what we would call a republic (so of course does the Latin res publica in most contexts), and the current Greek state, the "Hellenic Republic", is called in Greek "Elliniki Dhimokratia", so for the Greeks at least democracy and republic are synonymous. In practice, if you were to read beyond the opening sentence of the current "Republic" article, you will see that a distinction can be made: not all republics are democratic, not all democracies are republics. The United Kingdom has democratic institutions, and a mixed form of government, but is not referred to a "republic". Those who campaign for Australia and other countries of the British Commonwealth to become republics are not asking for their countries to have a more "mixed" form of Government, but for their head of state to be an elected official rather than the Queen or her representative. rossb 20:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republics don't have monarchies, which is the usual explanation for why the UK isn't called one. The Roman republics ceased with the first emperors, as noted at the time. Wyss 21:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sparta is a Republic with a King. Cicero called Sparta a republic. Machiavelli called Sparta a Republic. John Aylmer called Sparta a republic. John Hooker was enthused with Spartan and Roman republicanism. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers which were originally newspaper articles that was widely read by the general population called Sparta a republic. John Aylmer saw that Tudor England was a republic. Sparta is a republic.WHEELER 21:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, Sparta was a state with two kings (a most unusual form of constitution). As to Cicero calling it a republic, if you're referring to your quotation "res publica lacedaemoniorum" (I quote from memory) this is more likely just to have meant "the Spartan state", rather than implying that it was a "republic". rossb 21:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scandalous! :) Wyss 21:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where in God's green earth do you get that a republic is the same as democracy. Neither Plato nor Aristotle confuse the terms. Have you people read the Athenian Constitution by Aristotle? I'm I taliking to a brick wall? Don't you understand plain english? The word has been bastardized. Only in the last two centuries has the word changed in meaning. For 2300 years republic WAS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH DEMOCRACY. Never. WHEELER 21:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they're the same, Wheeler. You might want to re-read my post on that. Yes, it's been bastardized, that's normal linguistic shift, happens all the time, nothing to see here, move along, yes I understand plain English, I think the article (which has apparently been deleted now), and the arguments you provide for it, are hysterical in both tone and motive. Wyss 06:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're fundamentally mistaken in applying the term "republic" to what Plato or Aristotle may have said about Athens. It's not a question of whether either place was a democracy, it's more that the concept of "republic" is really an anachronism as applied to this period, and really has nothing to do with the concept of a "mixed" constitution which admittedly was discussed at that time. rossb 21:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I should have added that no-one is saying that republic is the same as democracy (except that the same word for both is used in modern Greek). The current wording of the "Republic" article makes it clear that not all republics are democratic, and not all democracies are republics. rossb 21:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They have put a deletion on my Classical definition of republic. I will not even vote. I ask that you don't either. Let it be deleted.WHEELER 18:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a laugh. It is the only article with over 70 footnotes with a huge bibliography and they want to delete it. Good. This is all a joke. Gravitas is a virtue sadly missing today.WHEELER 18:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free content. My Ass. This is a Marxist controled encyclopaedia. What doesn't fit Marxist scholarship and assent gets deleted. I have now three major articles deleted; National Socialism, Cultural imprinting on politics, and now Classical definition of republic. Yes, this is a "Controlled" encyclopaedia. Information will be scrubbed. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the Herd. You will comply. We are the Borg.WHEELER 19:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And they deleted the only articles that have references to them. See, what counts for "academic scholarship" these days. This is sad commentary on them. See, what real research unveils and what crappy research is in America today. That information has to be Marxized before it gets accepted.WHEELER 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the hell did I make a Bibliography for if this is original research? I must be stupid.WHEELER 19:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[Spotted by Brookie 13:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Comment: Mr WHEELER, I think, has missed two important points. First, WP offers free content (no charge) and editing by consensus, which simply means one can edit as one pleases, but if it doesn't conform to a consensus it won't remain. Second, he doesn't seem to understand what original research is. One can include 1000 references to the literature, peer-reviewed, widely published, everything... but if the article's thesis is an original synthesis, it's not encyclopedic. For example (broadly put for clarity), if WP had existed 100 years ago, and a young Swiss patent official named Albert Einstein had posted his work to WP in an article entitled "Special Theory of Relativity", it would likely have been deleted as original research. Wheeler may still argue that WP is Marxist (I'm certainly not), that his arguments are correct and so on, but the consensus is that his ideas are original, and with their additional, underlying politcal agenda, they also fall under the "WP is not a soapbox" guideline. Wyss 18:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advert for non-notable product. RJFJR 01:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising CDC (talk) 01:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Looks better now. CDC (talk) 07:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it is currently not-notable. Zzyzx11 06:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if you actually knew what Streamium is you'd know that it's certainly not 'non-notable', which isn't a defined grounds for deletion anyway. The page is just a harmless stub that will grow in time (much like how all of Wikipedia started out as). Dan100 13:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major electronics line by a very major manufacturer (Philips). 76,900 Google hits. We have articles for loads of obscure cel phones, computers, and other gadgetry, we certainly should have one for this as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, despite its POV nature, it is notable. --Sn0wflake 18:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, zap the PoV. Wyss 21:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up. JoaoRicardo 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks OK after the cleanup. Good job, JoaoRicardo. Carrp | Talk 18:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, thanks JoaoRicardo. —RaD Man (talk) 02:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Now that it has a NPOV, we should expand and wikify it. Bratsche 04:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Robert Pendray 09:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable poorly-written vanity. Arguably a state-record-holder might be notable, but I disagree. LizardWizard 01:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• delete.Mikkalai 01:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity. Brim 05:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Nothing really notable. Zzyzx11 06:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but have a look at the most hilariously awful final paragraph ever to grace a WP vanity page. Classic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make sure it goes to the deleted nonsense page. :) --Sn0wflake 18:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - Drivel --Brookie 19:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jonathunder 05:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

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

I count 12 clear "delete" votes (minus one anon), 12 clear "keep" votes (minus one troll), 12 "transwiki" votes and one anon comment too unclear to interpret.

Noting that m:Transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus that deletion does and further noting that even the article's main author and defender is now suggesting that this should be transwiki'd, I am going to be bold and add it to the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article is encyclopedic enough SYSS Mouse 02:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki - change of mind after some updates in the story. Turns out to be one one gunman and not five. Keep, obviously. Notable, important, verifible, informative. Good news search shows 338 articles about it. We (rightly) have articles far more obscure. Reports indicate that there may have been as many as five gunmen. Surely this is more notable than about 85 percent of the articles on Wikipedia:Unusual articles, or other crime related articles (e.g., Scott Peterson)? This is an absurd VfD. Neutrality^talk 02:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: Full disclosure: I am the author of the article. Neutrality^talk 02:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • What got you interested in this shooting in the first place? silsor 10:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • It was on CNN all last night, so I write an article. Neutrality^talk 15:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews —Neuropedia 02:15, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • It's written in an encylopedia style, not a news style. A transwiki is inappropriate. Neutrality^talk 02:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, review in a month. This may turn out to be important; it may be forgotten entirely next week. Right now it's too early to say. (and please add a reference or two, thx.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Four sources have been added. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 02:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Most major news stories like this are notable enough for Wikipedia even though we do have WikiNews. Szyslak 02:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems perfectly appropriate. Tuf-Kat 02:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This type of article has a long history on Wikipedia. Since it is written in an encyclopedic style, it should be kept. Andrew pmk 02:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and encyclopedia. - BanyanTree 02:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! ✏ OvenFresh² 02:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is breaking news. At this point, it is hard to know whether this is going to be like the Columbine High School incident and have enduring encyclopedic value, or whether it is going to be forgotten in a couple of news cycles. I think it would be better to keep breaking news out of the Wikipedia, and leave it for Wikinews, except in those cases where it is clear from the outset that an incident will be of encyclopedic interest in the future. --BM 03:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment A week on VfD may allow this to resolve into a more stable article. Neutrality's contributions have been sufficient that I think s/he can be trusted to stay on top of this one. Denni☯ 03:35, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. This was a local shooting. No one was even killed. What is its significance? Should I start writing up articles on all the shootings and murders in my area? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is the USA: people shoot people. Utterly unnotable. Delete. -- Hoary 05:15, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Sad though it is, violent crime occurs all the time in this country. I don't see why this non-fatal incident is any more notable than these murders from my region that have turned up in the news lately: [1] [2] [3]. So the perpetrators chose a public setting and fired at random people instead of people they knew. That doesn't establish it as encyclopedic in my opinion. — Ливай | ☺ 05:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in view of other shooting incidents in the United States this isnt really all that notable, no-one was killed. Megan1967 05:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. RickK 06:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. No evidence that this is a "topic of historical significance". —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews. This isn't currently notable. If it becomes notable later, we can make an article about it. --Sillydragon 08:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews. While the article has got goos writing, this shooting isn't any different from the hundreds happening in the US on a daily basis. I think it's got enough of a news style to be transwikied, but it could always be edited before the move. That shouldn't stop transwiki from being an option. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not yet notable, and given the number of more lurid/murderous evnts, unlikely to be so. HowardB 09:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if every violent incident that resulted in two people being injured was written up in Wikipedia, there's be more articles of that nature than everything else combined. —Stormie 10:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews. As above. If this event proves to be notable then the article can be recreated. Lan3y - Talk 11:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Violent crimes occur every day. What makes this one special? —Lowellian (talk) 12:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important and interesting. - Darwinek 14:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as noted above. The event got some major coverage immediately afterward, but it's pretty evident this isn't another Columbine shooting, nor a terrorist attack. As noted above, if later events prove this to be a notable event (outside the immediate vicinity) it's easy enough to put together a new article. 23skidoo 16:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as noted above. 63.198.46.74 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know how I got logged out ... the above is my vote. HyperZonk 17:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a little new to Wikipedia so I am unclear why you wouldn't keep an article like this... Although it current reads a tad like a news article it is factual and there are articles on similar events (Columbine, Montreal) so I would say keep it. emackinnon (edit - after reading all these posts and seeing the points of both sides I can now see why an article like this is questionable... thanks)
• Transwiki doesn't seem to be quite on the same level as Columbine, 9-11, Waco, etc. This is why wikinews is important, so that the main WP doesn't get deluged with daily news events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ridiculous to say that an event needs to be on the "same level as Columbine, 9-11, Waco, etc" to merit an article. People are voting as if this were a mugging or something. Neutrality^talk 01:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, nobody was killed or even very seriously injured. Not to undermine its obvious importance to those who were there, but it's basically a case of some guy going postal and unloading a weapon in a public place. If we say this deserves an article, then why not the hundreds of thousands of murders and non-fatal acts of violence that happen all over the world every year? If this happened on the street in the inner city instead of in a mall, it would just be another footnote in the police blotter. Wrong? Right? Maybe so, maybe not, but that's how our society assigns importance to things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I would say to either keep this article, or merge it into the Hudson Valley Mall article that deals with the mall itself and make it a section of the article.
  

JesseG 18:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No valid reason was provided to delete. GRider\^talk 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Several valid reasons were given. RickK 20:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No valid reason was provided for having the article in the first place. Maybe it belongs in the Poughkeepsiepedia but not here. --Calton 20:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews. In general, breaking local news should appear there. Once it has stood the test of time, someone will write a Wikipedia article. Jonathan 21:40 14 February 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Neutrality. Keep. This is a notable current event article. --Lst27 (talk) 23:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. People are shot and killed every day. This does not stand out. JoaoRicardo 02:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please, not very notable, but notable enough to sustain an article. silsor 10:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews. I respect Neutrality's contributions but this is nothing particularly special about this crime. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. ComCat 01:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It would NOT be a good news story -- Five gunmen? The kind of gun is unknown? The number of shots fired is unknown? Wrong, it was one guy with an AK-47 "knockoff" and approx. 60 shots were fired. This barely made the news here in SoCal, but a brief search shows that its facts are wrong and no one cares enough to update it. The fact that this info was not available when it was written underlines the difference between news and an encyclopedic article. Should our friends in the UK post similar half-baked stories about stuff that we have never heard of?
• keep Yuckfoo 03:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article contains press release. Google search turns up a few hits that refer to the band, but does not appear to warrant an article. --jag123 02:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band promo, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. Wikipedia is not a place for people to post press releases. Zzyzx11 06:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and wouldn't a press release be copyvio? Radiant! 08:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Brookie 19:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible Copyvio, self-promotion. Wyss 21:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jwanders 20:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "corporate mercantilism" doesn't seem to be that widespread (~500 google hits) and I doubt the differences between mercantilism and corporate mercantilism will be so different they need seperate articles. --jag123 02:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete SYSS Mouse 02:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Anyone see a reason not to redirect to crony capitalism? Gazpacho 02:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) (not SYSS Mouse)
• Merge and redirect to Noam Chomsky Crony capitalism. Megan1967 06:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to crony capitalism, as Gazpacho suggests. No need to merge with Chomsky -- people who want to know his views can get there easily enough, and there's nothing new here not already there. --Christofurio 14:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no RD, random word pairing/construction, not a helpful classification. Wyss 21:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems this is not a widespread term even in Chomsky's own work. Googling for chomsky + "corporate mercantilism" gets 250 Google hits, while Chomsky gets over 2 million. JoaoRicardo 02:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this substub. Whole article says A phrase regularly used by Chomsky to refer I guess to the international combination of state capitalism and multinational corporations. See: corporate + mercantilism. Apart from anything else the words "I guess" should be a dead giveaway. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Darkwind 21:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

