Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 17

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Houghton

This single-sentence sub-stub article reads "Bobby Houghton was a former coach of the Colorado Rapids in 1996", end of article. This individual turns up 800 hits on google. [1] Are major league coaches inherently noteworthy? GRider\talk 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The Wikipedians working on the articles of the major sports leagues, including Major League Soccer, have been creating articles for each and every head coach. Zzyzx11 02:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was a head coach of a major-league sports team, and furthermore it appears he was their first head coach. --Idont Havaname 02:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If he was the first head cosch of the team, that's of general/ noteworthy interes EggplantWizard 03:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bobby Houghton was head coach of the Chinese Football Association, and helped turn around the struggling team. He's also been known to implement effective soccer (football) programs for teams that are... ahem... soccer-challenged. I added some very basic information on his being coach of China's soccer team, based on the following article on FIFA's web site. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on this person can help out, or I'd be glad to continue adding information when I have more time. --Deathphoenix 06:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Trilobite (Talk) 10:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nateji77 14:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see where the confusion lay, since it gave the impression that managing the Colorado Rapids was the highlight of his career. Far from it of course, he managed Malmo to a Champion's cup final in 1979, he managed the Chinese national football squad in the late 1990's. Average Earthman 14:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable soccer coach at national and club levels Capitalistroadster 09:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for *.* reasons above. —RaD Man (talk) 11:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 10:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Duh. --Dryazan 15:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't be ridiculous - David Gerard 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Carrp | Talk 06:37, 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 DELETE. jni 09:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bob Edmonds

Vanity. CJCurrie 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "He was recently accepted into the Air Force Academy on early merits." Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 02:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good luck with your career in the Air Force, Bob, and may you one day do something notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Until then, delete. Alba 02:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity article. But good luck in the Air Force, I have a lot of respect for people who join the military. --Deathphoenix 06:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ellsworth 23:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, I am Bob Edmonds, this article is actually about me, one of my buddies wrote it up as a joke without my knowledge. Please kindly delete it, sorry for the trouble. Oh and please don't consider it an abuse, I got a notice asking me not to "abuse" wikipedia in the future. I didn't do this, I didn't write it, and I want it deleted.--CT1000AD 02:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Even Bob agrees. Carrp | Talk 06:38, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brian Doherty

This ultra-sub-stub is 6 words in length: "Brian Doherty is a Chicago Alderman." Is this article of any value to Wikipedia at all? If so, to what end, and why should it be kept? GRider\talk 17:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote, but please don't add every single one of these to VfD at once. Just do a few to begin with. --Xezbeth 17:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whenever there exists a "List of things that are X" with individual items linked to pages that only say "Y is an example of X", then the items should be de-linked and the articles should be redirected to the list. The problem in this case is that "Y" (Doherty) will not be an example of "X" (Chicago alderman) when his term ends, and the redirect should then either be redirected elsewhere or deleted. I don't necessarily see that happening. It'd be easier to delete. Some day hopefully wikipedia's search function will work better and a search for any current alderman will easily turn up anyone listed on that page, even without a redirect. -R. fiend 19:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This particular article I'm neutral on, but a semi-decent article on any Chicago Alderman would be a keep. Meelar (talk) 03:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have intentions of updating your vote towards the close of this listing? At what point does this sub-stub transform into a semi-decent article, and whos decision is that to make? GRider\talk 20:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 08:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. Only Republican alderman in Chicago.
  • Delete. Does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Already listed in Chicago aldermen - an article which could easily be expanded to show political party (and therefore to show the trivia item that this person is the only current Republican on the list). Rossami (talk) 22:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: only Republican alderman in one of the most heavily Democratic cities in America. How can that possibly be less important than characters in games? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat 02:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:50, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Delete: not an article, notability not established. Willing to reconsider if the article is expanded. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Barely non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. — Linnwood 06:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Pjacobi. Radiant! 11:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 09:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and note on Chicago aldermen that he is the only Republican. —Korath (Talk) 13:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 09:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Camilla Lyman

If google can only turn up 30 unique hits [2], is this late transvestite millionaire worthy of note and inclusion on Wikipedia? Does the value this brings to our readers ultimately outweigh the cost of disk space to our servers? GRider\talk 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 02:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • maybe, see http://www.boston.com/news/daily/09/heiress.htm i don't really see any benefit to deleting this. Wolfman 05:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough, given that she was featured on Unsolved Mysteries. --Deathphoenix 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Just scrapes in for notability for me. Megan1967 06:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Just because she was on Unsolved Mysteries, does that make her notable enough? And going a step further: Does that mean that anybody who was on Unsolved Mysteries make them notable, and thus eligible to be in Wikipedia? Zzyzx11 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Okay, let me clarify. She's an unusual enough subject. The circumstances of her death is unusual enough. This is not a vanity article, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we don't have to keep Wikipedia trimmed down to a small size. Hence, yes, I believe she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if people are willing to write an article on anyone who was featured on Unsolved Mysteries, I say go ahead. As long as it's not a vanity piece, I have no problems with that. --Deathphoenix 06:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being murdered under mysterious circumstances does not make you notable, not even if you are one of the few female-to-male transsexuals out there, and not even if your murder does get onto Unsolved Mysteries. --Angr 07:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm I can vote keep on the basis of "does the value this brings to our readers ultimately outweigh the cost of disk space to our servers?". I like that argument, I can vote "keep" on almost everything verifiable with that. Kappa 09:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Kappa. An argument that lets you keep almost everything verifiable, is not useful for determining encyclopedia entries. Delete as this person isn't notable. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rats, I thought it sounded too good to be true. Kappa 11:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nominator's question is wrong, since VfD isn't a cost/benefit analysis. Even if it were, disk space isn't the only cost. If that were the analysis, we'd keep everything, including the vanity, since disk space costs are negligible. I'm not sure GRider didn't nominate this to make a point, which would be "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". All that said, I agree with the previous voters who argued that being murdered does not make you encyclopdically notable, unsolved or otherwise; nor does being a transexual millionaire. --BM 16:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think this passes the notability bar. The poor victim's sexuality and wallet are tittilating, but don't really make her/him any more notable than any other victim profiled on Unsolved Mysteries, who are notable only for their untimely end, not for anything done during their lifetimes. Katefan0 20:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Half keep. —RaD Man (talk) 21:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. "Transsexual" and "millionaire" go together in so few sentences without the word "not" in between them that she seems almost (but not quite) noteworthy in her own right just for that. Combined with the mysterious disappearance and its moderate publicity makes this just barely squeak the notability radar, IMO, but just barely. BenSamples 05:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, gruesome yet there's a possibility that she/he/it is notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to media coverage. And because it's so damn odd. Gamaliel
  • Keep — Linnwood 06:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless expanded greatly. Brookie 17:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but it does need expansion which I actually was going to work on Real Soon Now but my life (and wife) keep interfering with Wikiholic pursuits ;Bear 04:23, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable media coverage. JamesBurns 09:51, 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 no consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 05:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Traditional diet

Merge into Dieting. Says little more than its title. (I am sure I saw an article slightly worse than this discussed on VfD recently - what was its fate?) -- RWH 00:35, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Merge to dieting. GRider\talk 00:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't merge. I believe this is a bad definition. Traditional diets are usually contrasted with modern diets, not weight control diets. Kappa 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tend to agree with Kappa that this article gives the wrong definition of a traditional diet. Zzyzx11 02:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A rather circular dicdef. Trilobite (Talk) 10:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Also see 'definition, circular'. Delete. Radiant! 12:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe RHaworth is referring to Natural hairstyle which also seems to be on its merry way to delete, perhaps even speedy. I also agree with Kappa ... it is not a good definition IMO. HyperZonktalk 17:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion doesn't seem entirely necessary; maybe some heavy editing and/or a merge.
    • You're right abou the research: I was in a bit of a hurry at the time and hoped that by giving an incomplete definition, I'd attract improvement. Weaselly, yes, but we all find ways.
  • Comment: I'm assuming the above is the originator of the article. Thank you for contributing to wikipedia, and I think we could have an article on this topic, but I don't think you did enough research first. If it gets deleted, maybe you could check out a few more google hits and then submit a new version (with references). Kappa 00:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article should be expanded. I have begun to do so. Burschik 15:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (change of vote), expanded to usefulness. Kappa 16:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks relevant. 66.82.9.54 22:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems relevant now, I will see if I can add any more.
  • Keep. Relevant enough to be encyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 06:42, 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 DELETE. jni 09:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

avjowar

It's a bad sign when a neologism fails the Google Web test because its FAQ, one of the few hits for it, has been taken down; and an even worse sign when it fails the Google Groups test utterly. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Not enough notable references. Zzyzx11 01:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Top Google hit taken down, and not a lot beyond that. --Idont Havaname 02:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ellsworth 23:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tkessler 01:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Donkey punch

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Notable term with FOURTY-THREE-THOUSAND google matches [3] and enormous potential for expansion far beyond a dictdef. GRider\talk 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for the same reason Mr.Sidaway gave CiaraBeth 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef, maybe a weak transwiki to wiktionary; I see no potential for expansion. —Korath (Talk) 01:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a dicdef. Zzyzx11 01:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a very well-known phrase/concept, and seems much more appropriate to Wikipedia than to Wiktionary to me. The information there is already useful. In fact, it was one of the first articles on Wikipedia that I was impressed by, simply because (perhaps needless to say) few of those Google results have very solid information. The history of the phrase and the biological facts related to it give the article potential for expansion. It is also worth mentioning that this is not a new phrase. Donkey punches can be seen in films from the 1970s. --LostLeviathan 03:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Wolfman 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is much more than a simple definition. — J3ff 05:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sick it may be, but it is more than a dicdef. HowardB 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That was surprisingly informative. Meelar (talk) 08:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apart from the definition, this seems more like speculation than information. Kappa 09:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Childish, trivial, dicdef. Trilobite (Talk) 10:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is informative, even if it's on a subject that many people do not want to be informed on. But it has a place in Wikipedia, in the appropriate categories. Concur with Leviathan. Radiant! 11:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wish we could get rid of this as a dicdef, but it isn't. It is unencyclopedic, however. I have a difficult time believing that people intent on making Wikipedia the online Encyclopedia of Sex Practices aren't trolling or trying to discredit the project. Give me Digimon-cruft over sex-cruft like this. --BM 16:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting how strong people's opinions are about this; in any event, it is properly noted as being a possible urban legend and I can see no precedent or guideline that would call for deletion, as it does seem a bit broad for a dicdef. HyperZonktalk 16:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, proper article. Grue 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if wikipedia is not a jargon guide, you need to delete about half of the wikipedia.  ALKIVAR™ 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like they're doing a terrific job of that this week. —RaD Man (talk) 18:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh come on, it is probably only about 20 percent. --BM 22:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and, wow, that's sick. BenSamples 05:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • EXTREMELY STRONG DONKEY KEEP. Congratulations BM for openly pronouncing your bias towards "Digimon-cruft" over "sex-cruft". How cute. There is no doubt that people will refer to Wikipedia for this term. Once again, welcome to puritan deletionism. —RaD Man (talk) 18:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep — Linnwood 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • THE STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE - needs more info though! --Smooth Henry 21:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef - or intrawiki to Wiktionary Trödel|talk 22:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is, unfortunately, pretty well known and notable. Gamaliel 22:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Who would think of deleting an article on the infamous donkey punch?Everyking 06:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh, keep, however, does anyone really want to know this? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, hmmm, is there an article on the Clinton lip bite? I'm unfamiliar with what the slang terms might be. I guess that's what I missed, not being a frat boy.--Silverback 17:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologisms and slang should be presented very well and be clearly encyclopedic. This one may or may not be an urban legend, and has no convincing etymology. The topic might be 'notable' enough to eventually have its own article, but this one isn't it, and doesn't look fixable. Ditto for the other two "sex moves" linked at the end of the article. Delete and merge with an overview such as sexual slang. +sj + 00:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    slang-collections like sexual slang should probably be transwikied to wiktionary, in any case...
  • Keep. I'm fed up with the attempts to "sanitize" Wikipedia so that it's only useful to schoolchildren. RickK 00:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a well-written and obviously researched article that is relevant. I also agree with RickK. Yalbik 01:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As RickK said. --Carnildo 05:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand why anyone would consider this unencyclopedic. Eric Herboso 22:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Well-written and informative article. No reason to get rid of it. If nothing else, "Donkey Punch" should be in Wikipedia because people use it. DavidMendoza 22:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jonathunder 22:32, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. Not a dictdef. "Not worksafe" is not a valid reason for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I hope people voting to keep this realize that far from being a mere "sex move", this is a form of extreme abuse that potentially could seriously harm the female partner. It is NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST for the woman. The so-called move probably does not really exist except as a kind of sick Howard Stern-type joke. It is far too dangerous. Someone reading this article is going to think that it is OK to try it and someonr else is going to get seriously injured, and it might well be Wikipedia's fault. People have such a chip on their shoulders about censorship, prudishness, etc, that they lose all sense of responsibility. --BM 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I added a warning to the entry in bold type. Does this fix this particular concern? Eric Herboso 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with BM about the undesirability of practicing this "move", but I disagree strongly about applying self-censorship in encyclopedia entries just because we don't want people trying what is described. I mean, where do we start and stop? How about suicide, hari-kiri, mass murder, or Russian roulette. I am sure these are well written articles, but probably started out as brief descriptions of the activity. Should they have been deleted because they represent undesirable social behaviour? I think not. HowardB 15:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
BM is totally right! We lose so many people to Donkey Punches each year, I think it'll be on the cover of Time Magazine by the end of summer. Along that same line, I'd like to warn people about the Vietnam War. Far from being a mere event in history, it is NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST for a country to be invaded and used as a battleground. Same with Fencing. All sorts of paragraphs about the history of this urban legend, but not a single BM-approved warning about how dangerous and NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST it is for someone to get poked in the eye. That shit hurts, yo. HowardB, I think you and I have our work cut out for us. --Jscott 17:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your sarcastic non-sequitur notwithstanding, the fact remains that in this article we have a description as a real "sex move" something, which if it actually were performed, would very likely injure someone, and would be extreme abuse, not to mention criminal battery. We are talking about the person on top punching his partner in the back of the head as hard as he can -- so hard that the anus or vagina muscles strongly contract. And, apparently, Wikipedia editors think it is fine to describe this as a "sex move" and make jokes about "Tony Danza". --BM 18:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disturbing, but notable. Carrp | Talk 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Interesting article - yes, a definition, but also explanation and description. As are all encyclopedia entries. Kirkbroadhurst 23.52, 21 Feb 2005 (AEST)
  • Keep. It's puerile misogyny, but it's verifiable and notable puerile misogyny. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Christiaan 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It explains in a responsible way a phenomenon many will already have heard of in less responsible contexts.--Nectarflowed 21:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: when can we remove the deletion notice? --Smooth Henry 21:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As nominator, as far as I'm concerned it can be lifted. This is a very strong keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sex cruft. JamesBurns 09:54, 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carl Maximowicz