vanity. oberlin college student. Wolfman 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Boring, delete. -- Hoary 05:05, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. No article for you! Come back ten years. --MarkSweep 06:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All I can say after reading it is "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 06:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 08:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and... wow. Talk about non-notable. --Sn0wflake 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - she deserves a Phd in being a nonabee! Brookie 19:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #2, user test, Oberlin has one of the best music schools in the world btw. Wyss 21:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 05:42, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 18:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete Yuckfoo 03:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's true about Oberlin, except she hasn't done anything yet. Bratsche 04:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The votes were 5 delete, 2 keep. dbenbenn | talk 18:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable stub, basically just an advert JeremyA 04:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• If it's indeed the oldest rock 'n roll bar, it may be notable. Then again I'm not sure what is meant by the term "rock 'n roll" bar. Radiant! 08:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I formatted it. Agreed with Radiant!, if it's the oldest "rock 'n roll" bar it's notable. Could we have a Norwegian's view? Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Easy to find lots of mentions for this place, but only one I can see mentions "oldest...etc." Anyway, it is pretty subjective/arguable -- what was a rock 'n roll bar 30 years ago.....40 years ago....50 years ago? HowardB 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is helpful. Wyss 21:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and I agree with HowardB. JoaoRicardo 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'd like to see information the "oldest rock 'n roll bar" claim expanded. In its current state it's barely notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 18:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 06:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and add a rule of thumb that all bars in operation for 35+ years are worthy of entry. Too bad the article lacks any color, it should be expanded by someone who knows Hulen's history.
• Delete, subjective notability. JamesBurns 08:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is already lists of champions, past and current as well as link on the main page. There doesn't seem much use of this page. CMC 04:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicate article. Megan1967 05:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever article is being duplicated. Deletion is to drastic a measure against duplicates. 129.177.61.123 12:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork/dupe. Wyss 21:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork, no redirect. JamesBurns 08:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "Bakla" is the Tagalog translation for homosexual. And Wikipedia is not a Tagalog-English dictionary. TheCoffee 05:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Mikkalai 06:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is a separate concept from homosexuality; bakla refers to people who see themselves more as women trapped in men's bodies, rather than actual men. Whether the two concepts are distinct enough for two separate articles might need a specialist. If somebody actually writes a good article about this, keep it; otherwise, redirect to homosexuality. Meelar (talk) 06:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, I'm Filipino and the word "Bakla" is no more than a translation for "gay". Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't even need a redirect, as that would lead to endless redirecting of foreign language words to English articles. TheCoffee 08:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 08:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The concept as outlined by Meelar appears to be well-covered in Homosexuality and transgender. If you want to delve even deeper, there is always List of transgender-related topics. Bakla is simply a non-English word to describe a transgender person (perhaps amongst other things), and should therefore be deleted with no redirect. HowardB 09:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect. Foreign dic def. Already covered elsewhere. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,no RD, foreign dicdef is all. Wyss 21:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above. Kukuman 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Yo Hoary's got a stick up his ass-- chill out on Ben Mercer. -- this unsigned personal attack by 128.148.5.192

• Delete. No encyclopedic notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 06:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hate myself and Josh Bauchner for making this. -Ben Mercer ...added at 05:18, 2005 Feb 14 by User:138.16.5.153
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Gotta delete but don't feel too bad Ben. Come back when you become famous as the "man who invented the meal game". Kappa 06:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it explored more personal territory (say, his loves and heartbreaks), maybe; but as is, no way. ...added at 08:30, 2005 Feb 14 by User:138.16.20.67
• Delete - Come back in a few years Ben - you're still a Nonabee at the moment! Brookie 19:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #2, user test, let him off the hook already. Wyss 21:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 11 clear "delete" votes, 13 "keep" votes (though 6 were discounted - 4 anon, one very new user and one troll), 5 "transwiki" votes and one unclear. Many of the delete votes came before the rewrite. Most of the transwiki votes came after the rewrite.

While there is a plurality of votes for deletion, there is not the overwhelming majority necessary for straight deletion. At the same time, the sum of the delete and transwiki votes indicate a reasonably clear concensus that this is not an encyclopedia article. Noting that transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require the overwhelming concensus that deletion does, I am going to be bold and add this to the Transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Goofy attempt at a dicdef. Do not transwiki. Do not collect $100. Just get lost. -- Hoary 05:10, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. Move to wiktionary has already been requested for de:Scheiße. --MarkSweep 06:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. foreign dic def. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could develop into something --219.77.78.170 11:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) #
  • [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) just gave us Hamburger of Truth and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hamburger of Truth. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Keep needs work and can be something very good. --Lang 11:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) (219.77.78.170 11:50, 2005 Feb 14 according to history Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC))
• Keep I dont think it is nice to tell people to get lost --Hoary--User:Rlandmann 12:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) (219.77.78.170 11:55, 2005 Feb 14 according to history Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC))

• Well, 219.77.78.170, "get lost" was addressed to the article, not to the author, Cooter08865 (contributor to Kyle Busch and Mohonk mountain). -- Hoary 12:57, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Bad dictionary definition. Delete. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Keep I am just trying to make a helpful contribution.-- Hoary-your negative comments are certainly not constructive, and actually very immature. If you'd like to offer constructive criticism, by all means be my guest.Cooter088652005 Feb 14 (UTC) (12.20.200.207 14:29, 2005 Feb 14 according to history Uncle G 16:29, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC))
• I'm not sure what's going on in this vote, but this article is a foreign dicdef and should be deleted imho. Radiant! 18:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• delete not usable by wikipedia. But hopefully avoid terms like "get lost" in VfD nominations. Kappa 19:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a weird discussion but not worth keeping - there's nothing there of note! Brookie 19:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as foreign dicdef. Avoid use of 'get lost' in future VfD nominations. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dicef, get lost (NOT directed at you, TenOfAllTrades :) Wyss 21:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Pity. I mostly write biochemistry articles, and I never seem to get any good flames. :) TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Isn't English (and all living languages) constantly evolving? The article is pretty sloppy, but maybe this fellow has a point. Clean it up! What's this about getting lost?Persuader 5:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. However, VfD helps us find a consensus on whether or not an article is encyclopedic (rather than, say, a dictionary definition). Wyss 02:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• OK you guys can delete this if it makes you feel better. I admit, it was a good idea after 5 beers and a whiskey, but maybe not now. Just don't come crying to me when all your English speaking friends start using the word Scheiße. It's starting to catch on, weather you like it or not is irrelevant! And please never tell Cooter to get lost because he starts frothing at the mouth while his face turns beet red. Ha!Cooter08865
  • Hey Cooter08865, I was wondering, why are you leaving personal attacks on my talk page? Wyss 23:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey Wyss, that is indeed a pretty serious allegation! Are you 100% positive it was me? I harbor no ill will towards you. What would I have to gain?
      • Cooter08865, you signed it and I subsequently had a look at your (limited) contribution history. Meanwhile the page history of my talk page clearly shows that after reading the above, you went back and deleted your personal attack. Now you deny having made it. Readers are invited to visit my talk page and see your trail for themselves, drawing their own conclusions. I'll assume this was all due to the inexperience of a new WP user who may have misunderstood both the role and function of VfD and the Speedy Delete process, misinterpreted my posts and over-reacted emotionally. Wyss 01:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • In my opinion you really needs to lighten up. And for your information Mr. Overly Seriousness, I intend to contribute in the future with plenty of new exciting informative articles. So this time I’ll overlook your condescending/ holier than though “(limited) contribution history” snap. Cooter08865
          • Are you saying you plan on "contributing" more drunken vandalism? Based on the evidence I've seen so far, although you appeared to get off to an ok start with two contributions relating to geography and car racing, right now you're here to blow off personal steam and generally cause trouble. By the way, personal attacks and the use of sockpuppets are both violations of WP policy. (Holier than thou and Mr Overly Seriousness may seem like innocently flippant remarks, but onscreen they look like, and amount to, personal attacks never mind the plainly rude attack you put on my talk page and your contribution history is limited) Wyss 09:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • ha..."drunken vandalism" is a compliment, so I must say thank you Good Sir! Who wouldn't like to sack and plunder Rome with all it's pomp and riches? But no.....it wasn't vandalism. Just a silly idea that popped in my head. Would you really like to see what Vandalism is?Cooter08865
• Actually some of my friends use that word sometimes, and so do I. But I'd look it up in a dictionary if I had too, not an encyclopedia. Kappa 22:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why are other maledictions and slang words in wikipedia? I would think Scheiße has some sort of new linguistic and cultural importance to the American English language. Cooter08865
    • Many are dicdefs that simply haven't been VfD'd (yet). In principle, an article should be an article, with encyclopedic content. For me, discussion of the word shit is a rather straightforward process of definition and etymology, which isn't the role of an encyclopedia. Creating an article space for its German equivalent is even less so, which is why I voted to delete it. The get lost commentary is only an echo of exasperation over the apparent glee some users (often new ones) seem to derive from typing colourful and provocative content for its own sake into WP, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Wyss 01:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well if that's how you feel why don't you begin VfDing shit, fuck, crap, poop, piss? Stick with your convictions my friend and go on your clean up crusade immediately! Cooter08865
        • By the way, why did you lie about having left that personal attack on my talk page? Wyss 03:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Now you are calling me a liar? Pretty soon you'll be calling me Satan himself! If I wanted this kind of verbal abuse I'd move into my girlfriends mothers house! Oh the horror Cooter08865
            • It's all shown here, Cooter08865. -- Hoary 05:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC) (Note that the link only shows the latest history, and I've since reverted Cooter08865's vandalism myself) Wyss 08:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Hi Hoary, thanks for reverting my wretched vandalism. Thanks much! Cooter08865
          • • • Hmm. It seems that comment, while attributed to User:Cooter08865, was actually added by User:Persuader. Either they're the same person, or Persuader is trying to start trouble. — Gwalla | Talk 07:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • Looks like the same person to me, User:Persuader's only edits are to this article and talk page. Wyss 08:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                  • Wyss I think it's a moot point by now if it was me or not. Stop saber rattling and whining please. And for God sakes lighten up. My little drunken post on scheisse started out as a joke, but with the diligent contributions by Megan1967 and Capitalistroadster it clearly blossomed into something beautiful.
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, non-English dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 01:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline acceptability for me. Needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary. JoaoRicardo 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Transwiki to Wiktionary. JoaoRicardo 10:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 03:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Do we have a Wikipedia:Don't post while drunk? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I've expanded it since VfD nomination. Megan1967 06:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is this drunken prank truly worth rescuing? (rhetorical question...) Wyss 08:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, Oktoberfest already? Certainly the word exists. It's been a challenge to rescue articles that look like hopelessly lost causes, even if the end results are less than successful. Megan1967 09:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Heh heh. Rescuing a VfD can be interesting and rewarding, for sure. I'm only saying this word has little potential to go beyond a foreign dicdef (and the story about the Austrian policeman and his trial shows you've really tried, but the incident was trivial and not encyclopedic IMO). Wyss 09:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Even a joke says that it is the dictionaries schoolkids go to look for potential swearwords, not the encyclopedias :-) - Skysmith 09:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why did I just have to put a {{wi}} on spew ? Uncle G 11:40, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• Keep. I have further cleaned up the article. The word shyster is derived from the word and was developed on the Australian goldfields. It then spread around the world losing its obscene meaning - for example Groucho and Chico Marx had a NBC radio program called Beagle, Shyster & Beagle which became Flywheel, Shyster & Flywheel. Thanks to Megan1967 for her work on the article too.Capitalistroadster 10:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. You surprise me. The OED makes it clear that the word shyster developed independently (i) in the US to mean something like a crooked lawyer (whence the Marx brothers' use) and (ii) in Australia, from Scheisser. If this is so, the German word had no influence on the Marxist use. But even if it had influenced it, so what? Should W'pedia have articles on German words that were adapted into English words? I hadn't thought that it was an English-language dictionary, let alone a German-English dictionary, but maybe I've missed something. -- Hoary 13:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'm flippin' and floppin' here and I'm sorry. Looks like Hoary's right, the shyster etymology applies to a different form. The new version had sufficient cultural interest for me to interpret it as encyclopedic, but without that twist, it's back to a foreign dicdef. Delete it, and that's prolly my last word on this topic. Wyss 13:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even with the expansion, it is still an ethimological dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry. Sorry, but I will keep my vote. JoaoRicardo 23:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you want to delete this dictionary entry and not send it to wiktionary, where it would fill in a red link? Kappa 00:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought Wiktionary was not an etymological dictionary. At least I haven't found etymologies for words I have looked up there. Would they accept such a long entry? JoaoRicardo 04:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh my goodness yes, Wiktionary is an etymological dictionary. Have a look at Wiktionary:Main_Page. The reason that you haven't found etymologies is that they simply haven't been written, not that they aren't allowed. Wiktionary is also a vastly incomplete dictionary, not least because lots of people who want to write articles about words seem to aim for the dictionary and miss, and hit the encyclopaedia instead. Uncle G 10:12, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Keep, another brilliant save by a worthy try by Capitalistroadster, after an early push by Megan1967. Wyss 11:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'd like to thank Megan1967 andCapitalistroadster for turning my little blurb on Scheiße into a real article. Now it's definitely, without question a strong keep! Cooter08865
• Transwiki or keep (change of vote). Note that wiktionary takes foreign dicdefs, it takes "all words in all languages" [4]. Kappa 15:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You won't hear from me in a while guys. I have work to do, and if they see me on this site long enough I run the risk of getting fired. Which isn't so bad when you think about it, but I also run the risk of receiving a docked bonus. For being naughty and not concentrating solely on work related material. I like to argue and debate especially when being challenged. So I'll be back in full force! -Cooter08865 has left the building-
  • I have added further to the article explaining further the derivation of shyster. I based my statement earlier that the word shyster had originated in Australia from the German word based on prior knowledge as an Australian and the American Heritage derivation (cited as a reference in the article). Further research based on Hoary's concerns led me to work done by professor Gerald Cohen that the word had originated in the New York prison system in the 1840's and was based on "scheiße". The first citation of the word was in 1843 in a publication called The Subterreanean by Mike Walsh based on a conversation with Cornelius Terhune, a lawyer in New York who told Walsh that the word derived from the German for shit. There are alternative derivations for the word shyster including Shylock, a Gaelic word siostair meaning barrator or person who pursues litigation groundlessly and Scheuster who was supposedly a lawyer practising at the time. The lawyer version was the most common derivation. However, Professor Cohen has been through the law lists of New York and can find no record of such a lawyer practising at that time meaning shyster is now the most likely derivation. I have mentioned the alternative derivations in the article but I consider that this dispute indicates that it is worthwhile keeping the word. No change in vote. Capitalistroadster 17:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This American Heritage article contains the best outline of Professor Cohen's research. Just scroll down a bit. [5]
  • I have had a look at the OED citations. The earliest citation there is from 1844 from the "Tombs" which supports the research in the article that the word shyster in its shady lawyer sense came from there. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 20:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent expansion but it is still a discussion about the meaning, origins and usage of a word. To me, that makes it a really good dictionary entry - but not an encyclopedia article. Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur. Transwiki. Radiant! 11:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Dewet 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have an article on shit and other English-language profanities. There is much more material here than in the average dicdef. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks great now. - Mustafaa 02:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Definition + usage + etymology, however prolific, = transwiktionary. —Korath (Talk) 23:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 03:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep'. [maestro] 06:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed the link to Divalicious's Rental business...added link to Chocolate Fountain Legend and photos...