What makes this 19th century Russian botanist notable amongst other botanists in his domain? (Notability is not established in this article.) 31 hits on google. [4] GRider\talk 22:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, and expand. Notable botanist - first to introduced a number of previously unknown plant species to the West from Japan and East Asia. The orange tiger lily, maximowiczii is named in his honour. Megan1967 08:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable botanist and explorer of the Amurland with Leopold von Schrenck. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The article could do a much better job of establishing why he is notable. Carrp | Talk 06:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - but this notable botanist and naturalist deserves a better article JoJan 12:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have considerably expanded the article. You can remove now the request for deletion. JoJan 10:21, 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carl Meinhof

A German linguist and professor at the School of Oriental Studies in Berlin. 533 google hits. [5] What distinguishes this person from other linguists and professors to make him notable? If notability is not a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia for this individual, then what is? GRider\talk 00:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. If he's good enough for a puny encyclopedia like Britannica, he's good enough for us. iMeowbot~Mw 03:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there have been other professors with far more hits and publications losing VfDs, undistinguished linguist. Megan1967 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The britannica entry speaks for itself. Xezbeth 06:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If he's good for Britannica, then let him remain in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 06:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. He is notable. There is an article about him in the Neue Deutsche Biographie as well (index here). / u p p l a n d 07:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable linguist. I'll have a go at this myself.Capitalistroadster 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Now added several paragraphs mainly based on What Links Here. Meinhof has several entries on what links here confirming his importance as a scholar. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as the article doesn't establish notability. It is hinted at that he is notable, however, in which case the article should be expanded, but currently he fails the professor test. Radiant! 09:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. EggplantWizard 17:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the first linguists to study African languages. How exactly do people fail to find that notable, given that we'll accept just about any actor ever to appear in a film these days? Average Earthman 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable scholar. — Gwalla | Talk 00:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 06:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, being one of the first to do something is notable in my book. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ---- — unsigned vote by Tezeti at 13:57, 21 Feb 2005
  • Keep I wholeheartedly agree with iMeowbot, Xezbeth, and Zzyzx11 - anything to be found in tiny, self-important Britannica should fit into our much larger universe of knowledge. Frankly, I think someone should sit down with the Britannica (and the other major books) and make sure that we have at least something for every entry that they have (which is completely legal, so long as we do not copy their exact text)... or we could get 30 volunteers to each sit down with one volume... — unsigned vote by BD2412 at 18:35, 22 Feb 2005
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 09:56, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Perhaps I'll merge it. dbenbenn | talk 14:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cathie Jung

"Cathie Jung (born 1937) [...] currently holds the Guiness World Record for the smallest waist on a living person." Does this article belong on Wikipedia? Although an initial search pulled up about 1000 hits, most of them are completely unrelated and pertain almost exclusively to x-rated material. After filtering out "xxx" and "sex" you get a more accurate picture of around 200. [6] GRider\talk 01:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Zzyzx11 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I beg to differ. While Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, nor is it likely the place for obscure records that belong in the same, Cathie Jung is notable enough, at least in North America, due to her unusual Victorian-like waist in modern times. "You ain't gonna be no eighteen and a half inches again!" --Deathphoenix 06:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand (not her waistline), just passes notability for me. Megan1967 06:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a book of records. RickK 06:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there is nothing more to say than this. Otherwise, we should have every Guiness World Record holder in here, and I really do not think that is what Wikipedia is for. HowardB 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and relevent to modern day corset wearers. Seems like bad idea though. Kappa 08:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Rick and Howard. Radiant! 09:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records and this contains very little beyond what would be in there. Trilobite (Talk) 10:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are thousands of recordholders named in current and past Guiness Books. They don't all deserve entries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Her waist is notable; she isn't. I renew my appeal that some sort of precendent be put down for dealing with minor Guiness records. --InShaneee 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But Agree that the data belongs somewhere on wikipedia, just not in its own article. Consider keeping as a redirect, perhaps -- but I have no strong feelings about that. Some sort of a policy on Guiness record type of information is needed here.
Note: The above vote was made by User:EggplantWizard on 05:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) --Andylkl 18:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge with corset.  ALKIVAR™ 21:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to corset. Agree that the content should be kept but does not necessarily warrant its own article. —RaD Man (talk) 21:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and stuff her name and the little bite of content that's in this into the corset article. It's not notable in an of itself, but corset folks might think it's really interesting. BenSamples 05:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to corset. / Uppland 17:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to corset. Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, just not in her own article yet. --Andylkl 18:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She was notable enough to make local tv some years back over here in Australia. -- Longhair 18:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to tightlacing or corset--nixie 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. World's smallest waist -- so what? Wile E. Heresiarch 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't Guiness. Carrp | Talk 06:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 06:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge' — Linnwood 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Although, as many have pointed out, this is not intended to be the Guiness Book, that publication is a copyrighted collection of facts (i.e., only the arrangement can be copyrighted, not the facts themselves, see Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)); facts that are notable and in the public domain should be available in a venue where they are readily usable by the people. Isn't that fundamental to this project? --BD2412 02:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Guiness Book, while it can be fascinating, is a collection of trivial, not notable, material in general (obviously there are exceptions). This would seem to lean more towards trivial than notable. Indrian 04:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the fact of Cathie's Guiness-certified narrow waist fact may be notable, how is anyone going to find it? The Guiness Book of Records would have this person in a section about human physical limits, sub-section smallest, sub-sub-section waist, where people could easily find this fact. Short of Wikipedia having an article entitled 'Guiness World Record holder for the narrowest waist on a living person' - and we can't call the article Adult human being with narrowest waist because we don't know that for sure - how is an article on Cathie Jung going to be useful? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough. JamesBurns 09:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She can get a brief mention in Tightlacing or somewhere, but does not need an article. The Guinness Book of World Records is not an encyclopedia (its purpose is to settle bar bets), and Guinness "record" holders are not automatically encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into Corset. Notable enough for a mention, not notable enough for her own article imho. Thryduulf 22:50, 28 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vissarion Jughashvili

Whatever is useful in this article should be put in Joseph Stalin. This character has no merit in his own right. Same for Ekaterina Geladze his mother. Plus very little is known about either of them, in the words of the articles. --SqueakBox 01:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Stalin's family life (or lack thereof) is interesting in that it may help to shed some light on his actions later in lfe. The article as it stands seems a fairly thorough account of what little is known about him and deserves to be kept. Lisiate 01:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Joseph Stalin. As said in the article, "There is very little information on Vissarion Jugashvili." Zzyzx11 01:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's well written, and interesting. Oz Dante
  • Merge anything useable to Joseph Stalin, and add redirect. Megan1967 06:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. I disagree utterly. There is much known and written about both Vissarion Jughashvili and Ekaterina Geladze. There is fact, rumour, and the Communist Paty's propoganda, but several Stalin biographers have tried to sort out the real from the imagined. While both articles may not yet be written very well, the parents of one of the most influential people of the twentieth century both clearly warrant a Wikipedia entry. HowardB 07:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Stalin entry will be better organized if this is outside it. Failing that, merge. Kappa 08:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done, HowardB. Capitalistroadster 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ekaterina Geladze and then merge into Stalin or create a new article Stalin's family background. While his mother was at least famous in her own lifetime he was not, and has nothing to make him stand out in his own right. I note his son Yakov Dzhugashvili has nothing, whereas I would argue he has a more rightful place as a separate article because of the huge effect Stalin's rise to power had on his life, and because he was well known during his own lifetime. --SqueakBox 17:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both, but check that there's no relevant content in either that isn't also in Stalin. -Sean Curtin 01:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Politic cruft. JamesBurns 10:01, 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ekaterina Geladze

Whatever is useful in this article should be put in Joseph Stalin. This character has no merit in her own right. Same for Vissarion Jughashvili his father. Plus very little is known about either of them, in the words of the articles. --SqueakBox 01:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Stong Keep. I disagree utterly. There is much known and written about both Ekaterina Geladze and Vissarion Jughashvili. There is fact, rumour, and the Communist Paty's propoganda, but several Stalin biographers have tried to sort out the real from the imagined. While both articles may not yet be written very well, the parents of one of the most influential people of the twentieth century both clearly warrant a Wikipedia entry. HowardB 07:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I have completely rewritten this article, and cleaned up/added to the Vissarion Jughashvili piece. Perhaps more can still be written, but I strongly feel both are legitimate entries. HowardB 09:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done Howard B. We have an artice on Alois Hitler to discuss Hitler's origins and I think that is an appropriate precedent.Capitalistroadster 10:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Vissarion Jughashvili and then merge into Stalin or create a new article Stalin's family background. She at least was famous in her own lifetime unlike his father. I note his son Yakov Dzhugashvili has nothing, whereas I would argue he has a more rightful place as a separate article because of the huge effect Stalin's rise to power had on his life, and because he was well known during his own lifetime. --SqueakBox 17:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Megan1967 08:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as HowardB said, Ekaterina Geladze warrents her -own- entry, as does Vissarion Jughashvili. Both entries are worthwhile, and though small, have information and importance enough to make them independant entries. 216.75.190.106 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Politic cruft. JamesBurns 10:02, 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 09:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belief system

This was constructed on 13 Sep 04 and abandoned the following day--SqueakBox 01:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, some will make it again if necessary, hopefully with content --nixie 05:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, empty article. Megan1967 06:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to belief or religon dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right now there is nothing to merge. Write something and I would merge it or the article could then be left alone. --SqueakBox 14:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I guess the title could become an empty section, and the talk page could be copied to the talk page of Belief? --SqueakBox 04:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No content, should have been speedied. — Gwalla | Talk 00:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no content. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No content. Perhaps redirect to Nihilism. Carrp | Talk 06:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no content... -- Riffsyphon1024 06:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the talk section to the talk section of talk:belief, and add ==Belief system== to the main article. Use {{r with possibilities}}. Eric Herboso 04:03, 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 09:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RothenStein

Apparent prank article--zero hits for "Assembled States of RothenStein Island" or even just "RothenStein island". According to the article "... until President Bush declared them to be on the small island axis of evil. It was then that a joint coalition of the U.S. and The U.K. invaded Rothenstein and soon had toppled the Smith regime." Ye-aaah. Ha ha. Niteowlneils 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as patent nonsense. --LostLeviathan 03:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just makes me shake my head. Zzyzx11 05:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ddddddddLeeeeeeT Wolfman 06:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a nice piece of fiction. Did I say nice? I meant fiction. --Deathphoenix 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Trilobite (Talk) 10:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move to BJAODN. Ellsworth 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense, a BJAODN candidate. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:45, 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 DELETE. jni 09:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pia cammarata

Another apparent prank article (was today a school holiday someplace?)--zero hits for "Pia Cammarata" "My Life so Far". From article: "In essence, these people (in fact the group has only one member at the moment) are pushing towards a little-person state, in which voting is replaced with 'measuring', and the smallest person 'wins'." Ye-aaahhhh. Ha ha. Niteowlneils 01:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this prank. Bart133 (t) 03:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just makes me shake my head. Zzyzx11 05:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Okay, I'll be creative and call this piece of fiction "original research". --Deathphoenix 06:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Trilobite (Talk) 10:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And speedify? Irpen 07:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 09:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scott Webley

Vanity advert. Alba 02:54, 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 09:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pat Healy

Non-notable 5-time champion on Jeopardy. Set no major records either. Basically, the only way Healy would deserve an article if all 200 5-time champs since 1984 also got an article. --OntarioQuizzer 03:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even as a long-time Jeopardy! fan, I can't see why he deserves his own article (even if it were to be rewritten into a full article). He's relatively non-notable. ral315 03:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's 144 people competing in the Ultimate Tournament of Champions; we don't need an article on every one of them. Recreate the article if he wins the tournament. Dave6 05:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad someone else spotted this, Delete--nixie 05:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. And keep an eye out for articles on all 144 contestants that may turn up in the next few weeks. -R. fiend 05:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough yet. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 05:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to suggest including him in a possible list of Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions contestants, but I see he's already there. --Deathphoenix 06:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, then a guess a redirect there would be fine. Does that page seem a bit like overkill to anyone else though? -R. fiend 07:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Which one? Healy? Or U-ToC? --OntarioQuizzer 12:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • To clarify, redirect Healy to UToC. (Or delete. Either is fine with me). and the UToC page seems a bit like overkill. Not quite the sort of thing I'd expect from Everyking if it involved Ashlee Simpson, but getting close. -R. fiend 16:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 08:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Trilobite (Talk) 10:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. EggplantWizard 17:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect, in that order of preference. I think redirection is a little charitable in this case, but I'm willing to go for it if other folks are. BenSamples 04:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Question If I make a article for every person who is a 5 time Jeopardy winner can we keep Pat Healy?
  • Delete: nonnotable game show contestant. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 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 DELETE. jni 09:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a God

Original essay. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 03:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Clearly original. Delete. Bart133 (t) 03:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete --nixie 03:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay. Arguments for the existence of God covers the issue pretty well. Antandrus 03:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • well is there? Wolfman 05:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. There is a God... or is there? --Deathphoenix 06:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To be placed in a box and stored in the backroom along with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and girls that want to go out with me. Megan1967 06:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 06:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Personal opinion. Wincoote 07:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. jni 08:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say redirect to Arguments for the existence of God and the converse. Meelar (talk) 08:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 09:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Expectro-Realism

This page is original research (even by its own admission). According to Google, the term doesn't appear anywhere but Wikipedia (on the dead-end page) and on an apparent link farm (that appears to be mining Wikipedia). The subject matter of the article is highly dubious, dare I say patent nonsense. This should be deleted. -- Cleduc 03:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research. Even trying for different spellings, no connects on Google. HowardB 05:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "new topic under research" clearly makes it original research. --Deathphoenix 06:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. — Gwalla | Talk 00:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of being factual. Unless verified, delete as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:49, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft Players

I'm not 100% sure this article needs to be deleted, but at the very least it needs to be retitled, merged, cleaned up or a combination of those. Also, deciding who is a notable player is subjective. If there are official Starcraft rankings, use those. As it exists right now, I vote to delete StarCraft Players. Carrp | Talk 03:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Voted keep, but clean up and modify into a general "Professional Starcraft Playing" article to give the subject more context.

As for the subjectivity of notability, the choice of notable players is based on a combination of rankings, past success and fan popularity. All players described are commonly talked about in English-language Starcraft progaming fan discussions, and all on the list that are still active are within the top 20 of the offical rankings. ShardPhoenix 05:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. I agree, since these seem to be professional players with a fan following. BTW, I like your name, ShardPhoenix. --Deathphoenix 06:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... after reading other votes about this sending a dangerous precedent for future articles written about "top" players of video games, I change my vote to Neutral. I think since these guys have a fan following, they might be notable, but at the same time, this could set a precedent for future articles that would otherwise be vanity articles. --Deathphoenix 21:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless some significant substantiation can be done. It's very easy for any l33t player to add himself to the list, and we don't really want that. Radiant! 09:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • No no no! Extremely Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are currently a whole lot of changes going on at StarCraft, with StarCraft Players and StarCraft storyline branching out of the sections on that page as people variously disagree on what should be kept and what should remain. I suggest that rather than nominating individual pages for deletion piecemeal, people go over to Talk:StarCraft and actually come to some agreement as to if and how the article is going to be split up. (There appears to be no consensus about StarCraft universe versus StarCraft storyline, for example.) Provisional Delete pending a consensus being reached at Talk:StarCraft. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • No vote Please stop submitting "StarCraft"-related articles for VfD for now; understand me, I know no policy prevents you from doing so, but I'm asking you do so out of courtesy as we're trying to get things sorted out in that category. As I see it, this will eventually become a redirect to a "Multiplayer (StarCraft)" article. Have some patience please. Phils 13:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry, the Wikipedia is a work in progress, but it is not a construction site, with "under construction" signs all over the place. People coming to the Wikipedia should be able to find it always in a reasonable state -- although perhaps not in the ideal state for which editors are aiming. The main article space is not your hard drive or even your User space. If you are working on a set of articles and they are not yet in a reasonable state keep them out of the main article space until they are in a reasonable state; otherwise, you are going to find other editors trying to restore Wikipedia to a reasonable state -- by means of cleanup, VfD, and other means. By the way, how does this article make sense even as a redirect to Multiplayer (StarCraft)? And shouldn't that be StarCraft (Multiplayer) , anyway? --BM 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am working to restore the crapload of preexistent StarCraft articles. I don't really see how it makes sense to delete them all now and restore them later, once someone is done working on them. Following your suggestion, we should trash all articles marked for cleanup because some uninformed outsider might see them and be shocked or whatnot. I am not taking the main space for my hard drive, I'm asking for a few days to make decrepit articles worthy of Wikipedia again. Phils 16:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That is laudable. However, the only one that has been nominated for VfD yet (afaik) is the list of notable players, since some Wikipedians hold that the criteria for inclusion are too subjective, meaning that any wannabe could add a cool story there and claim to be the best in his area. Please take that into consideration. Radiant! 18:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well Phils, you have 5 days, which is the amount of time this will be on VfD before it is decided. You can't expect other editors to decide this on the basis of what you are planning to do when you have not told anyone what that is. How about at least explaining where an article entitled "StarCraft Players" makes sense in your planned scheme of articles? Because I can't see where a list of StarCraft players would be a reasonable article to have, or even a reasonable redirect. --BM 19:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like User:Phils and User:Coolcat do not agree on the future of this article. I have no idea what Phils plans for the article since he hasn't said, but I suspect I don't like it. But, as for what Coolcat has done with the article, making it a miscellaneous list of supposedly notable StarCraft players, I know I don't like it. Delete, delete, for pity's sake, delete. (Admin: please count this as three votes.) --BM 22:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ok, let me state my case: I never wanted to maintain this article, but I am currently in disagreement with User:Coolcat over how the article should be split (see Talk:Starcraft, User_talk:Coolcat, and User_talk:Phils), with him reverting my edits on sight as vandalism. I have requested comment of WP:RFC and have faith that the dispute will be resolved (as we do not really disagree - as I see it - it's just a misunderstanding). It's that at the time this VfD was submitted, the main article linked to Notable Players, so I feared the dispute might escalate as a result of any further VfDs. It was just to give a sign that we know there's a lot of work to be done on StarCraft articles, and we're working as quickly as possible to do the appropriate merges and edits, making many VfDs unnecessary as the problems will be addressed anyway. That being said, this article can die, although it would make sense to make it a redirect to StarCraft Gameplay, which also covers professional play. Phils 11:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE! Not only is it highly unenecylopedic, crufty, unverifiable, and far too subjective/impossible to NPOV, it would set a terrible precident for skilled players of any video game/board game/RPG wanting articles. Absolutely not. This kind of nonsense is exactly why Wikipedia is rarely taken seriously by academics and researchers. Kill it, for the good of us all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • An execelent idea! And while we are at it we can delete every sports person, actor, director, president, senetor, famous person, and heck even our own names becasue God forbid a person with outstanding qualities in any profession should be acknowlaged, and as you so blantedly put it, such articles are "highly unenecylopedic, crufty, unverifiable, and far too subjective/impossible to NPOV". Keep the article. If need be we can move it to a special page. The top players in any field need to be reckognized, even if you don't believe for one moment that its worth the effort. If we need to develope a system for deciding who gets mentioned than we can place the top players of the year up.TomStar81 06:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete gcbirzantalk 20:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Starcruft. I have so many problems with this article. Firstly, this article could get pretty huge if being the #1 Starcraft player AT ONE TIME is reason enough for inclusion. These things do change multiple times daily, after all. Secondly, this could set a precedent that any player in any game could argue that his high standing makes him/her worthy of wiki notability. Remember, there is no Starcraft World Cup. This would mean any MVP of a college soccer game could argue he's worth inclusion. Merge the truly noteworthy few from this page into Starcraft. --InShaneee 21:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be deleted--nixie 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a collection of short bios of non-notable gamers. Regardless of how the Starcraft articles are rearranged, this information will not be missed. — Gwalla | Talk 00:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial Starcruft. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. Fancruft; absolutely not noteworthy; trivalizes Wikipedia. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 07:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, it's worse than I imagined. Delete. -R. fiend 05:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In the past, I have been among the strongest anti-StarCruft (craft is good, cruft is bad) Wikipedians (see Talk:StarCraft for evidence). However, I must reluctantly vote keep on this one (though the page should also be renamed so that it fits naming conventions and the word "Players" is not capitalized). The players listed are actually quite notable in the StarCraft gaming community, which was during the late 1990s possibly the largest gaming community for any single computer game in the world. We do have articles on, for example, chess players after all. —Lowellian (talk) 22:48, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. Though terrible in its current state, we need quality articles on professional gaming. Top players are not changed daily. There is a Starcraft World Cup in the WCG: people like Slayers_Boxer are enormously popular. MOST IMPORANTLY, however, WE SHOULD NOT be deleting these until we reach a consensus on Talk:Starcraft on how to deal with all these Starcraft articles and where to place them.--Etaonish 01:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Upon further review, I'm changing to strong keep. This article is not as inherently subjective as many suggest: The WCG is an excellent standard of top players. Among all Starcraft players, Slayers_Boxers' skill is as undisputed as Muhammad Ali in boxing. The list has room for objectivity and certainly doesn't warrant immediate deletion. I'm as strong an opponent of cruft as the next person, but this isn't cruft.--Etaonish 01:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can see the arguements of those who vote keep and could almost do so myself, but this would not be a good precedent. Starcraft is a great game, but listing the best players of various computer games is not a good direction to go in my opinion. There is just too small a segment of the world population that actually care about this, making notability questionable. I myself was an avid Starcraft player back in the day, but I never particularly cared who the top ranked people were. Not claiming that this means no one should find it interesting or important, just that not even all Starcraft fans feel this topic is important. Indrian 04:54, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have lists of professional game players of other sports and games, such as chess world champions, and we even have something of a disambig page for American football players. Who is to say whether or not computerized games call for the same attention? Are there specific criteria that have been agreed on by the community? If not, why not? If we're going to say that computer games aren't notable enough, then we need to have criteria saying what kinds of games ARE notable enough to have player lists.
    • I said the same thing earlier; we either have to include this article for the sake of maintaining a neutral point of view or delete every article that mentions noteworthy players in any field. TomStar81 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quality article on gamers. JamesBurns 10:07, 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 or REDIRECT. I'm going to redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 17:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nervous_network

This page just duplacates information that is already presented more comprehensively at Neural network JeremyA 03:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete article content already covered in another article. Also, the fact that this is an "excerpt" from another publication leads me to believe that this is a possible copyvio. --Deathphoenix 06:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though perhaps merge with neural network if it can be cleaned of an possible copyvio. The concept does appear from Googling to perhaps be emerging in the field, but pretty much at this point solely propounded by Mark Tilden. HyperZonktalk 17:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Neural network. Megan1967 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless there is evidence that this has expanded past a single person's approach, I think this might have to be deleted as a neologism. Very few of the google hits apply to this concept. A tighter search finds only 7 hits (the first being Wikipedia). Is it widely discussed? Are others citing this work? Rossami (talk) 22:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Change to abstain based on findings below. 23:26, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Rossami, I think your Google search is inappropriately narrow. Googling for "nervous network" robot yields 750 hits. "Nervous network" seems to have currency in the field of robotics, and apart from the association with Mark Tilden alone. The article nervous network has material not covered by neural network. Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The page nervous network appears to be a copy-paste from this webpage. The copyright statement for the site states that all material is covered by the GNU General Public Licence - possibly countering any copyvio worries. Having researched nervous networks a little more, I change my vote to merge into the Neural network as one of the types of neural network. JeremyA 03:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article but it needs a rewrite. Nervous Nets are fundamentally different from Neural Nets. May I offer a rewritten entry? jwgoerlich 10:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to neural network --Neigel von Teighen 16:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems okay for Wikipedia. JamesBurns 10:09, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Valerie barr

Hoax/prank. Szyslak 04:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if it were true, I would not want this posted anywhere for security reasons. Zzyzx11 06:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax or a threat to national security. --Deathphoenix 06:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and rewrite. Valerie Barr is Chair of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Women and Technology. This existing article is nonsense. Megan1967 06:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsensical. Trilobite (Talk) 10:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Stupid hoax. Delete. Radiant! 12:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Deb 12:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Gamaliel 17:46, 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 09:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashton Altham

tell me again why speedy wasn't expanded for obvious vanity. Wolfman 04:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Good question. An awful lot of time is wasted voting, counting, deciding on this garbage. Delete. Vanity, self promotion. HowardB 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • While a lot of time is spent on vanity articles, some articles that start off as vanity are actually about notable subjects, and it takes a VfD to determine that. This, however, is not about a notable subject, so delete, but not speedily. --Deathphoenix 06:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Ashton would like Wikipedia not to delete this page because, there is nothing rude or offensive in it." But Ashton, there is nothing notable about you to be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 06:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CSD should be expanded to cover obvious crap like this. jni 08:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry Ashton. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but we can only accept articles on certain topics. Not everyone in the world is entitled to an article. Certainly not me and probably none of the people who've voted on this page. If we created articles on ourselves they would be deleted. There is also a message that comes up above the edit box when you create a page. It says something along the lines of "don't create an article to promote yourself." I'm afraid this article falls under that category. We appreciate that you haven't put anything rude or offensive in it, but that doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Good luck with the moped. Trilobite (Talk) 10:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Simon 23:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that CSD should allow for deletion of crap like this. Carrp | Talk 06:53, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 17:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

William A. Jones III

high school student. has a web page about christmas. Wolfman 04:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, self promotion. HowardB 05:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To Mr. Jones: Many people think that causes such as yours should think more about using other forums too promote themselves. Zzyzx11 06:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 06:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, website advertisement. Megan1967 06:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. jni 08:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Trilobite (Talk) 10:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is just nonsense and I'm speedying it. Deb 13:00, 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 Speedy delete.