Note: Article has been rewritten to remove advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. RickK 06:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I can live with the changes that MacGyverMagic made. RickK 20:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad. utcursch 06:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. jni 08:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Change vote to keep. jni 13:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now it's been rewritten. Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I've rewritten it to take out the advertising and possible copyvio. Keep or merge with Fondue. Kappa 09:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge as Kappa suggests. Right now, the technique described is probably still patented by the company that makes these devices, so it's probably not a generic device right now. Ergo, in my opinion, this is still sort of advertising. However, I can see the argument to include in generic fondue article. HyperZonk 17:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've been convinced by Andrew L. -- HyperZonk 18:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no way to un-ad this trivial mess. Someone else did, however. Keep as re-written... Wyss 21:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Kappa. I disagree that there are any subjects that cannot have unbiased articles. If we can manage to have NPOV articles about the Iraq war, abortion, gay rights, gun control, and other genuinely controversial topics, surely we can manage to write about a fondue server without it turning out to be an ad! Chocolate fountains are definitely made by more than one company, I'm 100% sure of that, so it's no more an ad than an article about cars, computers, phones, or any other product. Besides, even if it was made by one company, big deal... there are lots of specific-product articles on WP, such as dozens of cel-phone models. Furthermore, I disagree that these are particularly trivial: a search for "Chocolate fountain" OR "chocolate fountains" brings 134,000 Google matches Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to have many sites selling or renting it, as a Google search shows. Even if it is made by a single company (I second Starblind's argument above). JoaoRicardo 03:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although moving to chocolate fondue is a possible future direction. Mmmmm, chocolate. Gazpacho 09:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. JamesBurns 08:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joke and/or vanity page. Speedy deletion? Ganymead 06:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've marked it as speedy. utcursch 06:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted twice now. RickK 06:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

And a good call too. Entire content was Jon Matthews is jus some guy who loves his Mindy :). Just mark things like that with {{delete}}. Andrewa 09:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Ganymead 06:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – speedily, if possible. Vanity or just plain nonsense. --MarkSweep 06:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible personal attack. Megan1967 08:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like a threat from a psychopath, but that's just my opinion. --Sn0wflake 18:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's been a too long a day to see rubbish like this Brookie 19:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 21:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 16:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable nonexistant comic strip. RickK 06:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have no interest in this kind of material, but what's the harm? It's well-written, and we want to represent human knowledge, after all. Researchers years from now will look at all sorts of ephemera like this article. Zantastik 08:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mileage varies on the "well-written" part of your statement. --Calton 13:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have never understood where people get the idea that Wikipedia's goal is to represent "human knowledge". That has never been a stated goal of Wikipedia on any policy or definition page, and that "goal" has been refuted over and over again. RickK 20:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe so, but there are tons of now-defunct webcomics, because it's so easy to start one at Keenspot. "The author of the comic is believed to have lost interest and has ceased updating the comic. Lack of an adequate fan base is likely the cause." I fail to see what's so notable about this one. Weak delete. Radiant! 08:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Defunct webcomic that was never notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general knowledgebase of human activity. Future researchers can easily satisfy their curiosity for odd things with the 4000+ articles listed in Wikipedia:Orphaned articles instead. jni 08:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was not of individual interest even when it was running, so wouldn't deserve an article now. Indeed, it isn't even worth mentioning in an article on webcomics themselves. As part of a statistical analysis on the mayfly level of lifespan of the average webcomic it may qualify as one point on a data set, but that's pretty much it. The level of human knowledge we include has to have a limit somewhere - I mean, I'm human, and I know what colour my coffee mug is, so it's human knowledge, but hey, who cares? Average Earthman 12:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable. And for the benefit of future historians, my coffee mug is cobalt blue. --Calton 13:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not drink coffee.
• Delete, mine has a pic of Sylvester the cat. Wyss 21:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet webcomic inclusion guidelines, by a long shot. If I had a penny for every half-hearted attempt at a webcomic abandoned by its creator before it was two years old... — Gwalla | Talk 02:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Gwalla. GRider\^talk 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even though it is 'non-notable', that's not grounds for deletion under current policy. Dan100 12:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 16:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fake bio that begins "Nevin Zehr (March 28, 1989 - June 17, 2063)". - BanyanTree 06:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Unless this is some kind of book review - Delete as psychic vanity. Radiant! 08:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to add to the above comments. HyperZonk 17:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity rant, almost a speedy. Wyss 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

School athletic leagues are of less notability than schools themselves. RickK 06:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - less than 70 Google hits. Megan1967 08:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is an article on education in Toledo City then perhaps it might warrant a line in that. I can't find any evidence of significant interest. Average Earthman 12:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Wyss 20:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 03:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It! for now! This could be substantial information for an article later on discussing Toledo Education. It might not be important to you guys, but someone from the area (or even, GASP!, someone away from the area) might find it of significant interest. Maybe if there was more information on the schools themselves; I looked into it and the people those schools are named after contributed greatly to the city of Toledo. I think it could be informative for research, even if it isn't nationally notable. Frank12
  • Since you've looked into it, if you start the article on education in Toledo City and incorporate this then I'd be willing to vote redirect. If you can't be bothered, then my delete vote stands. Average Earthman 09:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It would take some time to put together an article on Education in Toledo, but I think it can be done. To give an example of contributions, Libbey HS is named after the man who started the nationally known Libbey Glass Co., and DeVilbiss HS is named after the man who helped innovate spray painting technology.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A discussion group. Probably a Good Thing -- but not notable. -- Hoary 08:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Not notable at all, there are plenty of those. Delete. Radiant! 08:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this article is a victim of bad timing -- the brainchild of this organization is a zine called Hedgehog, which I was going to add an entry for, but the database maitenance went online at that moment. At least wait for the other article before making a decision. Besides, who says everything in an enyclopedia has to be interesting? Try hitting random page a few times; see what comes up. EDIT: The article for Hedgehog is now available. It's very rough, as I did this at 1 AM local, but I intend to improve on it later. Tsuyoshikentsu 09:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad timing happens. But I've read your Hedgehog article and it doesn't establish any notability beyond the average high school newspaper. Interesting is POV - notability less so. Radiant! 12:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even though this was probably written in good-will, it's not notable enough. Maybe in the future? --Sn0wflake 18:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. I was trying to VfD this article last night when the database got locked. RickK 20:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, local announcement. Wyss 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 03:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A family history. Not notable or encyclopedic. Already userfied to User:Yaqoob. jni 08:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, geneology, family vanity. Megan1967 08:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity genealogy, CV. Wyss 20:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 03:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, geneology. JamesBurns 08:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The votes were 4 delete, 3 redirect. dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Major Bruce Shand is the father of Camilla Parker Bowles." Well, somebody had to be. So? Not notable. -- Hoary 08:26, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Merge into Camilla Parker Bowles unless he's done something to be notable in his own right in which case that needs to be added to the article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: nothing to merge, the Camilla Parker Bowles article already says more than this does. Seems to be a not specially notable wine merchant. Kappa 09:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll change my vote to redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Camilla Parker Bowles. Will probably become more notable after the wedding. Megan1967 10:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Google search shows he has written a book Previous Engagements. Published in 1990. 175pp. ISBN 0859551695 (Amazon sales rank 873,028, so I don't feel that qualifies) Shand joined the 12th Lancers in 1937; served in France and North Africa; wounded, taken prisoner; awarded M.C. 1940 and Bar 1942. His full name is Bruce Middleton Hope Shand. Apparently his daughter is marrying someone, but that's pretty much irrelevant to his notability. Average Earthman 13:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 14:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the scandals hit. Wyss 20:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Well, somebody had to be" is a great argument. :-) JoaoRicardo 03:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Camilla Parker Bowles. JamesBurns 08:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brazilian dicdef. Wikipedia is not a (Brazilian) Portuguese-English dictionary. -- Hoary 08:45, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 10:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not even a "slang term" as the article says. So it's both useless and contains wrong information. --Sn0wflake 18:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dicdef. Wyss 20:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. JoaoRicardo 03:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is no slang in portuguese. The article cannot therefore be transwikied because it does not stand even as a dictionary definition. vlad_mv 19:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef Ana Jessica 05:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Entire article says "Motorway Bridge in Austria" followed by a picture. Whether it is of a generic motorway bridge or of a bridge called Motorway Bridge is unknown and unmentioned. In either case it either needs a hell of a lot of TLC or a scalpel. Grutness|^hello? 09:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete together with the posted image which has no licence tag. -- RWH 10:33, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #4, zero context, may also be a #2, user test. Wyss 20:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as article with little or no content. See Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. JoaoRicardo 03:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 09:38, Feb 15, 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted Motorway Bridge (CSD #4. per vfd discussion) —Korath (Talk) 05:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. This has been done already. Note that Bishop Ring was not in question here. dbenbenn | talk 00:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a bit of fancruft from a sci-fi website/RPG - see [6]. —Stormie 10:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Also Bishop Ring is another article on the same topic, a superior one to be sure, but also imho not encyclopedic. —Stormie 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Merge & redirect both to Orion's Arm is perfectly satisfactory for me, also. --Stormie 02:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Culture Orbital if canon. Delete if not. Uncle G 12:04, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Bishop Ring gives a clearer context for it - no, it's not Iain M. Banks canon. —Stormie 19:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to pope hat and... just kidding. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I created a new Bishop Ring article, which may be confused with an old article that was deleted, or with the poorly-written Bishop ring article. The new version is encyclopedic. Hold your fire until you've actually read it, please :). I've been searching for non-OA papers on the subject, as it looks like a term they swiped from elsewhere. --Christopher Thomas 20:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: They did a good enough write-up that SPIE accepted it for publication (or rather, their paper on suitable light sources to put in the middle of their rings, which was a pretty sneaky way of getting the topic into the conference). I'd say that counts as an adequate paper trail. Abstracts for that particular section: [7]. It's unclear whether this particular journal is peer-reviewed, though this does look like proceedings from a conference held in August 2001.--Christopher Thomas 20:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both for lack of evidence of peer-review, original research, this as a dupe. Wyss 20:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you delete everything that isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, you'll lose about 98% of Wikipedia. What would you consider suitable research? I'll be happy to find it for you. As for the original poorly-written bishop ring article by another user, I vote that it be redirected to Bishop Ring.--Christopher Thomas 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyway, when it comes to descriptions of physical phenomena, peer reviewed topics are encyclopedic, original research (spot on or cranky) is not. Wyss 22:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I am in the process of doing a full literature search for this type of structure. It's definitely been written about; it's finding the references that is time-consuming. So far most references assume a structure with similar properties that's centered on either Earth or the Sun. I'm also kind of curious as to why you're asking for a literature search for a science fiction habitat, especially when Culture Orbital doesn't have one. --Christopher Thomas 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not asking for a literature search. I've voted to delete the article. Wyss 01:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • A literature search that finds appropriate references would render your objections invalid. I'm _still_ wondering why you consider the article unacceptable in the first place, but have no problems with other articles about similar structures with less backing material. Care to give a more detailed answer on this?--Christopher Thomas 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no evidence this structure exists, the idea for it got started in SciFi fiction (not theoretical physics), the article is misleading, the topic is trivial cruft and it reads like a joke, for starters. Wyss 08:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The idea for a rotating ring habitat was proposed by Wernher von Braun in 1952, and revisited in the Stanford torus thought experiment funded by NASA. While the name "Bishop Ring" appears to have been an invention of the Orion's Arm group, calling the Bishop Ring version of the article (as opposed to bishop ring) "trivial cruft" about a "nonexistent" idea is, frankly, incorrect enough to make me wonder if you so much as _skimmed_ literature on space station concepts before deciding this article was a waste of space. I can accept redirection to "Stanford Torus" as an interim measure, though the Torus was proposed as a much smaller structure. I'll create a new article about feasible megastructure-scale ring colonies once I have a few peer-reviewed paper citations to quiet most of the objections voiced here. I agree that "Bishop Ring" probably isn't a good name for the article, but it continues to disturb me that most of the people posting here prefer to delete an article out of hand rather than change it to something they like, or merge the few bits they feel have merit with other more appropriate articles. Deletion is for articles that are completely inappropriate or meritless. Heck, if any of you had proposed blanking the article and making it a redirect to Stanford torus, I probably wouldn't even have blinked. I am always open to constructive suggestions for alteration; however, the only one offered to date was JoaoRicardo's stub tag change. The rest has been nothing but aggressive confrontation (with varying degrees of politeness, which I do recognize and respect).--Christopher Thomas 05:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My wording was only an artifact of the heavily qualified language I use on these VfDs, and was meant to separate the article topic from reality. From an encyclopedic perspective, IMO the topic is trivial cruft. From a SciFi perspective, it might work has a "hard science fiction" plot device. I'm not aware that WP is an "encyclopedia of science fiction". Wyss 13:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I question your placement of the dividing line between "science fiction" and "hypothetical engineering project that nobody's built". Why do you not object to space elevator or any of the various space fountain proposals? I can certainly see you objecting to the _term_ "Bishop Ring", but there is ample literature (mostly cited from the pages linked from Stanford torus) about ring-shaped space colonies. Thus, I challenge your assertion that there is nothing of technical merit in the version of Bishop Ring I posted. The distinction between science and science fiction is that science fiction either a) makes propositions that irreconcilably violate known physical laws or b) has no reflection in publications by the scientific community. Neither applies to the article I wrote (though I can, as mentioned earlier, see arguments for folding it into other space habitat articles).--Christopher Thomas 20:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If those articles showed up on VfD I might vote to delete them too, but at the moment we're talking about this one. I disagree with your opinion on the difference between science and science fiction, but even that's not related to this VfD. Further, I never said "there is nothing of technical merit" in the article you posted. I said it was fiction, not science. Fancruft can be wonderful, but it's usually not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that there _is_ content in my version of the article that _does_ have technical merit, then why didn't you suggest that it be merged with a more suitable parent article, rather than deleting it? Or that any non-redundant fancruft components be merged into the Orion's Arm article? I asked this several paragraphs ago, and still didn't get an answer from you. Surely you agree that if an article _does_ have any salvageable components, they should be salvaged and put somewhere more suitable?--Christopher Thomas 20:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neither did I say I thought it did have technical merit. I said it was fiction. Another problem I have with the article is it doesn't make that clear at all, which will mislead some readers. I also noticed the article's author has muddled the contraction it's with the possessive its :) As for any merge, I don't see much point in that but please keep in mind I don't assert myself as any final authority, only one vote. You could always edit the Orion's Arm article yourself, add what you like, then see if it's accepted. Wyss 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Forgot to credit Rossami's merge suggestion as constructive as well. Apologies for the omission.--Christopher Thomas 05:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Christopher, in deciding where to redirect, I believe it is important to think what someone who typed or followed a link to this article would like to know about. (This is my opinion, not Wikipedia policy.) If the expression "bishop ring" is only found in one specific science fiction work, or in one specific series of works (eg. Asimov's Foundation series, Star Trek series etc.) then it probably should redirect to that work or series, where there should be a discussion of the space habitat as it applies to that work. There we could include a link to other article that discuss the same concept in real life. If however this is used in many works of sci-fi and/or in academic papers as well, than we should redirect to a more "real-life" article, like Stanford torus as you suggested. The current article doesn't establish either position. Could you clarify this for us? JoaoRicardo 05:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • It's looking like a redirect to Orion's Arm would probably be the most approriate, as they appear to be the only place that actually used the term Bishop Ring to refer to this type of structure. I'm thinking about adding a "types of megastructure featured in this work" section to the OA page. The material about real life limits to Stanford torus-like structures can be shelved until I have refereed literature references for it. I know where to look (late 70s, early 80s, when the structures were in vogue and whisker fibers were fashionable), but don't have them on-hand, so such an article would just be VFDd as either primary source or sci-fi, depending on who's VFDing it. Link to Stanford torus can go into the OA page, as a part of my intended edit.--Christopher Thomas 06:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. JoaoRicardo 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm after User:Christopher Thomas arguments. JoaoRicardo 08:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Give me a coherent explanation of why Ringworld and Culture Orbital aren't "fancruft" before throwing epithets around, please. If you think this should be a sci-fi page, well and good, but "topic change" != "deletion".--Christopher Thomas 03:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That wasn't an epithet, it's WP/VfD jargon for trivial, unencyclopedic. Wyss 10:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As appointed by Wyss, that is jargon for something in which only hardcore fans would be interested. The Simpsons is a worthy article, but an article on, for instance, an expression Bart used in episode 34 of the 6th season is fancruft. Only hardocre Simpsons fans would be interested in something so specific. Ringworld is an article on an apparently notable sci-fi novel, and therefore is not restricted to fans. However Culture Orbital does seem to me to be fancruft. It could be merged into The Culture. And i didn't changed the topic of Bishop Ring, I merely replaced the {{sci-stub}} with a {{sf-stub}} because I think this would be more likely to be expanded by a science fiction enthusiast than by a scientist who doesn't care for science fiction. You can replace it if you want, or you can readd the {{sci-stub}} and leave both. JoaoRicardo 00:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not science, it's fiction. Wyss 01:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since it seems to be discussed (almost?) exclusively in the context of Orion's Arm and since that article is not yet overly large, is there a reason not to merge and redirect both versions? Rossami (talk) 04:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm, per Rossami's suggestion. A google query [8] for "Bishop Ring" +orbital returns only 12 unique hits and a few of those don't seem relevant. This should not have its own article. Carrp | Talk 13:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Bishop Ring or Orion's Arm --Neigel von Teighen 21:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've finished merging the fictional part of Bishop Ring (which amounts to all of bishop ring) into Orion's Arm. Keep or redirect the Bishop Ring article as you see fit. If Bishop Ring is still around after the VFD for bishop ring, I'll end up redirecting it some time before writing up a citation-rich article on ring habitats. I'm reluctant to modify Bishop Ring while a vote is still in progress.--Christopher Thomas 03:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm. Megan1967 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Orion's Arm. JamesBurns 08:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef/vanity. sjorford:// 11:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Sjorford. Delete. No need for foreign dic defs in an encyclopedia. Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all the above. Wyss 20:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pseudonym of a writer that isn't in wikipedia. Should rename to the writer if notable, delete if not. Radiant! 11:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Rename if notable, otherwise, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad with no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 20:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 16:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Single line from a lawbook, not notable. Radiant! 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems to be about funding program. Could use another title. Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful title and content. Wyss 20:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If I understand correctly, this is about some money fund established by the Transportation Development Act of California. If it is so, this certainly isn't the article to explain it. JoaoRicardo 04:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this fund has notable, encyclopedic effects, then recreating this substub's current contents in a proper article will be trivial. —Korath (Talk) 06:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not notable or interesting. Delete --Rzm 11:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a genuine professional sports team (ice hockey in this case), affiliated to a real league, selling real numbers of tickets (new 6000 seat stadium to open next year indicates support from fans, community). This is also affiliated to an AHL and an NHL team, so is clearly a feeder team for them. Five other teams in the league also have articles, to consider if people feel that this is genuinely not of interest. Average Earthman 13:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If they're a professional team, with paid players and league play, then yes, they reach the minor notability bar. Keep. Stupid name, though. --Calton 13:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a local reference -- there's a huge colony of Mexican Free-tailed bats that roost under a certain bridge in Austin. It's a big deal to watch the enormous horde of bats (1.5 million by current counts) come spiraling out at dusk every day. It's the largest urban bat colony in the U.S. Katefan0 19:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I know. Heck, I knew before I even read the article, and I've always wanted see the bat emergence. It's still a stupid name for a sports team. Toledo Mud Hens or Hartlepool Monkeyhangers, sure, but ICE BATS? --Calton 20:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with above posters. Grue 16:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep solidly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have all sorts of sportscruft -- this is a real hockey team, which, incidentally, I have seen in action. Katefan0 19:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• WTF?keep. GRider\^talk 20:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already stated. It's nice to know there's a team with an even sillier name than the Anaheim Mighty Ducks! 23skidoo 22:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, minor league team that's been in existance for 6 years. Megan1967 02:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to ask - why is a minor league team that is getting a new 6000 seat stadium not notable, but a very minor film released straight to DVD notable Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Democrazy_(movie)? Average Earthman 10:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. With professional sports teams, it seems to make sense to decide for most of them on the basis of the league the team is in. If a professional league is notable then it makes sense just to have articles on all teams in the league, even the new ones, assuming there is enough information about them. I suppose you could have a notable team in an otherwise unnotable league, but that would have to be an exceptional case. I don't know if minor league professional hockey is notable, but since we already have articles on more than a few other teams in the same league, the question seems to have been decided. --BM 20:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient notability. JamesBurns 08:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 16:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Enochlau 00:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. slang, and even non-english. Mikkalai 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Dic def. Transwiki to wiktionary of language this originates from. Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of ethnic slurs; not sure how to cross list with dabizi tho. Nateji77 14:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not exactly Wikipedia material. --Sn0wflake 18:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful dicdef or whatever. Wyss 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 16:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that original research smell! They should bottle it and sell it on little trees that one can hang from the rear-view mirrors in cars. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Delete. But instead of being shaped like a pine tree, perhaps it could be shaped like a puzzle piece with a W on it. More seriously, no hits on Google, no citations in article, please publish and become known before submitting your own results. HyperZonk 17:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hyperzonk, did you vote for deletion because your'e a buddhist? Kidding, the author needed to publish beforehand. VOTE DELETION

• • Ha ha ha! No, that's not the reason, although it does sound like, erm, "Buddhistic" codswallop (to lift Wyss's favorite word). I note that the above vote for delete appears to be from the same IP address as the original author, 24.9.125.233 ... Mr. Purvis, I presume? HyperZonk 21:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, clearly muddled codswallop (my favourite word! Weeeeee!). Wyss 20:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WERD. It was written by one of my various personalaties. If i remember correctly, it was the personality that doesnt appear to use references or any sources. I tottaly agree its some serious codswallop, but you have to admit it would be very interesting if someone expanded this thought to the point of publication. sorry for posting the page, i definately should have read some noob posting faqs.

• Delete. Original research. And the interlink to the Italian Wikipedia is misleading, because it actually points to the Italian version of Oscillatory Universe. JoaoRicardo 00:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm not a football fan and admittedly don't know much about football players, but I get exactly one Google hit for " "scott brummitt" grimsby", and that look slike a school football team's roster. Maybe someone can establish notability, but I can't -- Ferkelparade π 11:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a lie. Dyer, Jenas, Hargreaves, Downing and Andrew Johnson were the subs in the last England game, and Thomas Pinault is Grimsby Town's highest scorer. Schoolboy fantasies to blame here, I suspect. Although nice to see a kid supporting a team that isn't a Premier League one. Average Earthman 13:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. —Korath (Talk) 06:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 05:54, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. looks like someone just pasted their geneology from the net. rubbish. Enochlau 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 01:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It could develop --219.77.78.170 12:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 219.77.78.170 (talk · contribs) just gave us Hamburger of Truth and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hamburger of Truth. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Agree with UncleG, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from Wikipedia not being a genealogy database, this looks like it may be a copyvio from somewhere else (yes, all these people are long dead, but surely we still can't just go and cut and paste like this). Average Earthman 13:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy, WP not a datadump. Wyss 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup: The genealogy of ruling and former ruling houses is inherently encyclopedic, at least in outline. Why do we have pages on every British peerage or a page for somebody who is No. 161 in the line of succession to the British throne? There may be other reasons to delete this (it being a copyvio, for instance, which hasn't been shown), but it being genealogy is not a valid reason in this case. (I'll change my vote if a copyvio can be established.) / up+land 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hasn't been proved? It's clearly cut and paste from a website elsewhere. Just because we can't find where exactly doesn't change the fact that it has clearly been written since HTML was invented, so unless the original author has explicitly released it, we can't keep it. The 'more about' lines are a dead giveaway that it is originally from a website. Average Earthman 10:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Agreed. This article is also cross-linked from other useful pages. — RJH 20:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 00:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The so-called article actually deals with the maternal descent and relatives of Caroline of Ansbach, Queen consort of George II of Great Britain. It only reaches to her maternal grandfather. User:Dimadick
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable ruling house. JamesBurns 09:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a lame attempt to invent a new animal to me. Enochlau 11:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-existant animal. utcursch 11:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• And there was I just about to slap a {{cleanup-verify}}, having found no evidence whatever of such a name (although the bush rat does exist — it's nocturnal, rather than afraid of sunlight, and it is omnivorous rather than surviving "off faeces"), on the article. Delete. Uncle G 12:13, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Might be bush rat in some other language, but it doesn't have enough information to be useful, so delete. Kappa 12:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN --219.77.78.170 12:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Awful text, dubious source. Not BJAODN as not funny. Unless it is just me that doesn't find coprophagist nocturnal mammals hilarious. Average Earthman 13:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno...a shit-eating rat does sound kind of funny to me! Just not as presented. Definite delete. Do not BJAODN, do not collect $200. - Lucky 6.9 19:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 20:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not notable --Brookie 12:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't appear separately notable, even less so due to it being only released in one market. Merge any useful data into the Jack Johnson article. Average Earthman 13:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this artist has enough hits on Google and this is part of his discography. Could use some improvements, though. --Sn0wflake 18:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it, potential fork/dupe. Wyss 20:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the album On & On. Capitalistroadster 11:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork. JamesBurns 09:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity for a technology website, notability not established. Radiant! 11:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until much more notable. Alexa does not seem to think that this site is quite up to the par of slashdot at this time. This seems to me to be advertising. HyperZonk 17:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. JamesBurns 09:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There seems little encyclopedic point to this list. Otherwise, people could start making 'list of laundromats in Boston' and 'list of ice cream parlors in Tokyo'. Radiant! 12:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Average Earthman 13:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Remove the blatant hyperlink advertisements, and Merge to Toronto, where there is a whole Transportation section just awaiting a paragraph on taxicabs. Uncle G 16:23, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a directory. Wyss 20:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Megan1967 02:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. JoaoRicardo 04:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Although poorly written, the article does provide some information on how taxi and limo services are operated in Toronto - it's not just a list. Imho, this is encyclopedic. I vote with Uncle_G: stripp off the advertisement, revise and clean up, then Merge to Toronto under the heading "Transportation". vlad_mv 19:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant content into Toronto. -- James Teterenko (talk) 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Toronto community at Wikicities, and delete here. I live in Toronto and I don't believe this merits an encyclopedia article. Bearcat 00:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Yellow Pages argument above :) mu5ti/✏ 21:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. JamesBurns 09:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am listing this page as a test to see whether major university dorms can be considered notable and encyclopedic. —Lowellian (talk) 12:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