Hilary Mutch

Per the deletion log:

  • 08:13, 2005 Feb 17 Gadfium deleted Hilary Mutch (Repeat of previously speedy deleted article)
  • 19:40, 2005 Feb 16 Rje deleted Hilary Mutch (content was: '{{subst:nonsense}}Highly intelligent human being, of extreme power. One of the best thinkers in the universe, Hilary spends her time reading poetry and tr...')
  • 19:37, 2005 Feb 16 Rje deleted Hilary Mutch (content was: 'Highly intelligent human being, of extreme power. One of the best thinkers in the universe, Hilary spends her time reading poetry and trying to find o...')
  • 19:33, 2005 Feb 16 Rje deleted Hilary Mutch (content was: 'Highly unintelligent human being, of extreme power. One of the worst thinkers in the universe, Hilary spends her time reading poetry and trying to fin...')
  • 19:31, 2005 Feb 16 Rje deleted Hilary Mutch (content was: 'Highly unintelligent human being, of extreme power. One of the worst thinkers in the universe, Hilary spends her time reading poetry and trying to fin...')

"Hilary Mutch although unknown ...." Wolfman 05:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Unknown, as she admits. HowardB 05:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hilary: People will never believe that you will be one of the best thinkers in this world if you keep on posting vanity-filled, non-notable articles on inappropriate web sites. Zzyzx11 06:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Good luck and we look forward to hearing about you in the near future. --Deathphoenix 06:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted several times before by other admins, so I've speedy deleted it again.-gadfium 08:14, 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 REDIRECT to Lollerskates. —Korath (Talk) 08:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lollersk8s

Mabye there is a list for internet slang, but is not notable enough for an article --nixie 05:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Lollerskates. --SPUI (talk) 06:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I'll be. There is a Lollerskates. Oh well, Redirect to it, as per SPUI's vote. --Deathphoenix 06:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lollerskates. I concur. Zzyzx11 06:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Wikipedia is not a l33t-to-english dictionary. I can think of tons of l33tspeak terms that could theoretically redirect to some article, and no serious person is going to search on any of them. Radiant! 09:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 10:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Someone obviously searched for this particular term. Kappa 12:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt that, I'd say someone jokingly inserted this article anyway. We really don't want redirects for sk8s, a10tion, and palm 3. Same thing. Radiant! 12:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Lollerskates is inherently internet slang, not at all the same thing as skates or attention. Kappa 14:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Lots of things are inherently spelled weirdly as internet slang (e.g. haxx0r). I propose that wiktionary gets a category for l33t :). Anyway since the two of us are not likely to agree on this issue, I suppose we should wait and see what the other WP'ers say. Radiant! 14:31, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as it seems to be a plausibly searched term. GRider\talk 20:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lollerskates to prevent article recreation. Megan1967 08:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not redirect. We have an article on Leetspeak. Why not list Lollersk8s there? DaveTheRed 09:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. JamesBurns 10:11, 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hitsville U.K.

Another "X is a song by Y" article, this time about a genuinely unnotable song. If we're going to have an "article" about "Hitsville U.K." we might as well have an "article" on every song ever recorded. This one wasn't even a single. Even the new template tells is nothing worthwhile. "The Magnificent Seven (song)" has also been created in much the same way, but I won't VfD that (at least not now) because it might at least pass notability requirements, though it needs, to say the least, addition of content. And just to make my vote clear here: delete. -R. fiend 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, bad precedent, an attempt to create an article for every song of that Clash album - notable or not. Megan1967 08:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming this was just an album track. If any actual content shows up, merge it with the album. Kappa 10:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article says absolutely nothing. The album article is not yet big enough to split off articles on individual songs. Trilobite (Talk) 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until there is something more to say about it than that it is the second track of an album. I hope there aren't articles for all the tracks on the album. --BM 16:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hate The Clash. I hate people who say they like The Clash. The same people instinctively say they like Bob Marley and Beethoven, because they want people to think kindly of them; but I alone know their game, I can see through their disguise of lies, their pies. I hate triple albums. I hate words which end in -ville. I hate Seville, for example, filthy town. I also hate people who say they like a certain band's second-best album, because they think that if they say they like that band's best album, people will think that they are shallow, but at the same time they don't want to pick something too unusual because they don't want to lose the audience. 'Hitsville UK' was a single from 'Sandinista', the Clash's most reviled and longest album, and it sold no copies and meant nothing to anybody and didn't change anybody's opinion about anything, certainly not my opinion about The Clash, who I hate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I hate the socio-medial crust which has built up around the Clash. With my vote here, I will destroy this crust. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I guess we know to whom to dedicate a rendition of "Hateful". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm no huge fan of Bob Marley anyway. Oh, and Hitsville UK wasn't a single (I'm pretty sure). -R. fiend 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Gosh, Ashley, don't beat around the bush. Why don't just come right out and admit that you hate the Clash and this album? --BM 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There's a scan of the 7" cover here, [7] and according to 'The Clash' on Everything2 it got to number 56 in July 1981. I've got nothing against Bob Marley, mind, it's just that I can't stand people who say that they like him. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • My mistake then. I guess it was a single. This further confirms my theory that bands often release many of their worst songs as singles. Why is that? Anyway, I still don't think this qualifies as a terribly noteworthy song. I'm a Clash fan, many of my friends are Clash fans, and none of us have ever paid this song any notice. Just 4 mintues and 21 seconds to get through between The Magnicifent Seven and Junco Partner. -R. fiend 23:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never heard this song, but was this song possibly named after/inspired by Hitsville U.S.A.? If so, maybe it deserves a keep and the mention. --b. Touch 22:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think there is a connection in title, but not much in content. Sure, something could be said to that effect, but seeing as how you figured that out without even having heard the song it's hardly a terribly important fact. -R. fiend 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes people like me who've never heard of hitsville u.s.a can remain in blissful ignorance. Kappa 09:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable song. Songs by notable bands are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - stupidity on my part. It is not very notable and unless the page begins to include the meaning of the song and its relevance (like the Washington Bullets page) then it should be deleted. I was not thinking in the creation of this page about notability as I should have been. gren 03:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Putting my serious hat back on, and about 'the meaning of the song and its relevance', which struck me as I edited bits of the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen, and the thought which comes to my mind is that even if we write 'many people consider that the song is about X' or 'the third line of the second verse is probably a reference to Y', well we can't do that, can we? Because it would be original research; the editorial voice is asserting something to be so. We can only quote external sources, sources of merit and substance, which makes it dashed hard to write articles about pop songs. Even if the song semi-explicitly makes reference to a specific event, such as Smoke on the Water for example, we still have to cite sources. In fact, Smoke on the Water itself is unacceptable in its current form, because it has no sources, has lots of bald statements, and uses value judgements all over the place ("despite the heaviness of the guitar part, constant movement and interplay within the supporting parts keeps the feel of the song from becoming leaden"). And it doesn't have any useful chart information, only something about a chart in America, a foreign market. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Overall I'm tempted to give a little leeway in articles on songs in terms of what qualifies as "original research". It's well known that many songs are widely rumored to have certain meanings (true or not), that are almost universally known. Citing rumors can be difficult, at times impossible. We can't really have "that guy I was talking to in the cafeteria in my high school" as a source. Even posts on messageboards, which can be linked to, are hardly the sort of sources you'd want to include in an encyclopedia. Certainly just about everyone knows the rumor behind the Phil Collins song "In the Air Tonight", about the guy drowning and the other guy not doing anything to help. It's completley bogus, but it's such a common rumor that any article on the song would have to mention it, and I'm not exactly sure what one would use as a source. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples much like this. That's not to say we should open up the floor to any crank to write about what he thinks any given song is about (I once tried to convince a friend that the Franz Ferdinand song "The Dark of the Matinee" was about Lee Harvey Oswald, but I certainly wouldn't write that here, nor do I believe it). Well, that's my two cents anyway. -R. fiend 23:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, a totally notable song. Everyking 06:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:13, 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minger

simple dicdef of British slang term. Nohat 05:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable, neologism, dicdef, and a partridge in a pear tree. --Deathphoenix 06:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Okay, it's not a neologism. Still vote for delete for the other two reasons. --Deathphoenix 21:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not a very useful definition, but this is a widespread word, popularized by Jade Goody on Big Brother but existing before that. Kappa 08:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly exists and not a neologism. I hear it all the time, but that doesn't entitle it to an entry in Wikipedia. Delete as useless dicdef. Trilobite (Talk) 10:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Radiant! 11:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • WiktionaryEggplantWizard 02:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. JamesBurns 10:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary *Kat* 01:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interstate 875

This was marked for speedy, but it's not a speedy candidate. There is no such thing as I-875 and it has never been planned for this area.

  • Delete --SPUI (talk) 06:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation and suspicions. There is no such thing as I-875 - doesn't that mean it is patent nonsense and therefore a candidate for speedy deletion? -- RWH 06:52, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • It makes sense; it's just speculative original research. The idea has been proposed among roadgeeks but not officially. --SPUI (talk) 07:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Road articles are ok if done properly, but this one doesn't even exist. Trilobite (Talk) 10:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could have been speedied as speculative nonsense AFAIC. older≠wiser 13:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just speculation. Zzyzx11 20:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move to BJAODN. Ellsworth 23:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 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 DELETE. jni 09:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shopping encylopedia

  • Delete. Advert. Enochlau 06:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promo. Ad. Non-notable. Vanity. etc. Trilobite (Talk) 10:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable ad. Wikipedia is not a wiki about encyclopedias. --Deathphoenix 14:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete adver-cruft. HyperZonktalk 17:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and no-one appears to have noticed Shopperpedia, which has quietly lurked for 4 months. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Although you must say that the Shopperpedia article is far more objective, providing a description of what it does. However,if you feel that it's an advert too, slap a vfd on it as well... Enochlau 22:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 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 DELETE. jni 09:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albert ni

  • Delete. Looks like vanity to me. Enochlau 06:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Autobiographical. Not notable. Well done on the competition though. Trilobite (Talk) 10:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. I won second prize in a beauty contest, though. --Deathphoenix 14:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • NI! Delete this vanity! Ni! Radiant! 15:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Winning the 2001 MATHCOUNTS competition is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 20:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.--AbboTT 03:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 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 DELETE. jni 09:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eric Pancer

Non-notable percussionist. Sort-of vanity page. Very few Google results. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-17 06:52 Z

  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity, website advertisement. Megan1967 08:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promo. Ad. Non-notable. Vanity. etc. Trilobite (Talk) 11:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity and ad. --Deathphoenix 14:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with above comments. Zzyzx11 20:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 00:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 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 20:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spanos

Besides being an inappropriate title and a non-notable subject, the author doesn't even know where this guy teaches? RickK 07:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits for "William V Spanos" and "William Spanos", possible vanity. Megan1967 08:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say redirect to Alex Spanos (billionaire owner of the San Diego Chargers), but it appears we don't have an article on him. Any other famous Spanoses? Meelar (talk) 08:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. About 350 Google hits for "William V. Spanos", looks like a senior scholar: 50 years in academia, published author of six books, edited other five, over hundred published papers etc. I moved the article under correct title and polished it a little bit. I'm still researching this, so I might change this vote later. jni 10:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. JoaoRicardo 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Notability has been established. JoaoRicardo 06:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (William V. Spanos, since Spanos is now a redirect). Not sure if he passes the professor test, but when in doubt, we should keep an article. Thanks, jni. --Deathphoenix 14:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • When in doubt, we should delete an article. It's up to the article to establish its notability, not for us to have to dig around for information to make sure the article is worth keeping. RickK 23:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm pretty sure the deletion policy is when in doubt, keep. But then, mine's only one vote. It's up to the others to also place their votes. Mine stands for this one. --Deathphoenix 06:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. I believe the "when in doubt, keep" rule applies to administrators closing VfD votes. I don't remember seeing such policy as regarding voters. JoaoRicardo 06:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Concur with Rick - I would say that if notability cannot established, the subject is not notable. Therefore, delete. Radiant! 12:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (under William V. Spanos). I've read some of Spanos's publications, and remembered his name afterward. I consider his work, as a body, prolific and high-quality enough to justify inclusion. Passes the professor test in my opinion. The current article is, obviously, still a stub. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Reasons William V. Spanos is more notable than just any old professor: 1. Major interpreter of Heidegger in the field of literary criticism (possibly the most important one currently writing). 2. Founder of boundary 2, an important journal in literary studies. 3. Extensive publication record including at least four books. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • boundary 2 founder? Definite keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep William V. Spanos article Professor at the Binghamton University at New York, published author founded boundary 2 postmodern journal in 1972. Capitalistroadster 09:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've been asked to comment about this, and while I would say that I'm not familiar with any of his work from my own dealings with the Heidegger, Arendt etc. discourse (it is certainly too generous to call him the most important Heidegger scholar in the field of literary criticism), he's certainly more important than your average college professor (just 12 hits on Google Scholar, but I get many more on the German Google itself, some 1000+, and including some very good ones), and the presses and substance matter of his pieces are solid enough. Of course, the article is a stub and is missing especially the key material contributions and merits of Spanos, but this is not a "vanity piece" (and if it were, I wouldn't care either; I think vanity is fine for those who have at least a bit of a reason to be vain, and the label of "vanity piece" in Wikipedia certainly does not bear as much as looking at it, let alone thinking about it - according to that, if Albee or Habermas or Rumsfeld would write their own basic entries, they'd have to be deleted). Clossius 07:05, 25 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 09:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adeena LLC

42 Google hits for this, very few for a computer-related company. JoaoRicardo 07:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 11:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for a non-notable computer company. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently the article ends with "Vinit Bhansali is a partner at Adeena LLC." Of course, Vinit Bhansali is also currently marked as vfd... Zzyzx11 20:49, 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

HMS Jersey (P295)

It's a boat. Notability not established. Radiant! 10:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. A poor article, but we have lots of entries for boats like this. Trilobite (Talk) 11:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, ships are wikipedia material. This article needs clean up, not deletion. There are several ships named HMS Jersey so HMS Jersey should be a dismabiguation page linking to all the ships. bbx 14:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — It's a registered naval vessel. Does it need to be in a war to be included? RJH 19:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. As stated above, there are a lot of entries for registered naval vessels. Zzyzx11 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs expansion. -- Longhair 02:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Naval vessels have long been the subjects of reference works -- any large ship is at least as significant as a small village (and may even have a larger population) -- Dpm64 03:17, 25 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 or MERGE. I think I'll merge it. dbenbenn | talk 21:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HV-016

Unit of Norwegian police (or possibly army). Notability not established, should probably merge somewhere. Radiant! 10:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anti-terror units are elite and therefore notable. Kappa 12:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Then what about HV-015 and HV-017? This sounds like an individual squad. Radiant! 12:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Going up to Heimevernet it only has 20 parts and Heimevernet seems to have equal status with the army, navy and air force, so these things are significant. No content about them at present, so I won't try to judge if they should be on one page or separated, but HV-016 is different from the rest. Kappa 22:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. Megan1967 23:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Heimevernet and redirect. Other units which are now redlinks should be kept within the main article until it gets too big. If they're all a couple of sentences each, like HV-016, they'll be happy there. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Heimevernet--nixie 09:08, 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hal Helms

POV article about someone who held a talk on a rather trivial concept of program design (namely that the interface should be completed before the back-end). Not notable in the extreme. Radiant! 10:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Trilobite (Talk) 11:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, possible vanity, possible ad. If it's not notable in the extreme, does it qualify for an extreme delete? --Deathphoenix 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Extremely so. Radiant! 21:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral: 16,000+ Google hits on name, looks like probably 2/3 are him. I don't tend to go for the eXtreme Programming approach and such methodologies, so I don't know how notable he is in that world... -- Jmabel | Talk 03:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Extreme programming promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 08:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable programmer. JamesBurns 10:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotion. —Korath (Talk) 13:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hanna Marklund

Female Swedish footballer, notability not established. Possible vanity by her future husband, who is mentioned in the article. Redirect there? Radiant! 10:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article does say she's a professional footballer which may make her notable. Article seems to have been listed for copyvio though. Trilobite (Talk) 11:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Two images inserted into the article had been listed, not the article itself. The images have been removed now. / u p p l a n d 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article needed clean up which i did. I also removed the unverifiable part about her future husband, I believe that part was just vanity, cause she is quite cute [8] :) bbx 14:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plays in the Swedish national team. / u p p l a n d 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known professional player that have been playing for one of the world's best women's football clubs. Alarm 14:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 23:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Notable enough Longhair 09:50, 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hebei Daily

Small propaganda newspaper in China. Doesn't seem particularly notable, should probably merge somewhere. Radiant! 10:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable. Trilobite (Talk) 11:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is the official organ of the government in a province which has 67,694,000 people in it. Kappa 12:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the party paper for Hebei. Nateji77 14:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like one of the major party newspapers in Hebei. "Hebei Daily" currently registers over 252 Google hits. Zzyzx11 21:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 23:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. English-language searches aren't going to be especially fruitful here. -Sean Curtin 01:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
googled in chinese Nateji77 05:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hebei province has over 67 million people, so even if this were only a minor newspaper, it still would reach a significant number of people. - Walkiped 19:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:22, 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hjalmar holand

Stub. This man has a theory. And that's all. My theory is that he should be deleted. Radiant! 10:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: No vote yet. This could be kept if expanded (and moved to a correct title), but I won't be sorry if the article in its present state is deleted. Hjalmar Holand was a fairly notable pseudohistorian who published several books, arguing, among other things, for the authenticity of the Kensington Stone and the Norse origin of the Newport Tower.[9] He could possibly be the subject of an interesting biographical article. / Uppland 14:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 23:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The Vinland theory of which he was an early advocate is notable. Capitalistroadster 14:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand.. This guy has roughly 800 hits on Google and was mentioned in TIME magazine (though you need a subscription to read the article). Erraneous capitalisation of the last name needs to be fixed by the way. --Andylkl 19:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat 02:39, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hippocampus Press

Vanity page. They publish Lovecraft works (but then so do several others). Once more, notable or not able? Radiant! 10:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Written in first person. Probably copyvio. Trilobite (Talk) 11:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Publisher is currently not notable: only two books listed on Amazon with very low rankings, insufficiently popular web site for traffic data to exist on Alexa, which also notes only four other web sites linking to them. Maybe one day they will be an encyclopedically cultural force, but not now. Oh, and it's advertising. HyperZonktalk 17:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just marked it as copyvio because it is a direct copy from the company's About Us web page. Zzyzx11 21:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if and when the copyvio is cleaned up. Megan1967 02:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio, non-notable publisher. — Gwalla | Talk 00:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable on Google. JamesBurns 10:24, 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 09:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hitwise

It's a webservice that counts page hits. How is that notable? Radiant! 10:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Trilobite (Talk) 11:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 18:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks more like a promotion. Zzyzx11 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad copy. Ellsworth 23:35, 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 (listed as copyvio for over 7 days). jni 10:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Springdales School

Another non-notable school -- Chris 73 Talk 10:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. Radiant! 14:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio, and I've listed it as such. —Korath (Talk) 17:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 09:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hlebonas

Alleged pharaoh, but apparent hoax. Doesn't google. Radiant! 10:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - nothing in several academic indicies either. It's certainly possible that this is some non-standard spelling - I tried a few variants, but I'm no Egyptologist, so I could miss something. So delete unless someone adds a valid citation to the article. CDC (talk) 18:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. This name isn't possible with any common transliteration of Egyptian, and the contents have "kiddi-wiki prank" written all over them. — Gwalla | Talk 00:54, 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Honda Domani

Do we want articles for each individual type of car? Most aren't particularly notable, after all. Suggest merge. Radiant! 10:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 11:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Also why are you requesting deletion and suggesting merging at the same time? Kappa 12:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Because I believe the issue should be voted upon (hence VfD) and that is my vote. Radiant! 13:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirects are cheap; be bold! Put appropriate merge tags on the article if you think the information should be kept but don't want to do it yourself. (A merge with redirect does not require a VfD.) Break out a request for comment if you're not sure what the article's fate should be. Then come here, if you think it should be deleted. Otherwise you're soaking up a lot of time from all the people who follow VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes we want. Keep. Grue 19:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I think that keeping articles for each distinct type of car is a better plan in the long run. What seems non-notable today may be quite notable in the future, and the relevant facts might be harder to mine out. Besides, cluttering a car manufacturer's page or a universal "list of models" page with some potentially comprehensive information about one model or another could get unweildy, and segregating models off only for some car manufacturers creates inconsistency in the organizational scheme. EggplantWizard 20:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawn, per the above. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spinboy 21:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a particularly notable car. Megan1967 23:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with EggplantWizard's arguments and we'd have to do an awful lot of changes. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with EggplantWizard's comments --Lochaber 10:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 10:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:26, 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 01:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Honda CB500T

List of technical specs for a particular type of car. Merge or move to wikisource? Radiant! 10:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Technical spec no good as an article, whether this is notable or not. Trilobite (Talk) 11:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect, or mark as stub. we are voting on the topic, not on the present content of the article. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as stub, the article could be expanded. BTW the Honda CB500T is a motorbike. Lochaber 10:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Made by notable manufacturer. Capitalistroadster
  • Keep -- Longhair 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:27, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holiday Charity

Non-notable local charity group. Radiant! 10:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with Radiant, title might better be served as a redirect to a holiday charity. --InShaneee 21:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enought notable information. Zzyzx11 21:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:16, 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Howard Kester

Fails to establish notability. Also the fact that he worked for the Southern Tenant Farmer's Union (STFU) makes it sound like a hoax. Radiant! 11:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I will happily admit that I had never heard of Kester before, but a small amount of searching brings up the following book: Robert F. Martin, Howard Kester and the Struggle for Social Justice in the South, 1904-77 (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1991). A look at a review of the book in the Journal of Southern History 1992 also confirms the thing about the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU). / u p p l a n d 16:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article establishes his notablility, and the STFU thing is just an amusing coincidence in acronyms. EggplantWizard 16:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, keep. There're only 26^4 four-letter acronyms, after all, and he seems notable enough. DS 17:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. would you please at least do a google on someone before listing them.  ALKIVAR™ 21:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Please keep down the swearing? Fyi, the first things that came up in google are an essay site, a golf club, a radio station, a university, and a church. That didn't sound very coherent. And I figured the STFU was likely a hoax. Evidently I was wrong, but that's what the VfD procedure is for. Radiant! 22:31, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely obvious keep, although I must admit this is the most hillarious VfD nomination I've voted on all week. No — scratch that — all month. —RaD Man (talk) 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • See comment above. And for fun, try googling 'stfu' :) Radiant! 22:31, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Southern Tenant Farmer's Union for example pulls up "Results 1 - 100 of about 92,700 for Southern Tenant Farmer's Union." proof its not a hoax.  ALKIVAR™ 22:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe so but a Google search for "Howard Kester" with "Southern Tenant Farmer's Union" pulls up only 26 Google hits. I'm going to vote Delete on this. Megan1967 02:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and for future reference, vfd voters please familairize yourselves with this article. Gamaliel 07:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable farmers activist. Article needs to be wikified. I second Gamaliel's call for civility nd wikiquette. Capitalistroadster 10:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ridiculous nomination - David Gerard 23:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I had already explained and withdrawn the nomination before you posted this. It is not ridiculous, it was merely mistaken. Please be civil about it. Radiant! 11:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate article. Acronym's similarity to a common crude abbreviation is just an amusing coincidence. — Gwalla | Talk 00:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:29, 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hua Shang Daily

Non-notable defunct Chinese newspaper. Possible copyvio for the picture? Radiant! 11:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • verify, and keep if the newspaper existed. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge to nanfang daily. Nateji77 14:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer exists, not notable. Megan1967 23:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The newspaper does still exist, according to a mention from Bloomberg [10]. Picture copyvio is not an issue as it's not handled under VfD. You might want to see Wikipedia:Images for deletion for that. --Andylkl 19:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alrighty, think I'd vote to keep it. --Andylkl 05:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant! on what basis do you claim it to be non-notable? Just that notability isn't established? If, indeed, it is defunct, that shouldn't have much bearing on the matter: an encyclopedia isn't only about what exists right now. (If another newspaper is using the same name, the article should discuss both.) Keep: I tend to assume newspapers are notable, unless someone has a good argument to the contrary. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, yes. I should have written 'notability not established'. I assumed it was one of those small-circulation mostly-advertising papers. Especially since big newspapers rarely become defunct. But since that was mistaken, keep. Radiant! 13:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Predecessor to the biggest newspaper in Guangzhou (off the top of my head circulation of 3 million), was a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong until 1949 until the whole thing was moved to Guangzhou and renamed Nanfang Daily. Whether this needs a merger is an argument for another day. By the way the pic is from here Pic link on the homepage of Nanfang Daily. --JuntungWu 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:31, 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 09:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Humalia Akrawy

Not really a notable person, although she has had a tragic history with many family deaths. Her age of fourteen makes her accomplishment of becoming a USA Lieutenant unlikely. Seems veiled right-wing propaganda. Not encyclopedic. Radiant! 11:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Tragic history but not encyclopædic. Inter 12:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the only sources I could find for this were interviews posted on the web by political lobbyists. No mention of the name in any of the larger news services. Suspect this is glurge, delete - TB 14:27, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. And glurge is a great word. —Korath (Talk) 17:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article [[11]] gives her age as 23, contradicting the source article (which has her only 14); the subject of a single interview, even if it has been blogged a few times, is not notable -- Dpm64 03:26, 25 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 15:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human behavior vs. animal behavior

Messy essay on human psychology. Possibly literal transcription of a high schooler's text. I would suggest merging except that there's nothing here that isn't already widely covered in the psychology articles. Radiant! 11:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • redirect to human behavior. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a personal essay. Not an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. There are partial truths in there which could be encyclopedic, but none of them are adequately sourced. There is far too much problematic material in relation to salvageable material for it to be worth cleanup. In the opening sentences:
"the fact that intelligence is what sets the standards of who is dominant and who is not"—is that a fact? Sez who? Who is more intelligent, humans or bacteria? Who is "dominant?"
"In life there are two main goals, survival and passing on your genes." First, this is a badly constructed sentence. To what does "your" refer? You could rewrite it as "All living things have two main goals: survival and passing on their genes." Then you start encountering the logical issues. What does it mean to say that a living thing has "a goal?" And are survival and genetic self-propagation separate goals? Or is survival merely an means to the single goal of genetic self-propagation?
Someone has been reading, and thinking about what he or she has read, but does not yet understand it with sufficient depth or clarity to explain it to others. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 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. jni 09:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Skeksis

Not sure if they are notable. The article is very unencyclopedic, may be just a garage band -- Chris 73 Talk 11:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gentleman Jim Carter