A comment. I do not actually feel strongly for either the keeping or deletion of this article. I simply want to offer this as a test of whether Harvard Houses are encyclopedic. —Lowellian (talk) 10:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable beyond the description and link on the Harvard University page (the old external link to the Kirkland House website has been replaced on that page with a link to the Kirkland House article). If it is determined that this article is encyclopedic, then all the Harvard Houses should have articles. —Lowellian (talk) 12:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Would it follow that because one human being has an article in WP, then all human beings should have one? Wyss 22:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it would not follow. However, it should be noted that Kirkland House is arguably actually among the less notable Harvard Houses. —Lowellian (talk) 10:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like articles on other Harvard dorms might be helpful then. I lived in two dorms while in college. One was definitely not encyclopedic, the other was a soul-crushing, monolithic high rise monster, encyclopedic perhaps as a campus eyesore, a sad example of mid-twentieth-century modernist idealism mis-understood and gone horribly wrong, a barren, isolated warren of human suffering but I digress :) Wyss 11:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The dorm seems notable enough, especially with its notable former inhabitants, but the article could still use some copyediting to remove some POV praise. Keep, but I'll tell you know, that this can only be a precedent if you define major universities, keeping in mind stuff outside the US. Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This type of thing has already been discussed on VfD. Someone proposed the deletion of an article about a dorm at CalTech. During that discussion, I pointed to the article on Dunster House, another of the Harvard undergraduate houses. The consensus seemed to be that the Dunster House article was acceptable because of the detail of the article and the notability of its former residents, traditions, etc; but that the Caltech dorm was just a dorm, and not sufficiently notable for an article. I can't say that this was particularly consistent, but I don't think you are going to get a precedent out of this vote, and, anyway, VfD doesn't seem to be a decision-making body that is terribly influenced by precedents or consistency. --BM 14:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems a decent enough article. - SimonP 16:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and encyclopedic article, and Harvard has a lore all its own. I wouldn't write an article on my own college dorm, but I see no reason to delete this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 18:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, most dorms aren't, this one is, nice article. Wyss 20:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant age (World War I era), highly notable university, a few interesting recent guests, lonstanding traditions, attractive building and photos. Also a nice article, which helps. For the record, most dorms are not notable and belong (at best) in the 'Housing' sections of their respective school articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It provides useful information to people who are interested in aspects of Harvard life. As to above comment that "If it is determined that this article is encyclopedic, then all the Harvard Houses should have articles" there is no reason that all the Harvard Houses should not have articles. But it is not the responsibility of the author of the Kirkland House article to make all of those articles. Sarahpillows, 02:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • only edits so far are to this dicussion thread
• Comment. Several of the Harvard houses do have articles. The "House System" at Harvard was initiated in the 1920's, in an effort to transplant some aspects of the college system at Oxford and Cambridge to Harvard. The same philanthropist who provided the funding for this also helped create a similar system at Yale around the same time. The result is a set of "colleges within the college" at both Harvard and Yale, and the houses are a central aspect of undergraduate life from the sophomore year onwards. Each house has its own resident Master, who is generally a distinguished professor, Tutors (some resident), a library, and special courses available only to members of the house. After a few decades, it has worked out that they are more dorm-like than college-like at both universities, but they do have distinctive features that may make them encyclopedically notable in a way that a typical college dorm is not. --BM 13:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The page for Kirkland House should generate interest in creating pages for the other Harvard houses, since each has its own unique and notable history. The fact that Kirkland House is the first (or among the first) of Harvard houses to be added is certainly not a good enough justification to delete it.--skells 08:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • only edits so far are to this dicussion thread
• Keep. The houses at Harvard are so distinct and interesting that I don't deny that they may all deserve to be listed. I think that all houses should be able to be listed if they want to be and I am very happy that Kirkland is listed. There are numerous speakers who come especially to Kirkland House and there are many great traditions that have been upheld in the houses for years. The house is historical place that is continue to grow and create more history. It is more than just a part of Harvard, so I don't feel that it should be made only a link off the Harvard site. I see no reason not to list houses. This is a great article about a one-of-a-kind place that deserves to be noted.--AKirklander 05:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • according to the edit history, comment actually left by user:140.247.173.30 whose only edit so far has been this comment
• Keep. I think one additional distiction, which has already been hinted at, is that we can recognize differences between a residential community (such as the one here), and a building that has little substance beyond its use as a dorm. This is a good discussion to have, as it seems related to the larger question of how important does a thing/concept/etc. have to be in order to find a place in the Wikipedia?

Xlewis 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • This vote is this user's first edit.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Company vanity that tells the great things they're going to do but haven't actually accomplished yet. Radiant! 12:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently not notable to be in Wikipedia. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 19:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Copyvio, ad. Wyss 20:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. JamesBurns 09:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio from [9]. dbenbenn | talk 01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a teen mentioning his fave book. Radiant! 12:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. While this is a member of the clearly notable Hardy Boys series of youth fiction, precedents for individual episodes of TV shows and comments in What's In, What's Out specifically regarding fiction would seem to indicate that an individual member of a series, unless significantly notable in its own right for some reason, should be subsumed under the article on the series as a whole. HyperZonk 18:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful. Wyss 20:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete I can't make any sense of whatever this is fullerton

• Keep - Quite notable --219.77.78.170 12:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) just gave us Hamburger of Truth and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hamburger of Truth. Uncle G 12:46, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page, unless it can be made less POV and more encyclopedic. Selphie 12:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) *talk*
• Highly suspect biography of one Fahmi Quadir. Delete unless any facts check out. Uncle G 12:46, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete, hoaxy self-promotion. Wyss 20:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 01:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Episode summary. Radiant! 13:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant! 15:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - needs expansion, but no less worthy of an article than all the Star Trek, Doctor Who and Twilight Zone episode articles already on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 16:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • They are? Oh, I was unaware of that. In that case, we should keep it. Radiant! 18:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some Wikipedians have been making articles on each Twilight Zone episode and then putting them on the List of The Twilight Zone episodes. Zzyzx11 19:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The original The Twilight Zone had a rather tremendous influence, which is what justifies its individual episodes getting articles when another series -- like the various TZ remakes -- might not be worthy of that much individual detail. IMHO. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Megan1967 02:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Description of a band by one of its members. No notability, except for the fact that one of the members still owes money to the writer of article. Radiant! 13:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Noel Redding is certainly notable, having been a member of Jimi Hendrix's band; quite possibly The Noel Redding Band is notable as well, but this article doesn't have much encyclopedic in it as it stands. sjorford:// 14:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pick-up band of someone somewhat famous. Wyss 20:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Noel moved to Ireland in 1972. He formed The Noel Redding Band with Eric Bell from Thin Lizzy, Dave Clark and Les Samson. They did two albums for RCA, three tours of Holland, two tours of England, one tour of Ireland and a 10-week tour in America. This ended in tears after a dispute with their management company." - from Noel Redding. It seems that they actually are notable; BUT as the encyclopaedic material in this article is currently all also in Noel Redding, redirect there. If anyone chooses to write substantially on the subject later they can always split it off again. TSP 17:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable band. Radiant! 13:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep GG Allin's band isn't notable?! Allin is a legend within the context of punk music, and the Murder Junkies were the subject of a well-known 1994 documentary film called Hated, and a concert DVD last year. They've also been around for more than a decade, (though obviously not with Allin after his death in 1994) which is quite an achievement. WELL above any reasonable notability bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed it is, which makes it a candidate for Cleanup not deletion. TSP 09:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Apart from Allin, the band briefly contained a punk rock legend in Dee Dee Ramone, founding member of the Ramones. Recorded albums with Allin and toured with him as recorded on the Hated documentary. Source AMG articles on GG Allin [10] and the Murder Junkies.[11] The membership of Dee Dee Ramone as a guitarist is documented in the AMG article on the Murder Junkies and the documentary. Hope to clean this up if I have time.Capitalistroadster 11:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all bands featuring Ramones members. Kappa 14:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, the Murder Junkies are very notable. Missi 21:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! --Tezeti 03:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 09:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, they are plenty notable, but the article is not well written

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silly inside joke disguised as a religion; possible BJAODN. Radiant! 13:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. BJAODN. Uncle G 16:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually a relatively well disguised advertising page cleverly using BJAODN for the currently non-notable band Stonegarth (yes, I spend too much time trying to find these things on Google). If I may inject my opinion, the music on their site sounds good enough that they may someday achieve the required degree of notoriety, but definitely they have not yet done so. HyperZonk 18:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stealth ad, move along. Wyss 20:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band promo. Megan1967 02:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparent attack page. Google Web reveals the existences of lots of Paul Rimmers. None seem notable enough for a rewrite. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur, it appears that the page linked to herein, Stuart Fraser, is a similar attack piece or nonsense. HyperZonk 18:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 20:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable band. Radiant! 13:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Drinking society. Not very encyclopedic now is it? Radiant! 13:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Google Web turns up a SIG of the Society for the History of Technology [12], a baseball team [13], and, of course, the almost obligatory band [14], all of whom are more notable than yet another student drinking club. Delete unless rewritten about something notable by this name. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete this article and its skin-crawly language. Wyss 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Affects good image of college. r 12:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One single does not make a band notable. Radiant! 14:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, seems below the horizon without more info. Wyss 20:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - defunct band with only 1 independent single release. Megan1967 02:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stub about a 'modern sect' with a sward (sic) or pencil as its symbol. Can anyone substantiate this? Radiant! 14:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Google Groups and Google Web turn up nothing bearing a resemblance to this. And combining Brahma and Allah in a single article is a bit of a giveaway. Google Web turns up something more apropos, however. Delete and replace with a Redirect to Smart 1. Uncle G 15:56, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Cruft, oh my! I concur with Uncle G however as it is a likely misspelling (alternate spelling?) of the science satellite SMART 1. HyperZonk 18:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a joke. Wyss 20:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm, that's a funny little joke to delete... --Idont Havaname 03:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 11:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Logical fallacy that allegedly proves there is no free will. Radiant! 14:05, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant! 15:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• First: That something is a logical fallacy does not make it a candidate for deletion. Many encyclopaedia entries deal with the illogical positions of many groups of people. Second: This is not a logical fallacy, because it doesn't prove what you state. It proves that omniscience and free will are logically incompatible, quite a different thing altogether. This is a widely discussed philosophical and theological topic, that a quick Google Web search would have turned up many instances of (such as [15]), since it is even listed by its common name. What this article needed was {{wikify}}{{reli-stub}}{{philo-stub}}{{CatNeeded}}, not {{subst:vfd}}. Being a dead-end article is not a reason for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Okay, vfd withdrawn. It just sounded too nonsensical to me but expanding sounds fair. Keep. But I hold that the argument as written isn't valid :) Radiant! 16:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yeah, this was a big topic during the higher criticism of the 19th century. Even without the theological scarf it gets discussed. Article isn't up to academic standards, though, which is prolly why it got tossed here. Wyss 20:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 03:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (author vandalized this page and blanked the article). jni 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Radiant! 14:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• No, genealogy. Delete unless something informative, not merely family relations and hereditary titles (and schooling!), can be said about this person. Uncle G 15:31, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete, aristo-cruft, belongs in one of those glossy mags one sees posted around Europe to people who can't quite get past the middle ages. Wyss 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is nn vanity; open and shut. GRider\^talk 20:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 12:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While TJ is notable, his family is not really. Should merge but the important information is already there anyway. Radiant! 14:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• delete unless more than one of his close family was also notable (and then move to Jefferson family). Dunc|☺ 15:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a pretty good example of the sort of thing that should never be a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't have said it better myself, Radiant! ... HyperZonk 18:39, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 20:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Effort by one of our younger contributors, I suspect. Sorry kiddo, no genealogy articles accepted here. Average Earthman 20:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no genealogy. Szyslak 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Drummer. Article fails to establish notability. Radiant! 14:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure vanity and definitely non-notable. --Sn0wflake 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for a session drummer. Wyss 20:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful notability, and I didn't find a reference to the school. Radiant! 14:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The little I've found of his history doesn't seem to indicate sufficient notability, but the school can be found at [www.strs.org.uk]. If others find notability, please enrich the entry! Otherwise, let's go with Radiant! on this one. HyperZonk 19:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Wyss 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Google has very little to say about the man himself; and what there is doesn't seem to mark him out beyond other merchants of the period. Delete. [Oops, this was me - forgot to sign. TSP 10:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. historical merchant. jni 17:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 09:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a brand of phone book. Radiant! 14:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• keep; yeah, but they produce a different one for each local area in the UK. We have Yellow Pages. Dunc|☺ 15:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It was practically the only competition in this field that British Telecom had for a long time. Keep. Uncle G 19:01, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. They also have a horrendous tv advert doing the rounds at the moment. —Xezbeth 19:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 20:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It's a brand of phonebook worthy of note, which is why we will be keeping this article. GRider\^talk 20:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)~
• Keep - household name in the UK, though I never quite understood why people used it over the official BT one. TSP 09:43, 2005 Feb 15 (according to history Uncle G 14:24, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)) (um, what? No, definitely me, though UncleG may have slightly edited it (like, added an extra space or something) when he added his signed reply. TSP 08:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  • the official BT one — I see that the monopoly telephone company mindset is still not yet dead, a quarter of a century on, and even though Yellow Pages has itself been one of BT's competitors for a couple of years now. One of the things that The Thomson Corporation should mention is that it was Thomson that introduced Yellow Pages to the United Kingdom, back in 1966, when it was an advertising sales agent for the GPO's telephone directory. "official BT one" — chuckle. Uncle G 14:24, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Maybe TSP just doesn't like the Thomson version and prefers the BT edition? Keep, anyway. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd actually now usually use The Phone Book, BT's semi-competitor to the Yellow Pages (it has what are effectively Yellow Pages sections) - I think there was only a year in which there was no BT-owned option. At work I now have The Phone Book, Thomson Local, Yellow Pages and Business Pages (which is published by Yell) on my shelf, and I can't think of an earthly reason to have so many... but that doesn't make any of them non-notable. TSP 08:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 02:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