A disk jockey in the 70's and 80's whose claim to fame is a program called Freak Show in which listeners called in and said whatever they wanted (if I understand correctly). Doesn't seem notable enough. JoaoRicardo 11:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Google yields 21 hits on this also. Inter 12:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Given that this was some time ago I wouldn't expect too many Google hits. It's the nature of the Google test that certain notable things barely discussed on the web appear non-notable, while anyone can release an irrelevant piece of software and there will be thousands of hits. This guy's programme seems no less notable than The Human Zoo (radio) and its presenter (but surely nowhere near as good!)*, it's just that it took place before the web and before Wikipedia. Trilobite (Talk) 14:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • * Thinking about it the Human Zoo audience was probably much greater, making it more notable.
  • If he was notable, that cannot be inferred from the article. Unless it can be expanded, delete. Radiant! 15:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - less than 24 hits on Google. Megan1967 23:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons Trilobite laid out. This is relatively minor, but especially with new frontiers in communications censorship in the United States, it's potentially growing in relevance as a cultural counterpoint. 66.82.9.54 22:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep adequately famous. Kappa 22:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:33, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Larry Dimarzio

Vanity. Radiant! 11:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep. Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, advertisement. —Korath (Talk) 00:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • If yanyan is Larry Dimarzio, I would simply just move it to his profile page. Userfy. Megan1967 08:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 10:35, 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Latuff

Cartoonist. Notability not established. Radiant! 11:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not a whole lot of Google hits (about 1000), but appears to be a political cartoonist of some noteworthiness, a least in indigenous peoples advocacy circles. Though Brazilian, he's well enough known to have been solicited by various groups from around the world. HyperZonktalk 17:31, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, and getting over 6,000 google hits for "Latuff cartoonist" [12]. Kappa 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable - passes Google test. Megan1967 23:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably very notable to Palestinians. Notable enough for me. -- Longhair 18:39, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian cuisine

Pointless list of meals spelled out in Lithuanian. By definition incomplete (and there's not even a foodfoodfood on there yet). Radiant! 12:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A valid topic. Also, most articles of Wikipedia can be described as "by definition incomplete". Bogdan | Talk 12:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not true. Most articles converge asymptotically to completeness. What I meant is that this article can never feasibly be complete, because every dish could be listed here. Also if it were complete, it would be a pointless list. Wikipedia is not a Lithuanian dictionary. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic even if the article lacks quality at the moment. Trilobite (Talk) 14:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The redlinks are too much of an invitation to create WikiBooks:Cookbook articles. There is a place for an article on Lithuanian cuisine, akin to the one on French cuisine. But this isn't that article. This is List of Lithuanian recipes by the wrong name, and a potential invitation to put yet more burden on the TransWiki system. Transwiki this to WikiBooks:Cookbook:Cuisine of Lithuania, and start the encyclopaedia article again. Uncle G 15:30, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Changing to keep, hoping for further expansion. / u p p l a n d 10:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Comment: No vote yet. Valid topic as such, and individual dishes are also valid topics of articles, as long as they don't list everybody's grandmother's particular recipe. The Polish and Russian Wikipedias have substantial articles on the Lithuanian cuisine (while the Lithuanian Wikipedia just has a stub). Maybe somebody can translate? / u p p l a n d 16:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (see below) Concur with Uncle G. "Lithuanian cuisine" would be an encyclopedic topic, but as it stands, it is not an article on the history and peculiarities of the Lithuanian cuisinie, it's just a list of meals. Unless someone expands it now, I'd vote for deletion. By the way, should there be an article for each individual meal? I would say no. Compare, for instance, Polish_cuisine, in which only the most import meals have standalone articles. vlad_mv 20:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and allow for organic deletion. GRider\talk 00:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep after Bogdan's edits. GRider\talk 16:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded a bit, adding two paragraphs of introduction and an English description of the meals. Bogdan | Talk 10:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Good work, Bogdan. Now it is a cuisine stub that may be expanded. I hereby change my vote to Keep. vlad_mv 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep It may grow into something worthwhile -- Longhair 15:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur with Vlad MV. Keep Radiant! 11:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the cookbook. Megan1967 08:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. JamesBurns 10:37, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LJ's Easkey Sligo Ireland

POV article on a pub. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Radiant! 12:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Most pubs are not notable in and of themselves. The author of this article has probably also violated the clear rule that appears above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." And yes it is written in a POV, travel guide style. Trilobite (Talk) 14:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, pub promo. Megan1967 23:23, 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 09:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lycee Janson-de-Sailly

High school in France. Not encyclopedic. Radiant! 12:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; doesn't even have an article in the French Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 17:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not belong. Not notable. — Linnwood 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 07:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Le schoolcruft. Gamaliel 07:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Le-delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 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 NO CONSENSUS; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd L. Gaines

Original research. POV. Possibly copyvio as a literal transcript of an essay. Not encyclopedic. Radiant! 12:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's egregious. Agree it should be deleted. Hydriotaphia 14:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Smacks of copyvio even if nothing can be found using Google. Unencyclopedic as things stand. Trilobite (Talk) 14:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 23:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you get zero Google hits, you must have made a typo. / u p p l a n d 17:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Won a historic Supreme Court case in 1938 for admission to the University of Missouri against the State of Missouri. Pioneering civil rights case. Unfortunately, he died shortly afterwards. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reason given by Capitalistroadster. It is a notable case, which a Google search shows, and it is treated in several articles in historical journals. Please look at the history of this article. It is most certainly not originally a copyvio. The essayish text which may be so was inserted on top of the original on Oct. 27, 2004. I have now reverted the article to the last version from before that date. Can the later versions be deleted somehow? (It is still quite possible that it is not a copyvio, and the later version actually had a lot of useful references and links.) / u p p l a n d 17:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • After Uppland's revert, I find the article interesting and encyclopedic. Keep. Radiant! 12:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant figure in the history of civil rights in America. Kappa 14:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form. The case seems to be very notable and it should be counted as a notable achievement for Gaines, who personally initiated the suit. It turns out that the New York Times published three articles about the case on December 18, 1938. One of is a long article with a long headline: "EDUCATION OF NEGROES TESTED BY NEW RULING; Missouri Plans Law School for Them And South Studies Implications of Supreme Court's Action SOUTH PUT IN QUANDARY." The story opens "State-supported education systems of the South have been severely jolted by the Supreme Court ruling this week... the decision is notice to all the Southern States that they must make far-reaching adjustments." Another says STATE EXPECTED TO ACT, and a third gives a short profile and photograph of the young Gaines. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopaedic. Leanne 23:50, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vigilante soc.

Secret societies are unverifiable. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Unnotable student shenannigans. Delete - TB 14:17, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 18:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 25 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 15:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

S.h.a.g.

Secret societies are unverifiable. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Also usually (and in this case) very limited in scope and notability. Vanity page, delete. Radiant! 12:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unnotable student shenannigans. Delete - TB 14:16, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 18:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:35, 25 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 23:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Arabic language television channels in Africa

Anything titled 'list of <language> TV channels in <continent>' would be pretty pointless. Radiant! 12:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 13:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

List of Italian divisions in WWII

A long list that is pretty much numerical, and nearly all of its elements are non-notable. As a military text, maybe some interest in wikisource. Radiant! 12:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Finite list of all notable elements. Kappa 14:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. / Uppland 15:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 20:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful and finite. Megan1967 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepWincoote 05:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator should be ashamed of himself - David Gerard 23:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very useful information — Linnwood 07:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I really dislike large lists of red links, but this is finite and unchanging. Carrp | Talk 07:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a part of history. It does not get much more encyclopidic than that. TomStar81 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historic, finite and 100% encyclopedic, red links notwithstanding. - Lucky 6.9 01:16, 25 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 23:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Rhineland-Palatinate Cabinet Members

Since this will change with every new election, there's little point in this list. And wikipedia is not a repository of exact members of each chosen cabinet everywhere through the world. Radiant! 12:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge. For reference, Rhineland-Palatinate is a state within Germany (a Bundesland), akin to a U.S. state or a Canadian province. By population, it's about the size of Oregon or Kentucky. From what I've seen, the trend is to keep articles about legislators at the national level, but it's a bit fuzzier for politicians working at lower levels. Perhaps this list should be merged back into Rhineland-Palatinate—it's only nine people, that article doesn't seem to be overly bloated at the moment, and it's the only article that seems likely to link to it. If something exciting happens there, then perhaps it can be broken out later as part of a Politics of Rhineland-Palatinate article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the people listed are notable, but the list itself is self-invalidating as per the next election. So I think there should not be such a list. Radiant! 16:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • An election only happens every five years, although there are probably periodic cabinet shuffles. An "As of the $MONTH $YEAR election, the cabinet consisted of" at the start of the list seems to be all that is required to warn that the information can date. We have numerous articles on other political offices and officeholders that change on a regular or semi-regular basis, and it appears that this is a large enough region that someone will keep it updated. This is part of the reason I suggest a merger back to the main article—it will receive more traffic, and likely will be updated more punctually. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Perfectly valid list. We have many articles that require periodic updating, this is not a reason for deletion. sjorford →•← 16:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I stand corrected. And I suppose a list is better than individual stubs for each member thereof. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid list, useful. Megan1967 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - nominator really needs to review Wikipedia:Deletion policy and only nominate according to it - David Gerard 23:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is also policy to read a thread before you vote in it, and if you had read the discussion above you would have seen that I had already been persuaded to the other point of view. Radiant! 10:18, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 10:45, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of RLM paint designations

Incomplete list of colors for some brand of paint. Give me a break. Radiant! 12:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Almost copyvio. Unencyclopedic. Copycruft and pastecruft. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The colors used by the Luftwaffe during WWII are inherently encyclopedic and useful for anyone studying WWII aircraft. Too bad there isn't a color table to go with it. RLM "brand of paint"!! The Nazi Air Ministry was many things, but... DialUp 17:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... I'm wavering, but not close to ready to change my vote. Can the problems of its being incomplete and apparently being directly copied from a website be solved? Note that the website from which the article was taken is much better because it defines each color with a U. S. Federal Standard (whatever that is) equivalent and gives a visual sample. I'm inclined to say that's a great link and a dandy external reference for the relevant article. It's obviously a labor-of-love personal website, maybe the author can be presuaded to release the page under GFDL? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I still think it would be an encyclopedic article, but color samples would make it more visually appealing. Federal Standard 595 is the U.S. government standard for paint color and has color chips of all listed paints. It's a work of the government so is probably not subject to copyright, so neither would using them if they indeed relate to RLM colors. I go to air shows quite often so I was thinking of all those people with an interest in vintage aircraft, but thanks to BM for mentioning that model builders might also like an encyclopedia they could consult. DialUp 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Nazi Air Ministry is encyclopedic, its color list is not in my opinion. HyperZonktalk 17:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too low a level of detail. Wikipedia isn't an aircraft model painting guide. --BM 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. Will change vote if verifiable evidence is provided to suggest that any RLM colors were as widely notable as British racing green. Barno 20:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand, useful valid list. Megan1967 23:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - obviously encyclopedic - David Gerard 23:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much detail. In addition, sourced only to a web site. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be expanded and become useful — Linnwood 07:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No encyclopedic content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • For those who voted to keep this article: what exactly is its content? "The Ministry of Air in Nazi Germany used the following colors: silver, grey, yellow, white, ..." How exactly could this become encyclopedic? - Mike Rosoft 16:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep has potential. It could be very encyclopedic if it mentioned some examples of which military units used which colors. Kappa 22:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. JamesBurns 10:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Raw data. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. —Korath (Talk) 13:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in Singapore

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Most schools aren't notable, so a list of schools has little place here. A list of universities would be another matter. Radiant! 12:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have always found some of the lists on Wikipedia a bit odd, however if this list should be deleted then all articles in the Category:Lists_of_schools should be deleted. A list of schools in Singapore is no less notable than a list of schools in New Zealand. Also, why would a list of universities be more notable, we can take it that not all universities on a list are any more 'notable' than some schools? -- Lochaber 13:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
VfD votes are case by case; if there are other lists that should be deleted, you should nominate them for deletion. There are many pages in Wikipedia that should be deleted. That is not a valid reason for adding more. "Other drivers were speeding, too" is not usually considered to be a good defense against a speeding ticket. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fair comment however I am not using it as a defence, I think lists are useful and a fair number of the schools on this particular list have articles. I don’t know how to use all of Wikipedias functions, is there a possibility of changing this list into a category instead? Could be changed to a category however I think that having lists can encourage ppl to create articles that have not already been created. Lochaber 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I've argued before, I don't think there should be articles for lists of schools. This is the purpose of categories, at least regarding notable schools that have articles. Lists of all schools within a geographic area, including those without articles, are not maintainable and are not encyclopedic. --BM 14:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if anything it keeps the non-notable ones from having their own articles (if necessary we can redirect them to this page) --SPUI (talk) 17:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not encyclopedic. Grue 19:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 20:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless, trivial, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. --Centauri 07:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 18:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because a list contains mostly non-notable entries doesn't mean it is non-notable itself. I also agree with SPUI above. JYolkowski 22:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It dosent even need to be "encyclopedic", because it is a list afterall. Of coz, we do not need seperate encyclopedia pages for all schools, but there is no harm in listing all of them here. This centralised list page will also cut down on too many unnecesary "sub-list" pages, including List of junior colleges in Singapore.--Huaiwei 15:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • While I believe we should keep this particular list I would agree with deleting the List of junior colleges in Singapore and the List of universities in Singapore (there are only 3 Unis in Singapore and given the size of the country I don't know that this will increase that much). However that might mean that List of schools in Singapore needs to be renamed as "List of educational establishments in Singapore" to avoid confusion. Personally I think that, since school basically means any place of learning and also because the line between secondary and tertiary education to a little blurred in Singapore, it doesn't really need to be renamed. What does anyone else think? -- Lochaber 13:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - utterly bogus nomination - David Gerard 23:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering half a dozen people agree with it already, it certainly isn't "utterly bogus". Please be civil. Radiant! 11:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Reasons for nomination are not VfD-worthy: this has nothing to do with travel and the non-noteworthiness of some schools need not rub off on the rest of the article. (I'd prefer "List of notable schools in Singapore", but whatever.) jdb ❋ (talk) 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Put the notable schools in a category. Carrp | Talk 07:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Category of notable ones sounds like a good plan. Concur with Carrp. Radiant! 11:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Same rationale with Lochaber. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Kappa 22:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:49, 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 02:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Unitarian Universalist Associate Member organizations

A list of what?! Bunch of acronyms. Should merge with Unitarian Universalist main page. Radiant! 12:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. See Category:Unitarian Universalism. Just because you don't understand what it is, doesn't mean it should be deleted. - UtherSRG 13:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete as Radiant! notes. In fact, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee actually already has a page (perhaps UU Service Committee should indeed be established as a redirect since it is redlinked in the article in question). In my opinion, there does not need to be a separate article, but there probably should be a subsection in the UU article. HyperZonktalk 17:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • If that's done, then so should an "m&d" be done on List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations, which would be inappropriate to merge into the main UU article. If this article isn't to be kept, the two list articles should be merged into a new one, with both existing ones redirected to the new. (UUSC link made.) - UtherSRG 18:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand, useful valid list. Megan1967 23:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with UtherSRG; ignorance is not a valid reason for deletion. --Centauri 20:41, 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 merge. The motion was to rename the article, but there is almost duplicate content on List of Minor navies battleships. The recommendation is to rename and merge content from both to fit Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The arguments presented was that minor, and other is considered as POV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of other countries battleships

This is a 'list of things that haven't been covered yet in related lists'. That's actually misleading. Should be split into a number of separate articles. Radiant! 12:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Btw, there are about half a dozen articles "List of <countryname> battleships". I believe those are (just about) encyclopedic enough to let them stand, but ymmv. Radiant! 12:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the very least it needs a useful title. - TB 14:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Keep in one piece, maybe rename. If countries only have 1-3 battleships they don't need their own list. Kappa 14:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is an "other" country? The article describes itself as a list of "minor" countries' battleships. What is a "minor" country? On Wikipedia, there are no "other" countries and there are no "minor" countries. The author meant, "List of battleships that aren't on any other country lists"; but that is silly. This article actually only makes sense in the context of the table in Battleship, to which it does not even link. Somebody has created a separate article for each cell in that table, and one of the cells is "Other". This table and the numerous articles listing battleships that it has engendered need to be thought through again. --BM 14:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous title. Concur with BM above. Fire Star 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted above, this is a legitimate list from the Wikipedia ships project. A better procedure would have been to list it on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles or add the {{merge}} template to both List of Minor navies battleships and List of other countries battleships. I had at first thought to follow Stan's advice, but am woefully unqualified. DialUp 16:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The usual strategy is to start with list of battleships, then split out long lists for countries having lots of them, cleverly leaving the miscellaneous on the main list where they are visible, and avoiding the issue of what to name the list of the miscellaneous. Stan 16:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think that BM and Stan make good points. When you have a list that needs breakouts, you don't then create a breakout for the part of the list that doesn't need to be broken out! Oh, and if for some reason we do keep it, let's buy an apostrophe for the title. HyperZonktalk 17:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes BM has a good point but he's voting to delete the contents, which renders merging it impossible. Kappa 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not really voting to delete the contents. I just want to make sure the title is deleted and not turned into a redirect. If someone wants to Merge then Delete, that is fine with me, but most of the admin's won't do that because of GFDL problems and the necessity of maintaining the edit history. A 'merge' vote is really 'merge and redirect' and if I'm not comfortable with the title/topic, I hardly ever vote that way, even if I don't mind if the useful content is worked in somewhere else. --BM 00:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and/or merge, but do not delete. -Sean Curtin 01:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename, but do not delete. Johntex 16:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. I seem to recall that a "minor power" in the naval sense is a nation that lacks a navy large enough for aggressive actions, and uses their fleet primarily for local self-defense. The various lists of battleships probably need to be consolidated under the "See also" section of the Battleships page. — RJH 17:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename, but do not delete. — Linnwood 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Megan1967 08:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note to Administrators: I think List of other countries battleships can be deleted safetly. It appears outdated by List of Minor navies battleships which is linked to Battleship through a redirect. The only ships listed in other countries that do not appear on the minor navies list are Norway's; but they are on List of Norwegian battleships. DialUp 15:42, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Houdini Animation Software

Probably not notable, 382 google hits. Thue | talk 13:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone rewrites it so it's not an ad. (But no promise to change my vote even if so.) The <math>Insert formula here</math> that I just removed made my {{db|test page}} finger twitch. —Korath (Talk) 00:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with rewrite. JamesBurns 10:53, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

United States Women's Sports Museum

Is this real? The only google hit is a wikipedia mirror. The link leads to a newly registered site with no content. Thue | talk 14:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete does not exist yet. The alleged founder is real, runs a polo league. Possibly notable when it's up and running, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 23:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable as yet. If and when it becomes so, that which is currently here will be easy enough to recreate. (The article, by the way, didn't have a {{vfd}} tag.) —Korath (Talk) 00:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: doesn't exist yet; even the web site doesn't exist yet. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete add to Wikipedia when it becomes more than a press release. — Linnwood 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a no-content weblink placeholder for a press release. When it's real, verifiable and open for biz, someone will write about it. - Lucky 6.9 01:19, 25 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 09:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Olby

Vanity. Radiant! 13:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete barring evidence of notability. Lacrimosus 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Conditionally -- stub provides too little evidence to assess notability, assume not notable unless proven otherwise. EggplantWizard 22:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:32, 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oleander (band)

Band vanity, notability not established. This article should be shot so there's room for a new one. Radiant! 13:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rewrite. It's a terrible article (and a copyvio from here, to boot) but they're quite notable. A Google search for 'Oleander band' returns nearly ninety thousand hits. I appreciate the noble effort to clear Wikipedia of cruft, Radiant!, but it wouldn't hurt to do a quick Google. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, point taken :) We seem to be agreed though that the article can't stand like this. Radiant! 16:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote it to remove the copyvio, so keep. Tuf-Kat 00:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes Wikimusic project guide guidelines, with to albums one at least with a major label. Well-done Tuf-kat. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:55, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I count three keeps, four deletes (including the nominator), and a troll. Absent a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Omnist

Chaotic essay that basically compiles a bunch of dicdefs. There should probably be an article on this, but not this article. Radiant! 13:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps then we should keep it and put a cleanup tag on it. While I generally agree with you, at least the existing article is a starting point and not patent nonsense. HyperZonktalk 17:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Writing a bad article and waiting for others to expand or clean it is not, IMHO, the proper way to indicate that some subject is relevant for Wikipedia. However, I am inclined in this case to concur with Hyperzonk that this should be sent to Cleanup. vlad_mv 20:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The point of VfD is to delete articles that can never become encyclopedic. This one looks like it could. Isomorphic 20:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: essay. I do agree that there could be an article titled "omnist". However, it could only be written by junking the existing content. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewitten. - Mike Rosoft 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:58, 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 10:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One Truth

Band vanity. Radiant! 14:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oni Sakti

"Established Boston based artist, musician and writer" but not established as notable by anything in the article. Verification or deletion? Radiant! 14:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 10:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 11:00, 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 09:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OnlineMathLeague.com

Online quiz. Like that's notable. Radiant! 14:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only four months old ... it's just a baby! Also, no one links there, not enough traffic to catch Alexa's eye, and generally non-notable and unencyclopedic, in my opinion. Maybe when it replaces the SATs. Or at least the ACTs. HyperZonktalk 18:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 18:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 21:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete heck no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Open automation project

Public attempt to create a robot. Come back when you're successful. Radiant! 14:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I am of the opinion that in general open source projects are not encyclopedic unless they become culturally important (household name factor) or widely adopted (which usually means also culturally important). Hey, at least you have to have applications in use past alpha, which from my experience means something other than a 0 before the decimal in your version number. HyperZonktalk 18:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 23:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another random SourceForge project. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable on Google. JamesBurns 11:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 151 google hits (58 displayed) is approximately equal to zero for an open source project. —Korath (Talk) 13:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Order of the gimghoul

Secret society whose existence is widely known. Yeah right. Radiant! 14:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Attested to in the very local press, so it is "real," but it's not exactly Skull and Bones. Notability not established. HyperZonktalk 18:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix 02:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orange C500

Specs for a particular type of cellphone. Not encyclopedic. Radiant! 14:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and send it to cleanup. Valid encyclopedic topic, especially if the phone is a particularly notable one. --Andylkl 19:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with something. Kappa 22:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 08:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid topic. JamesBurns 11:04, 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 10:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orale

Slang term. Meaning not specified in article. Sounds pretty obscure, and googles only to unrelated stuff. Radiant! 14:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a Spanish language dictionary. Also, as noted, the word isn't even defined. Boggling. HyperZonktalk 18:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:39, 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 10:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Original BSK Family

Band vanity, notability not established. Radiant! 14:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Raffles institution class 3g

Oh no. This school stuff is bordering on madness. Delete. And let's add a case to WP:CSD: articles about individual classes of schools. Lupo 14:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh, individual classes at a secondary school. Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Blanked by author, so I speedied it. Thue | talk 14:52, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kings of Metal

Self-promotion in violation of What Wikipedia is not. --Ngb 14:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • They seem to be asking a band with that name for a copy of their CD and some other stuff. Speedy delete as CSD criteria #11. Thue | talk 14:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I speedied it. Tuf-Kat 00:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) —Korath (Talk) 14:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Onkyo

This was nominated for speedy deletion as "Commercial list of external links." I've noticed that things like this do get speedy deleted (Velux, the Carbon Trust), but I caught this one in time to give it a chance. Kappa 14:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Very well. Speedy deletion #4 and/or #9. Radiant! 14:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep stub on major electronics company. (I removed some POV from the text.) / Uppland 19:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Look ok in current incarnation, but more evidence of its importance would be nice, since Wikipedia isn't a business directory. Isomorphic 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking at the links to Onkyo, there seems to be a musical style or movement in Japan by the same name. The corporation is most likely better known in the rest of the world and presumably deserves the main place, but there should perhaps be an Onkyo (disambiguation). Maybe somebody here knows something about contemporary Japanese music? / Uppland 14:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I would guess the movement is named after the instruments, so they'd probably belong on the same page unless there was a lot about them. (My vote is 'keep btw). Kappa 01:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with an article on a company. Japanese WP says Onkyo is #1 in car audio speakers. Let the article grow into something. BTW onkyō (音響) means "acoustics" (e.g. the acoustics of a hall) or "sound" in Japanese. onkyōgaku (音響学) means "the study of acoustics." Fg2 10:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- pne 15:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Bring up to standard Articles on companies, like recipes, need some social context. --Wetman 10:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and expand. In fact, this is a textbook example of what a good substub should be. There's history, past and present notability and even name etymology in one neat package! Kind of like Japanese electronics themselves.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 01:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. JamesBurns 11:06, 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 transwiki. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Morra di

A norwegian slang dicdef. Thue | talk 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought there was a Norwegian Wiktionary, but I can't find it; so: Delete, or transwiki if someone knows where it is. Tobyox 15:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 08:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. JamesBurns 11:07, 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 redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Online Master's Program

Appears to be an advertisement; also probably copyvio from http://motdinfo.uwaterloo.ca/. Tobyox 15:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 00:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alya Kashper

Tribute to a non-notable girl. Thue | talk 15:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • I'd have said patent nonsense - "many of her interlocutors have literally shit their pants" ? Delete. DS 16:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amusing, but total nonsense. Djbrianuk 17:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've speedied this as patent nonsense and because this is the third time this bit of nonsense has been created. Gamaliel 17:39, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 14:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NTC

Publisher of dictionaries. Notability not established, and we all know that Wiktionary is the only good dictionary around :) Radiant! 15:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Basically Keep. Dictionaries are big, how many different publishers can there be? Anyway they publish cds [13] by Michel Thomas who seems notable. "NTC's Dictionary of Everyday American English Expressions" has an amazon sales rank of #10,382, for those who can interpret such figures [14]. Kappa 17:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Remove the POV and nonsense and all you have is "NTC makes textbooks." Gamaliel 17:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't imagine that there is anything else to add to this, and as it stands there in nothing notable about NTC--nixie 09:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should be moved to National Textbook Company (or similar) with NTC remaining as a TLA disambig. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 11:09, 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NMIMS

Management institute, POV article, notability not established. Radiant! 15:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NLP practitioner

POV essay on the alleged worthlessness of the NLP exam. Radiant! 15:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Despite the fact that the POV stuff was added to the original article (see the History), the article even in its original form is entirely subsumed by existing material in the Neuro-linguistic programming article. As a matter of fact, even the alleged commercialism of NLP is covered in that very fine article. HyperZonktalk 18:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV gripe. Megan1967 23:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research (and that's being kind) - David Gerard 23:37, 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 14:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Natasha Grippaldi

Vanity. Model, 2nd place for miss swiss. Not notable. Radiant! 15:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Perhaps if Miss Switzerland 2004 is unable to perform her duties, and thus Ms. Grippaldi becomes the actual Miss Switzerland, she might then be notable. We would then have to translate the article into English. However, not yet sufficiently notable. Oh, and it appears to be a CV instead of an article. HyperZonktalk 18:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article. Not a notable subject. Very possibly good looking though. -R. fiend 21:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, though it's hard to imagine it would be anything else, given that it is about a beauty pageant contestant. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Participation in beauty pageant does not confer notability on the participants. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 2nd place for miss swiss makes her adequately famous. Kappa 22:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 11:11, 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 (created redirect after deletion, as some voters asked). jni 10:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Narduwar