A village, where (and I quote) pedestrians take their lives in their hands by daring to cross at the zebra crossing, as visibility is so badly obscured by the village idiots in their cars. Really. Radiant! 14:32, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I see it's been rewritten now, so keep. This is a perfect example of an article needing cleanup, not vfd. sjorford:// 15:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place in the UK associated with colliery. Thanks to person who wrote it. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• And afterwards I found that you two went and got your votes in before I could say Rewritten article. Uncle G 19:51, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Keep Wyss 20:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 10:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mission statement for a band. I hope they'll be famous some day. But not now. Radiant! 14:32, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete They're a little more notable than this article would suggest, but still not quite enough for a WP entry yet. All releases so far seem to be CD-Rs with a few songs each. Waiting for an album, even an indy one, then might re-consider. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• For the meantime Delete, as suggested above. HyperZonk 19:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Currently not notable enought to be in Wikipedia. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 19:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, let's wait for the indy release. Wyss 20:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band promo. Megan1967 03:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 08:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dominus 22:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 but cleanup (overwhelming consensus to keep) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is POV by nature. "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy.

I have never heard of a Jewish group which holds that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism. In fact such a claim is a classic strawman attack. People should not make claims up about the Jews, when the Jews in fact have no such beliefs. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are Jews who believe that. She references in the article. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the article were simply about anti-Semitism in modern times, then it would be great. However, it is about something the article itself admits is a neologism ("The term The New anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century"). The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not: it simply explains how bad it is, subdividing it into varities etc. The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists.

Again, this is untrue. The article was never solely about what is called "the new anti-Semitism". From the very beginning this article was about anti-Semitism since the end of World War II. You are attacking something that isn't there. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

That comment is not in accordance with the facts. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there were an article called New anti-Americanism that said "The new anti-Americans are those people who attack our democratically-elected President and show themselves up as unpatriotic by failing to support our army in its liberation of other countries" we would quickly zap it, salvaging any sensible content for merging into Anti-American sentiment or some such article.

We must do the same with articles such as this, which push a Zionist POV. There are several pieces of notable information in it, and these should be salvaged for the article Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. That is where they belong, along with the (notable, though false) claim that some special, new form of anti-Semitism (which, incidentally, is a bad thing) exists. Chamaeleon 15:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I initially just turned it into a redirect, but then thought that someone might revert that change, so a VfD entry is probably necessary. NB: I'm not asking for any article deletion or censoring, just making it a redirect and merging any NPOV content into Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. Chamaeleon 15:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do not snip of controversial bits of articles and put them in separate ones. It is well known that this leads to the separate article being a POV playground. For this reason, we try to avoid articles such as criticism of CNN, and just put the criticism in the main article. Chamaeleon 16:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Merging the New Anti-Semitism article into the anti-Semitism article is a bad idea for two reasons. First, the information was removed from the anti-Semitism article 9 months ago because it was more controversial than the rest of the article, and therefore it was hoped it would bring some semblance of peace to the main article by moving it elsewhere. Second, this article is already 44K in size, and adding it back will make it closer to 60K, thus requiring an inevitable hiving-off of a sub-article anyway, as has been done with many other sections. The article itself should be improved by bringing published and cited views from both sides of the debate; VfDs should not be used to solve NPOV issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Mrfixter 16:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Many of your claims were addressed in the article.

  1. "The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not ... The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists." The article includes links to various reports that show a dramatic increase in antisemitic attacks in Western Europe, starting from 2002 and still lasting in 2003 and 2004. So it does exists.
  2. "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy." See the section "straw man antisemitism". I hardly see our burning a synagouge in France by radical Muslims is criticising the Israeli government policy.
  3. Since the new or modern antisemitism is what you call an "ongoing event" and still contraversial, it is good to seperate it as a sub-topic from the "antisemitsm" article, which deals with the past (which is much more static than the present).

  MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument. Perhaps I should have waited until Jayjg renamed it New anti-Semitism so that the issue would be clear. Nobody is saying there is no longer any anti-Semitism in the world. I even recently wrote a little about modern neo-nazis in the anti-Semitism article. The point is that this article is not about anti-Semitism in recent times (I would not be against such an article), but rather it is explicitly about something called "New anti-Semitism", which is a way of saying that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. We would not accept this on another topic, so why accept it here? Chamaeleon 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, perhaps less precipitous action in general, say, by using the Talk: pages to try to propose changes, might have resolved this more amicably. Regardless, the only strawman argument here is the claim that "New anti-Semitism" is just a way of saying "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic". The article itself is reasonably careful to distinguish between anti-Zionism and the New anti-Semitism. If the distinction is not clear enough, it can be made more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep whether you agree that the things described in the article are valid anti-semitism or not, it's hard to deny that modern anti-semitism does exist in some form or another. This article should be kept, though if you disagree with it theere are ways of dealing with that, preferably through well-documented edits. VfD isn't a cleanup method. Also, article should not be merged, for reasons described by Jayjg above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Straw man. Nobody is saying there is no anti-Semitism in modern times, but in that case the article should be called Anti-Semitism since 1950 or some other date. The article has now been moved to New anti-Semitism, in line with its contents and in agreement with Jayjg and others who agree with its content. Now no one can use that straw-man argument. Chamaeleon 17:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly a very touchy, loaded subject, I agree that it needs extensive review for NPOV. It may also need some kind of title change. But I think it should remain an article in its own right, and will leave any possible changes it may need to wiser and less biased heads than mine. HyperZonk 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with jayjg. It needs NPOV but deletion is not appropriate. Rhobite 19:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you agree with Jayjg, then you don't think it needs NPOV. He is the one responsible for the current state of it, and fully defends it. All you people who are saying "keep", what do you actually mean by that? Turn it into an article on recent anti-Semitism? That would entail deleting all the text and moving information from Anti-Semitism into it. Turning it into an NPOV discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" slur, making it like Creationism? OK, but that would be a total rewrite, and does not address the issue whether we believe it is good to put the controversial bits of articles into separate articles. Keep it much as it is? Untenable. Chamaeleon 19:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. I do think it needs NPOV, I am not "responsible for the current state of it", nor have I "fully defended" its current state. On the contrary, I have welcomed NPOV additions, so long as they are not original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made the last edit before it was made a redirect. That edit was not part of a re-write. You were content to keep it as a Zionist page. So, you are one of those responsible for the state it was in. You clearly are against a re-write. Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My last edit was a minor preparation for a re-name, and removal of small amounts of off-topic stuff, as part of a proposed re-write; here it is:[16]. Also see the Talk: page for a number of suggestions I made along those lines, which other editors agreed with. You claims are erroneous or disingenuous. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a very tenuous accusation - you're saying that all edits which do not solve a POV problem are implicit approvals of the POV. Rhobite 22:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. At the moment, the article strikes me as a very poor one. However, VfD is not generally about content but about whether the topic is encyclopedic and (in conjunction with other articles) is a reasonable way of dividing up a larger topic. What distinguishes "New" anti-Semitism from "Old" anti-Semitism? If the anti-Semitism article had simply grown so large that the decision was made to split out recent contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism into a separate article, then it seems to me the title of that article should have been something like "Anti-Semitism since (some date)", and that "New anti-Semitism" is a confusing title. If the concept of "New anti-Semitism" is a new one that has been put forward in articles, books, etc, and those represent a notable development in thinking about anti-Semitism, then the article should present the argumentation of those books in an NPOV manner, with citation of sources. I would want to see some evidence that "New" anti-Semitism is a concept that exists outside the mind of the editor who started this article because in the latter case, it is original research. --BM 20:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BM, here are a couple of links regarding a book of essays about the new anti-Semitism, not written by extremists incidentally. [17] [18] SlimVirgin 12:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this "new" anti-Semitism does indeed exist beyond the mind of the editors. There are extremist groups that do actually parrot this nonsense. This is why I think it should be mentioned, but in the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism articles.

It seems nobody accepts the idea that controversial sections are not supposed to be shunted out into separate articles. OK, I'll modify my proposal then. Should we keep the article at the location New anti-Semitism (or perhaps Allegations of "New anti-Semitism") and report people claiming it exists instead of asserting that it does? or should we zap this content and instead have an article called Anti-Semitism since 1945 with factual content? Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As discussed and agreed to on the Talk: page, the undisputed incidents of Anti-Semitism should stay in the Anti-Semitism article, while this more controversial phenomenon should remain in the New anti-Semitism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The phenomenon exists, regardless of ostrichism .--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oh God, the flip side of Jewish ethnocentrism emerges, and like the previous article an attempt to carve out an idiosyncratic version of the main term. This is propaganda that ought to be zapped just as hard. Delete. --Calton 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bug people, but I again have to ask what that means. The content as it stands should clearly go, but I think we can't avoid reporting on the belief in "new anti-Semitism". So, are you voting to totally zap this, or to merge an NPOV version of it into Anti-Semitism, or to zap this and make an Anti-Semitism since 1945 article? I don't think "delete" and "keep" really mean much in this context. Chamaeleon 21:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since when is writing about anti-Semitism in the last 50 years somehow Jewish propaganda? Is writing about homophobia "Queer propaganda"? Is writing about spousal abuse "Feminist propaganda"? No, it ain't. RK

No, they are not. However, there are people who are ready to claim that writing about homophobia is "gay recruitment" and that articles about spousal abuse always have "feminist bias". I am not quite sure what they mean, aside from the fact that the articles would disagree with their attitudes, but those claims do exist. No vote - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. "New anti-Semitism" seems to exist as a claim made by some authors that criticism of Zionism and Israel (sometimes) represents a new form of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this article is not only about those claims, but despite the title seems to be also about "Modern Anti-Semitism". Indeed that is the title of an article which has been redirected here. This blending of so-called "new" and "contemporary/modern" anti-Semitism makes the article a bit of a mish-mash. Regarding "new anti-Semitism", criticism of Zionism and Israel are quite common, but I don't know how widespread is the claim that this criticism represents anti-Semitism. It seems to me that most prominent Jews are at pains to deny that they equate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism. (Indeed, the article cites Alan Dershowitz making precisely this point, and claiming otherwise is described as setting up a "straw man" and itself anti-Semitic. --BM 21:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You have summarized the issues perfectly, and this is why I had been working for days on the Talk: page to get agreement to clean it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Jayjg here - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. --Angr 23:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. The definition of attacks needs to be limited or defined - currently "attacks" would seem to include even "attacks" on the article itself. ==SV 01:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV flame war material. Megan1967 03:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless... I hate this article. The subject itself is a valid topic for Wikipedia, but its treatment is appallingly one-sided. The article is structured so as to preclude differing points of view and is presided over by a coterie of individuals who seemingly have no intention of allowing both sides to be represented. It should be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up, perhaps with guidance from some senior Wikipedia editors w/regard to structure and content. Wiki needs to stop being such wimps and intervene on this one. It really is appalling. deeceevoice 04:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Probably a valid topic, so I can't say delete, but the present article is deeply POV, and I agree with deeceevoice that the POV is even in the structure of the article. The article seems to start by assuming the truth of what is, in fact, an extremely controversial thesis. I don't think it would hurt to delete the present content and start over. This article needs major attention. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs to find more scholarly sources, but it seems clear there is a new type of anti-Semitism on the rise, with anti-Zionism used (by some, not all) as an excuse — as the article says, as a Trojan horse — to attack Jews, and as such it has given a cover of respectability to anti-Semitism, to the point where, in Europe certainly, the views of leftwing activists and the far right seem to converge. This is a new phenomenon. Because of the newness of it, the article has to be careful to avoid original research, but that's just a matter of being careful about attribution. SlimVirgin 07:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The concept of "New Anti-semitism" has some prominent proponents as well as some prominent critics. Thus it is worthy of a article but the article has seriouse NPOV issues as it stands. The article should probebly adhare to the following structure if it is to be NPOV:
• In the opening paragraph the article should make it clear that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is one being pushed by some Zionists and summerize how they define it. The opening paragraph should also make it clear that the definition and even in some cases the very validity of the concept/term is controversial.
• It should then present the views those who support the concept and as to how they define it.
• It should present the views of Israeli critics who disagree with the who concept of "New anti-semitism".

Non-controversial areas of modern anti-semitism (i.e. anything not directly relating to controversial anti-zionist views or critisms of Israel) should probebly be addressed under the original anti-semitism artlicle. -Cab88 11:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Real phenomenon with upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe and where you have prominent leftwingers Ken Livingstone the Lord Mayor of London comparing a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard and refusing to apologise. [19]

Check for NPOV but keep. Capitalistroadster 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Let's be clear, Livingstone compared a reporter for the Daily Mail, a paper notorious for its Nazi/Mosleyite views in the 1930s, with a kapo. AndyL 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL Ken Livingstone an anti-Semite -- even the people who have started this campaign against him say clearly that they don't think he's an anti-Semite. Livingstone has in fact been campaigning against racism all his life, and he has become a target for the right-wing press precisely because he opposes the current racist wave against Muslims and because he favours dialogue with the Muslim community and their leaders. He has made it abundantly clear that he compared the reporter to a concentration camp guard because both adhere to the same amoral attitude towards their work i.e. "I'm just following the rules and I'm doing it because I get paid for it". The New anti-Semitism has at about the same level as this comment by Capitalistroadster: just don't let facts get in the way.
• Keep. Duuuh. Gzuckier 18:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is Anti-Semitism really "dead" in the 21st Century??? IZAK 08:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important topic: even if one-third of 31,900 google hits are relevant non-dups, it is worth an article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article, delete the contents. What a disgrace! --Zero 12:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Deleting the contents of the article is basically asking for a rewrite. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and work towards an NPOV version as Jayjg and others have described--Josiah 18:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• "Misrepresentation or singling out for obloquy Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination" -- This article is very POV and yes, I know of a number of those who have described virtually any criticism of Zionism has been treated as tantamount to anti-Semitism. Some anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites and use codewords to disguise their anti-semitism but not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites (I'd say only a small minority are anti-Semitic) it's also true that a number of Zionists dismiss any criticism as anti-Semitism and use the spectre of a "new anti-Semitism" as a silencing device. Both sides need to be told here. AndyL 20:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that, merely by saying that, the definition as it stands in the article would actually count you as a new anti-Semite. It is going to take a lot of us to fight against Jayjg if we want anything approaching an NPOV version of the article. Chamaeleon 01:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and NPOVify. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and exapand. 172 10:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would delete it. It's all POV. See for example the beginning: "Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination". But things are not so simple. Zionism is not just a political movement of Jewish self-determination. Zionism is a doctrine which affirms that Jews have to return to Israel, a land that most of them have left centuries ago, and that they have to found a state there that has to be a Jewish State, which is a little bit as to say that Italy would have to be a Catholic state. The best Israelian, as Abraham Yehoshua, thinks that Israel has to become a ordinary State, not a Jewish state. Israel has repetly violated international law and UN resolutions. Of course its existence is now a state of fact and it's not in question, but I don't think that it has born in the good way, and I don't think to be antisemitic in saying this. One could oppose Zionism and be antisemitic, but could even oppose Zionism and not be at all antisemitic. Jews are not Israel, and who claims the contrary is not doing them a good service! We could talk of modern forms of antisemitism in the article antisemitism or question if some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. There is not the need for this article.--Juliet.p 11:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any relevant information into anti-Semitism. At the moment, this is an empty uniformative non-article about a neologism. -- The Anome 13:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I see an emerging consensus that an article of the name or similar should stay, but that the content is very POV and needs either a lot of editing or a total re-write. I have starting writing the article from scratch, and would like everyone's input, especially from impartial people who did not previously have the page on their watchlist. I am having a hard time because Jayjg and MathKnight are reverting back to the POV version. Please all come and help write a balanced, rational discussion. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't "write an article from scratch" in the existing article, especially when that involves deleting everything but the information you like. The general protocol is to start with a new Temp version and invite other editors to edit there. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your version is so offensive that it needs to go immediately. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The new one has a neutral opening, and then a section for each point of view. You fill in your section, and we'll fill in ours. Chamaeleon 16:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not "my" version, and what it needs are lots of cited opposing views, so that it will be NPOV. And the "we" you refer to in this case seems to consist of you alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • You're just talking crap and you know it. I'm tired of arguing patiently with people like you. I will not let you spread lies in Wikipedia and that is the end of the matter. I'll not communicate with you any further. Chamaeleon 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, I know nothing of the kind, I don't recall you ever arguing patiently with anyone, and I recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith policies. And if you don't communicate, you'll find it hard to get consensus for proposed changes to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notwithstanding the current controversies surrounding this article, the term "new anti-Semitism" has been used frequently in recent years and merits an online definition. CJCurrie 00:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At best redundant considering anti-semitism, at worse just a fellow on a soapbox.
• Delete, uninformed POV neologism. JamesBurns 09:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"well on the way to being the most downloaded transgendred model on the net" - not exactly notable. Also article is heavily POV. Radiant! 15:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Come back to us when he/she gets there, and, moreover, when that claim can be proven. He/she will probably still even then not be notable if that is all that can be said about him/her, though. Gosh! A model whose pictures are downloaded via Internet. And with a promotional web site, too. How rare is that! Delete. Uncle G 17:03, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete 74 Google hits as an exact phrase, 38 displayed and only about 10-15 of those relevant to this subject, and some of those are just guestbooks and such. I try not to take Google results as any sort of de facto notability standard, but considering this article's #1 claim to fame is apparently net-related, the fact that only a handful of pages even mention them is not a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently not notable enought to be in Wikipedia. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 20:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:20, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

"His contributions as a composer are limitied to a handful piano pieces" - not exactly notable. Radiant! 15:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep assuming the basic info in the article is correct, he's notable. Toured internationally as a musician and wrote a published book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, aside from which this topic's more encyclopedic than most of the porn stars listed on WP. Wyss 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We don't know how widely-read the book is, or how well-attended the tours were, or how frequently performed his compositions are... but he seems well-known enough. Isomorphic 20:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - less than 25 Google hits. Megan1967 03:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Actually 124 Bogdan | Talk 12:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, looks like a man for Wikipedia. bbx 04:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (abstaining for now): I have made some additions to the article from Swedish sources, but his notability, as far as I can judge, seems very borderline. There is any number of Swedish composers, both contemporary and older, who would better deserve articles: Dag Wirén (who is now linked from Uppström's article), Wilhelm Peterson-Berger, Ture Rangström, Lars-Erik Larsson, Johan Wikmanson, Johann Christian Friedrich Hæffner, Jacob Axel Josephson, Adolf Fredrik Lindblad, Sven-David Sandström, Moses Pergament, Sten Broman, Johan Gottlieb Naumann, Emil Sjögren, Hilding Rosenberg, John Fernström, August Söderman, Ingvar Lidholm, Gösta Nystroem, Sven-Erik Bäck and probably others that I can't recall at the moment (I just added several of these to the List of Swedes in music), not to mention many important performers (such as the conductor Sixten Ehrling who just died[20]). The fact that the coverage of Swedish music in the English Wikipedia is bad is in itself not an argument against Uppström, but unless I have missed something significant (which is possible), he is very far from being in the same league as the other ones listed here. Does the sum of his accomplishments as composer, performer and writer still bring him above the bar? Where is the line drawn? / up+land 12:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but "Why does X have an article but Y doesn't?" has never been a very valid argument. There are many thousands, even millions, of valid article subjects that don't have articles yet. It doesn't mean anyone else is necessarily any less accomplished or notworthy than ol' Uppström here, it just means someone got to him first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I already anticipated that, didn't I? I don't really care if Uppström is retained, but unless somebody can say something about his importance I still wonder why he should be in. If somebody would point out that "he hasn't composed many pieces but his Second Trio for Pyrophone, Banjo and Viola has been of monumental significance for the introduction of the pyrophone into modern chamber music" or something like that, I would understand why the article is here. Or is every published composer notable enough to be included? What are the criteria? / up+land 07:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Based on the guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines this musician fits criteria #2 (international concert tour). And that's not even counting his composing, or the book he wrote. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of other worthy candidates for articles, but based on our guidelines, this guy is definitely in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (not intending to vote): I transferred this from Wiktionary, where it does not belong, to Wikipedia. I have been asked on my user talk page who the original poster was, but I have been unable to find this out. The Wiktionary page has been deleted and there is no "View deleted edits?" link. Is it possible that this page had a different title when I copied it to Wiktionary? — Paul G 12:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not significant. JamesBurns 10:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me, and more so for those in Sweden. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 08:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Made up and highly insignificant holiday 24.205.103.26 15:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The article creation date, 3 days after the "holiday" date referred to by the article, strongly support this, as does the minor edit war amongst anonymous contributors, who have obviously come here from the forum concerned, no doubt after a posting drawing their attention to it. 24.205.103.26 managed, in contrast, to submit a full VFD nomination, getting the process pretty much right straight off. Well done! Please create an account here and contribute more. Let this also serve as a reminder that anonymity is not a bar to either nomination or voting in VFD. It merely lends additional weight to other bad faith. Anonymous users make hundreds of good faith contributions to Wikipedia every day. Delete. Uncle G 18:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Please keep your flame wars in the forums which ignited them, unless they become culturally significant, like the ARBN debates I was involved with back in the 1990s! (Sorry, couldn't resist the inside joke.) HyperZonk 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, I created the starmen.net article. No, I did not create this article. No, I do not support this article. Also, I direct you to this thread: http://forum.starmen.net/?t=msg&th=10219 --SMWhat 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, say, as cruft? Wyss 20:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As a concerned person acting in auctoritas ex officio at the forums in question, I must register my strong desire that the actions of whatever individual was responsible for the posting of this page not be construed as representative of the qualities or attitudes of said forums in toto. With regard to the article specifically, I cannot help but observe its plenary lack of any relevance, authority, or utility, and therefore recommend it heartily for deletion. 134.39.40.29 22:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Übercruft. I am from the forums, and agree with 134.39.40.29. Potatophone 23:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Slang term. Maybe transwiki, but probably not widespread enough. Radiant! 15:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Easily fixed by redirecting—we already had an article on Chavs, which Trevs said it was synonymous with. Postdlf 15:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the etymology sounds dodgy. Wyss 19:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:25, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Radiant! 15:42, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (25k+ hits in Google), but under the condition that it is NPOVed. --Sn0wflake 18:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm not sure at what point a "celebrity" (love those scare quotes) becomes notable enough, but this guy does appear to have an acting job on WB. Perhaps if his new series becomes popular. Hmmm. For the time being a very weak keep. HyperZonk 19:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, someone might care enough to look it up sometime. Wyss 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's done someacting as well as modeling. RickK 20:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep starring roles in two different major-network TV series, and has an active fan community. Well above the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Celebrity = notability.--Centauri 01:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV promo. Megan1967 06:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you consciously make it a policy to vote the opposite of the most votes at the time you vote? RickK 06:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a policy that I must follow other votes? Megan1967 04:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The current article is fannish and vain-sounding which would have made it a deletion candidate at first blush, but the subject certainly exceeds the notability factor. Needs a POVectomy and expansion to be sure. - Lucky 6.9 01:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Norman Rogers\^talk 01:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like vanity. JamesBurns 10:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A simple exercise in logic, but not encyclopedic. Radiant! 15:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like an exercise set for someone's homework. Well, they're already a term late in handing it in. Delete and let the redlink at Finite state machine do its job. Uncle G 17:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Keep, has instinct --219.77.226.8 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What does that mean? Carrp | Talk 17:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It means that 219.77.78.170 (talk · contribs) has got xemself a new IP address. WP:VIP. Uncle G 18:26, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. It does look like homework. Perhaps from a "Theory of Computation" class? Carrp | Talk 17:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a homework problem right now, but after some thought I suppose a redirect to Finite state machine couldn't hurt. Carrp | Talk 20:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Finite state machine -- As I recall from my "Theory of Computation" class, a two-way finite state machine is just a variation of a Finite state machine. Zzyzx11 19:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Finite state machine links to this page from a list of other types of machines, all of which have their own entries and most of which are far more fully realized articles. This probably just needs to be extensively expanded. Not sure that it "shows instinct" however. :) HyperZonk 19:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Wyss 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, and back-link to Finite state machine. — RJH 20:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Matteh (talk) 01:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 03:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, current content means nothing in context with the title. A 2-way FSM is an FSM that can move in both directions... it has nothing to do with summing numbers together. I would say that it is PATENT NONSENSE at the moment. 132.205.45.110 19:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, that means that it needs to be fixed, not deleted. HyperZonk 19:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• 06:48, Feb 16, 2005 Jimfbleak deleted Two-way finite state machines (listed for speedy deletion)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:27, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Olfactorycruft. Fails google test (under 100 hits). Deletionist 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• You must have mistyped it. I got 142,000 hits when I tried it, with most of the top hits being relevant. I get 10,800 when I combine it with the word "perfume", 14,500 with the word "parfum" (French for perfume) and 11,000 with "Givenchy". Merge and redirect to Hubert de Givenchy. — Ливай | ☺ 18:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. This is probably better off as a separate article, as its influence seems to be not restricted to Monsieur de Givenchy. Keep. — Ливай | ☺ 04:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yes I get plenty of google hits. Even 100 would be enough to merge. Keep or merge, notable fragrance. Kappa 18:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- The correct spelling of the perfume is L'interdit (an "int" instead of "ind"). Zzyzx11 19:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article title is mis-spelled, is all, c'est L'Interdit and if Audrey wore it, cool. Wyss 19:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes Google test, article needs expansion. Megan1967 03:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have moved the page to the correct title. — Ливай | ☺ 11:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable perfume. Capitalistroadster 11:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 15:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable 15-year-old. Thue | talk 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity entry. --Ponder 17:37, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Sn0wflake 18:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity. Not Notable. Zzyzx11 19:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #2, user test. Wyss 19:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 05:51, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No google hits, nothing on allmusic.com. Gamaliel 18:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 19:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't verify it on google either --nixie 02:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. band cruft. jni 09:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to sex crime. -Sean Curtin 02:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, while the station certainly exists this article neither establishes notibility, or is interesting in any way. I'm sure I could write a page or two about my local bus stop, however at no point would it even begin to be worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. A station that is half underground and half not is NOT notable - delete. (unsigned by 203.164.238.150)

• Keep. There is a long tradition of making articles for every train station on a metro network. If this is deleted, the other 100 articles on the Washington Metro, not to mention the dozens of articles on the London Underground and the Hong Kong subways, would have to follow suit. --Golbez 04:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the nominator has only 4 edits, 3 of which are this VFD and the other edit is a vandalism. --Golbez 18:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 19:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in keeping with the practice of making articles for every train station, even though I'm not sure I believe it's a good practice. It is established, nevertheless. Katefan0 20:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Anons cannot vfd, we've had this discussion already. GRider\^talk 20:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wincoote 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One could just as easily make this argument about an unimproved rambot article, or something of that nature. These stations are extremely notable features of their areas, and deserve coverage. Meelar (talk) 00:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All railway stations and other public transport infrastructure are notable.--Centauri 01:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

No such person as described. Earlier versions in the history also refer to either fictitious or non-notable individuals. May be a candidate for speedy deletion. HyperZonk 18:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I recall some doctor did provoke some complaints along these lines a few years ago but I can't find anything on it and this name doesn't Google to the topic. Wyss 19:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- "Although almost unknown now" says it all. Not notable enough to be in Wikipedia now. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 19:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, Google shows absolutely nothing for this article, however there is a geneticist called Dr. Stuart Fraser. Perhaps delete present article and rewrite new one. Megan1967 10:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 06:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable neologism or geek jargon (relax, I'll self-identify as a geek). None of the 41 displayed hits match this dic def. Niteowlneils 18:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, codswallop vanity nelogism. Wyss 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this neologism crap. Zzyzx11 19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't think of a speedy criterion that fits. Wyss 21:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Horn clause. This is not a neologism or vanity or a speedy candidate. I think this can be expanded by subject matter experts. jni 06:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a redirect would be unhelpful. There's no such thing as a Horn fact. Wyss 19:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 15:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity page. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #2, user test. Wyss 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. User was on a vandalism and vanity article rampage. Has since stopped and apologized for his actions on the talk page. - Lucky 6.9 19:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Not useful. Zzyzx11 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, user has apologized for having created the article, which I take as a request to remove the material. — Ливай | ☺ 17:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See also ARC Story. -- Curps 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, vanity page - Wikipedian231 15:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity until he become a well-know author. HyperZonk 17:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 15:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

An important topic, but it should be merged with Irish language#Northern Ireland. There's no need for it to be an article by itself. --Angr 22:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment from an Irish Wikipedian. Ideally the topic would be longer, requiring a summary in the section on Irish language, linking to a separate article. Whether this should be the case at the moment - I don't know. Perhaps having the NI separate article would encourage development of the topic? Plus the main language page is quite long already! I'm leaning more towards keep. zoney ♣ talk 22:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Definitely should be an article of its own. Everyking 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to a single article - deal with Irish as one language on one island - it cannot be compared to national variations of English, viz American, British, Hiberno and other variants which have distinct national variations in pronounciation. The variation between Irish spoken in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is no different to what would be expected within any similar sized country or the provinces. Irish is ultimately a minority language, even in Ireland - a pseudo-summary of the details in the main article is not the way forward. Djegan 22:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. If this article is kept and expanded, of course it will not be an article on the northern dialect of Irish; there's enough information on that at Irish language and Irish dialects. (After all, the predominant locus of the northern dialect isn't in Northern Ireland at all, but in County Donegal in the Republic.) Rather, the article will be on nonlinguistic issues: the legal status of Irish in Northern Ireland, and the sociopolitical ramifications of teaching and using a language that for most people is inextricably linked with Catholic/Republican identity in N.I. If all that is to be said on that subject fits into three or four paragraphs, then IMO it should be as a section of Irish language. If, on the other hand, a good encyclopedic article can come from this subject, then of course it should be an independent page. --Angr 23:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Spinboy 06:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge nothing much to say Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Keep. This topic is definately deserving of its own article, as its becoming a more concientious issue legally these days. Kiand 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, anything useable to Irish language, no redirect. Megan1967 06:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. The page has been tagged for merging. Joyous 15:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable neologism dic def that seems to have not gained traction--only 42 displayed hits. Niteowlneils 22:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to PvP, include a sentence alongside Skull the troll --nixie 02:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nixie. —Korath (Talk) 06:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to PvP. Megan1967 04:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probable hoax. Page creator has altered other pages adding nonsense [22] and User:KerioStar, the other major contributor, has removed the VfD notice from the page. Google gets no hits at all for "ragpaste" and the notion that building material made from rags would be especially popular in firehouses smells of hoax even before the line about "mechanical robot parts" being used to modernize the substance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax, probably BJAODN attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. I have removed the ragpaste links that was added to other articles. -- Egil 23:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 02:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment User:KerioStar has been messing with people's comments on this VfD; one more time and I'll just block him for a while. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable conlang whose only Google hit is at langmaker.com. RickK 23:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Undistinguished conlang. Loglan and Lojban are notable, but this recent creation is not. — Gwalla | Talk 03:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Wyss 19:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Chamaeleon 19:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of it. Wiwaxia 03:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Inter 23:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable student. — Gwalla | Talk 03:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch 12:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 19:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef. Inter 23:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• And slang at that. Transwiki to wiktionary? Otherwise delete. RickK 23:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dicdef. Wyss 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this Muddy joy. Johntex 21:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reality ain't always pretty, my friends. In the interest of academic integrity, I suggest that we keep the article, despite its unpleasant content.

• Wiktionary. Darkwind 13:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no google hits for either usage.-gadfium 00:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with Gadfium. FWIW anonymous user(s) who created the article and made comments here are responsible for the whole "Anuzutica" fracas. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. JamesBurns 10:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

2 anonymous votes ignored, 1 troll vote ignored and the first two comments (including the nomination) were very ambiguous. Rossami (talk) 04:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Almost 600 hits on google, most of which are relevant. [23] GRider\^talk 00:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what that is. Like I said on that article's talk page, an article can't be nominated to be a featured article if it has a {{cleanup}} tag on it. All I know is that someone listed it at Category:Wikipedians with article.--Kaonashi 00:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, there are heaps of local media personalities in wikipedia --nixie 02:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 04:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 19:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Johntex 21:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as interesting as Ann Curry's page i suppose. Hangry 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Why is this in Category:Wikipedians with article? It seems to be the work of an anon. Whether this is under or over the bar of notability I'm not too sure, but it looks like an autobiography and I err on the side of deleting them. If you're notable, someone (who doesn't know you personally) will create an article on you one day. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not self-promotion. 23:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Only 300 hits on google, most of which are relevant. [24] GRider\^talk 23:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. A published professor and researcher, [25]. Megan1967 04:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 19:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion, publications are self-published vanity. Johntex 21:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do pseudoscientists count as notable? --nixie 01:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. JamesBurns 10:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's been around a while, nominated for deletion 10 months ago, cleanup isn't forthcoming. dbenbenn | talk 18:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 07:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Only 600 hits on google, not all of which are relevant. [26] GRider\^talk 23:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He's been a soloist with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and has received good reviews in major newspapers. He's not far from the line, but I think he's notable. TSP 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, artist promo, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 03:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Juntung cleverly (and likeably) added this page after I suggested that dancer Zhenrong Chen's page be deleted. My thought: Chen is signicantly less noteworthy a dancer than I singer, and I am certainly not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. My vote for Chen's deletion was shot down, and Juntung did me the honor. Note: Zhenrong is still around, and is even back on the main ballet page along side Margot Fonteyn and Mikhail Baryshnikov! Burdettekevin
• Keep soloists for major orchestras are distinctive and reasonably notable. From wikipedia:biography: "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more". Kappa 08:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep soloist in a major symphony orchestra. Clears the bar by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In a borderline case, the person himself is a pretty good source on his own notability, especially if he is saying he isn't encyclopedically notable. (Less so if he is claiming to be notable, because of vanity.) Kevin can be presumed to know what makes for notability in his particular world, and if says he isn't notable, that decides it for me. --BM 13:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I know several artists who would sell their mother to have had even one engagement each at the list of venues this gentleman has performed at. The bar for singing at the Met and the NY Opera is pretty high, so Mr. Burdette is probably at least somewhat notable. I will grant that opera is not my milieu, however - I am basing these comments on instrumentalists that I know. HyperZonk 16:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Keep, by one of my cat's whiskers (quite happy to change my vote on this one btw). Wyss 19:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just over the notable bar for me. Johntex 21:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 02:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's no Bryn Terfel, but a glance at his website reveals he is pretty notable, despite his modest objections to the contrary above. --Angr 08:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That website rocks, by the way. The easter-egg gimmick was genius. I'm proud of myself for finding the secret Bass Ale page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Burdettekevin, if you're around I'd like to ask you one thing: If wikipedia already had articles on everyone at your level and above, would you say they should be deleted up to the level you consider genuinely notable? Kappa 23:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good question. I'm inclined to say in that case they should not be deleted. As you may have guessed, one reason I voted "delete" was because I feel uncomfortable having an entry while knowing that there are others more notable without an entry. Furthermore, were I pushed, I could not specify where I would draw the "notable" line. BTW: Andrew Lenahan - Starblind: glad you liked the easter eggs! Burdettekevin
    • For me it's like this: if I went to an opera with a major company, I'd hope to be able to look up the leading performers in WP, even if they aren't Kiri Te Kanawa. Unfortunately WP doesn't seem to have as many opera enthusiasts as science fiction fans and music lovers, but as long as articles like this one survive, I can still hope. Kappa 02:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Never heard of him, but I have now. And he's a Wikipedian, so he can't be all that bad. -- Longhair 18:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - dude! He was like, the high-point of L'Etoile. -- Nunh-huh 03:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a Wikipedian editor who claims he isn't notable. JamesBurns 10:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 07:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? 665 hits on google. [27] GRider\^talk 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. He's notable in Canada. (that's keep) DS 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. What's up GRider? Normally you vote keep. Getting over 10,000 Google hits on "Tom Maffin", two thirds of which are his. Megan1967 03:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll assume you meant Tod not Tom... From a quick Google, I get the impression he is the technology writer for CBC, with a weekly nationwide broadcast. Obviously his field would inflate the google hits somewhat, but still seems notable. Average Earthman 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it was a typo sorry, should have been Tod not Tom. Megan1967 06:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although the encyclopedic nature of articles about people in that sort of profession can be transient. Wyss 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Wyss. Notable for now. Johntex 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 08:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Close to 500 hits on google, most of which are relevant. [28] GRider\^talk 23:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Not created by the subject, though obviously with the knowledge that he was reading... Delete for the moment - notability doesn't seem to have been established. Very willing to reconsider if article establishes why he is notable in the field of climate modelling/the formation of the "IPCC Consensus"/something else...
• Keep, cleanup and expand. A published climate modellist and research, [29]. Megan1967 04:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'll go with Megan1967's take. Wyss 19:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't create this article. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether it should stay or not William M. Connolley 09:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC).

• Keep, looks notable. JamesBurns 10:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 15:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. 21 hits on google. [30] GRider\^talk 23:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• According the web of science he only has -two- publications in peer reviewd journals, I vote Delete --nixie 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. A published professor of biophysics, [31]. Megan1967 04:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an average professor. Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 'cause he used the term quantum mechanics in one of his book titles. Wyss 19:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Johntex 21:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete' Yuckfoo 03:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just because he's published doesn't mean he's a Wiki material. There's got to be thousands of published profs out there not worthy of Wikipedia status. (And there's probably a few out there that do.) Bratsche 04:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficient notability. JamesBurns 10:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This makes no sense. It's a weird rantish tract. Katefan0 23:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- though I think "babblish" would be a better adjective than "rantish". --Christofurio 00:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this nonsense rant babble. Bart133 (t) 02:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete either as very original research or as babblish, rantish, nonsensical codswallop. HyperZonk 16:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I was gonna say rant, I guess it is a rant-babble. Wyss 19:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Johntex 21:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not a speedy, wish it was, it should be. Wyss 13:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Chamaeleon 19:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 17:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Contributing to German Wikipedia does not make one notable. Can someone who speaks the language please confirm the claim, with references, that he identified and labeled a species of turtle? I only turn up links which appear to originate from his German Wikipedia article. GRider\^talk 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Can't this be speedied as vanity? --nixie 02:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, he's an editor on Wikipedia. There are about two dozen Google hits in German on his research but there is probably not enough at the moment to make him notable in his own right. Megan1967 04:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do field work in botany or zoology, you will stumble across a new sub-species. Wyss 19:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment can anyone produce the list of books to help us make an informed decision. Johntex 21:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. I do wonder why there's an accuracy dispute tag on the article when there's no talk page for it. AFAIK his publications consist of two books: Europäische Landschildkröten ("European tortoises") and Das Buch der immergrünen Laubbäume und Sträucher ("The book of evergreen deciduous trees and shrubs"), photos of both of which are shown at his de: user talk page. I tried looking at amazon.de for more books of his, but Richard Mayer is a common enough name in German to make it difficult to be sure if any other books are his. Anyway, I think "several German-language books on tortoises" is an overstatement. He's also got a website which seems to consist entirely of photos of buildings and landscapes with big clay heads photoshopped into them, and tortoises. I found some pages citing "Mayer 1992" as the source for the identification of his subspecies of marginated tortoise, but unfortunately none of them included a reference list to tell us what "Mayer 1992" is. Maybe Europäische Landschildkröten? Unfortunately Amazon doesn't know the year that book was published, and the publisher's website has no record of it. --Angr 08:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete Yuckfoo 03:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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