Alleged cult of murderer/rapists with no substantiation. Likely a hoax. Radiant! 15:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Appears to be crypto-vanity or crypto-band vanity. Or just nonsense. HyperZonktalk 18:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Couldn't find anything. Kappa 20:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - zero google hits. Megan1967 23:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe a redirect to Nardwuar the Human Serviette? Seems a likely enough misspelling. That's probably where someone got the idea for the name. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds good (But a human serviette? What the flip? :) ) Radiant! 11:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to notable human serviette, optionally deleting first. Kappa 22:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, delete optional. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:50, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Closed by User User:Uncle G. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nash Carey

Vanity. VfD tag removed by User:NashCarey himself. Radiant! 15:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this please. It has no potential to become encyclopaedic, and is a vanity page and an inappropriate user page. It is also primarily there to bolster his image and drive traffic to his sites. 13:24, Jan 12, 2005 80.168.130.132
  • I also vote to delete. This page is less than informative or relevant and obviously merely borne of vanity by the author, who is also the subject. 20:12, Jan 12, 2005 66.224.40.2
  • Please delete this page. If not for the vanity, then for the simple fact that this man already has a history of using public forums as a means of shilling and spamming. A thread at Adventure Gamers Forum demonstrates his practice of message board spamming. Oh, and he decided to take down the deletion text from his page, despite explicit instructions in the text not to do so. 02:36, Jan 15, 2005 207.161.62.240
    • (none of the three above were signed, names recovered from the history) Radiant! 15:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --BM 16:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. HyperZonktalk 18:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved the page to his user page, where he can have whatever he likes. Perhaps you could delist this VfD-item and report the remaining redirect on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion instead. / up+land 20:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that Nash already blanked the VfD once, I'd prefer that this mention remains here, in case he does it again. Radiant! 21:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect, since the page has been moved to his User page. RickK 23:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research

Notability not established. Verify or delete. Radiant! 15:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. According to their homepage it is "a facility of the New York State Office of Mental Health". An search of a few databases of articles in peer-reviewed journals finds a number of authors affiliated with this institute. Obviously needs expansion, but I can't see any reason to delete it. / Uppland 17:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Uppland notes, an actual facility with faculty, published researchers, and all those trappings of academic validity. I believe the consensus is that accredited post-secondary institutions are encyclopedic. HyperZonktalk 18:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nathan Kline was reasonably famous (Results 1 - 100 of about 843 for "nathan kline" -institute); I think he pioneered the early antidepressives, particularly MAO inhibitors. And the Nathan Kline Institute is quite famous (Results 1 - 100 of about 7,140 for "nathan kline institute"). Important research center on Alzheimer's and dementia. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 23:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. 23skidoo 05:41, 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. —Korath (Talk) 13:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

National Bureau for Students With Disabilities

Charity organization. Notability not established. Radiant! 15:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable UK charity, known in the US. 21,800 hits at Google. entry by DialUp restored from page history by HyperZonk
  • Keep as noted by DialUp. HyperZonktalk 18:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 21:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 23:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. 23skidoo 05:41, 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Verbatim copy of mission statement, likely copyvio. The aim of this organization is laudable, but is it actually active? Radiant! 15:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Radiant, what's with all these pages you're adding to VFD? A simple click on the link provided on the page would have led you to their web site and a Google check would have shown 107,000 hits. Keep, or list as CV [15]. DialUp 17:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I was of the opinion that, regardless of whether there should be an article about the NCMEC, it should certainly not be this article. Writing a decent article on them would, I think, have to start by deleting the entire current article. Since this is a lot worse than cleanup, I'd nominated it for VfD. I do usually google-test, but not if I believe that a blank page would be better than the current one. IMHO, of course. Radiant! 18:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • The main reason for using WP:CV for copy vios is that it creates a temp page for anyone wanting to start a clean copy of the article (assuming it's a worthwhile subject). It's a lot harder to attempt to save edits and history if a page fixed on VFD must later be deleted because the origial edit was a CV. It'll eventually be deleted anyway if no one takes an interest fixing it. Sorry for the sharp words. DialUp 19:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. However I have been unable to verify that it is in fact copyvio. Radiant! 21:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, it is a straight copy & paste from [16]. NCMEC appears to be a private organization chartered under a congressional act. It's possible that it might not be copyrightable as a work of the U.S. government, but I doubt it. (see their Reprint Policy for NCMEC Publications). There seems to some confusion here as to what this organization is. As best I can tell, it's federally funded to carry out public policy and doesn't appear to be religious—its board members belong to many well-known public companies plus governmental and private secular organizations. DialUp 22:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless copyvio, of course. Probably does, in fact, need some cleanup tags, which I will go ahead and add. ;) HyperZonktalk 20:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The mere fact that this organization considers sex with children, no matter how voluntary, to be abuse is POV. Jesse's Girl 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Only 24 minutes after your first edit, you were already voting in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and you found the User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula page very quickly too. Just saying. -- Curps 22:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I presume that Curps is referring to someone other than me, since these statements would be untrue in my regard. You can check out my contribution list to verify (when I wrote this, 16:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), I had over 100 entries, so you'll have to look at more than just the first page). I know that Curps isn't attacking me, just wanted to disambiguate for others. HyperZonktalk 16:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, naturally, I was referring to the original post by Jesse's Girl. To clarify this, I'm moving my original comment up (along with these followups). -- Curps 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Certainly, however the POV of an organization is no reason to delete it. Otherwise we'd have to delete the article on every single political party and religion, just for starters. EggplantWizard's suggestion below would be one way to deal with any problems you have with the POV, particularly if you feel that it is not widely known (that is, it probably isn't necessary to note that a given political party is biased towards its own views, but many may not know that a given anti-drug abuse program is affiliated with a controversial religious group). HyperZonktalk 20:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (qualified) While offensive conceptually to many, Jesse Girl's opinion is valid (there are many cultural differences with regard to the age of consent)- but it's no reason to remove the article in its entirety - It should merely be noted in the article's body as a known bias held by the organization. EggplantWizard 20:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your first edit was today, and it was an edit to a Vote for deletion (not this one). -- Curps 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, list as copyvio if it is such. --Carnildo 21:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and list as copyvio. I've heard of this organization on the national news more than once. I bet there's a very encyclopedic article to be made here. --InShaneee 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mark as copyvio. Neutralitytalk 22:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please follow proper copyright procedures. RickK 23:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable organization. Keep if the copyvio is replaced with actual content. -Sean Curtin 01:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A copyvio is not grounds for deletion. A simple rewrite is all that's needed. (Also, I don't believe mission statements of non-profits can be copyrighted but I might be wrong. 23skidoo 05:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If copyright problems are fixed of course. Notable child protection organisation. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 11:12, 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. —Korath (Talk) 13:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nautica Thorn

Porn actress. Notability not established. Radiant! 16:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, pr0ncruft. —Korath (Talk) 18:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think we need an entry on every single porn actor, <irony>only the important ones</irony>. HyperZonktalk 19:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simon 19:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. She does return over 56,300 google hits [17] -- is Google an unfair barometer in this instance? GRider\talk 20:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:It's not that google is an unfair barometer, it's that being a porn star requires no special talent, and/or that articles on porn stars made wikipedia look bad Kappa 20:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • How that is relevant, I do not understand. Is it our job to maintain a unique and complete on-line encyclopedia or play the role of the morality police? GRider\talk 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree that it makes Wikipedia look bad. We have quite a bunch of R-rated categories already. However, it is true that being a porn star requires nothing but a certain morality, and the appearance (if female) or endurance (if male). Also, anything sex-related is likely to be over-represented on the internet, so the google test is not quite a balanced criterium when applied to porn. Radiant! 21:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Making no comment on the morality issue, I point out that Google Web is an exceptionally unfair barometer when it comes to pornography and pornographic actors and actresses, maybe even more so than it is for bloggers. The pornography web site publishers go to great lengths to ensure that it is that way. Try the Google Groups test instead of the Google Web test. (Hint: "Nautica Thorn" gets less than 1% of the number of Google Groups hits than my real name does.) Uncle G 01:20, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • If this is being used to set a precedent I'd better vote keep. The google hits are adequate evidence of importance, and I'm sure she would pass the 'album test' if it applied equally to musicians and porn performers. Normally I probably wouldn't vote because I sympathize with the "no talent required" angle and it goes against consensus. Kappa 21:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to set the precedent that, while the google test is a very good test of notability in most cases, it should not apply as easily to a porn actress. Radiant! 22:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Her imdb entry lists 100 videos. Keep. RickK 23:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Who are you and what have you done with the real RickK. —RaD Man (talk) 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In, what, a year or so? What does that tell us about the production effort and noteworthiness of each? Barno 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Checked IMDB: Oldest of those movies was 2003, except for "Texas Sex Tour (1998)". Her DOB is listed as 1984 so she was fourteen (or thirteen and a fraction) in that appearance. Barno 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What in the blazes is a fourteen-year-old doing in a porn movie? Either her birthdate is wrong, the date of the movie is wrong, she didn't really appear there, or there's something really shady going on. 193.167.132.66 09:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Radiant's last two comments. Porn's overrepresentation on the Web is not a proportionate measure of its significance for WP's purposes. For actresses, movies, and other potential topics in this category, I believe the Google test should be considered less decisive. Similar criteria for encyclopedic noteworthiness should apply to these performers as to other occupations. In other words, not every Hairy Dickin' Tom should be in a general Wikipedia. Barno 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep any and all porno stars who have participated in more than 100 films listed on IMDb. —RaD Man (talk) 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Google is not a good indicator when it comes to pr0n. Megan1967 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep while i agree google overrepresents porn, the fact that theres more than 100 films in her imdb entry says she's noteable.  ALKIVAR™ 23:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been trying to figure out how many hits a "nobody" in the porn industry would get. Some of the people on the cast lists only get 1,000-6,000 hits, so assuming that is "nobody" level, 50,000+ hits is "somebody". Kappa 00:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Pornography, and only a few porn actors ever become generally notable. --BM 01:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. With over 100 films and over 50,000 indicates that plenty of people have seen her films whether they are to our tastes or not. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cr, you've proven yourself pretty resourceful. If she is a notable person, I challenge you to find out her real name, her date of birth, her educational background and training as an actress, the city she currently lives in, and a few other standard facts that biographies of living people on Wikipedia ought to have. The porn industry apes Hollywood, and wants to package the people they cast in the movies as "stars". Almost without exception, they are just exploited labor, and no more notable than a stripper, which most of them were or are. Wikipedia shouldn't be buying this nonsense. She might have a 100 video "credits" to her name but as Barno pointed out above, she is only 19 and has been working in the porn industry for a year or so, probably doing at least one video per week. Think about it. We shouldn't be evaluating the notability of these people like normal actors. --BM 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wow — how insulting can you be towards one of the biggest (positive) contributors to wikipedia? If a 19 year old pron star is churning out "at least one video per week" for 100 weeks straight, that sounds pretty notable to me. If you want to stalk this girl go do it on your own time. —RaD Man (talk) 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. BM, what you challenge Cr to find out is unfeasible when it comes to porn actors, who act usually under fake names and try to hide almost every personal details of their lives. By the way, this is not just a matter of personal choice, but a policy strongly inforced by the porn industry. It is generally assumed that part of the "fantasy" involved in the enjoyment of this type of material would be destroyed if the viewer had knowledge of such information: the performances would look unreal if one knew this actress to be a mother with two kids, or this gay actor to be a dedicated husband. My point is: notability standards for porn actors cannot be the same as for, as you say, "normal actors". I concur, nevertheless, that number of video "credits" may not be a good one either. Could number of personal websites ("shrines" and the like) be considered a reasonable measure for porn notability? vlad_mv 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. RaD, I can be a lot more insulting, since so far I haven't been insulting at all. By the way, Nautica Thorn was indeed a stripper. But my point is that these actors are so lacking in notability that none of the usual information about them is available and verifiable. In fact, I'd propose the "Birth date test" for biographical notability: if it is impossible to find out the actual name and birthdate of a person from verifiable published sources, or any personal details, then that person is probably not notable enough for the Wikipedia. The publicists for the porn companies frame these people as "movie stars", and apparently some people are willing to buy into this framing, but these people are essentially faceless, history-less, nameless, pawns of the porn movie producers, and completely unnotable as individuals, with very rare exceptions. But Wikipedia doesn't need to fall for this. --21:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. BM, I still stick to the above line of defense. We have to use different notability standards for porn actors and actresses. Knowing one's birthday does not apply here, though I'm not really sure what could possibly apply. As I said, I'm making a point on a broader discussion: I will abstain from voting on this particular matter, because I am not prepared to establish in a definite way whether this person is really notable. vlad_mv 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Concur with Vlad MV. Radiant! 13:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep barely, so to speak. — RJH 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 100+ movies would reach tens of thousands of people. That is notable. Johntex 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentThere are a lot of interesting points being raised in this discussion. I would like to comment on several:
    • I don't think we need turn away from Google as a barometer. We routinely use Google a as measure of the fame of computer related topics, which are similarly biased towards high Google scores. Likewise, we know that the failure to get Google hits on a notable person from a developing nation is not a conclusive negative result. What we need to do is establish some topic-specific guidelines. For example:
      • N hits on a topic/person in a country with low internet usage
      • 4N hits on a topic/person in a country with high internet usage
      • 8N hits on a topic/person related to computers
      • 8N hits on a topic/person related to pornography
      • 10N hits on a topic/person related specifically to the internet, etc...
    • I don't think we should try to compare the level of effort or talent or skill or hard work between fields so much as we should try to look for what is notable within a field. For example, it could be said that just working in the porn industry for a year or two to produce 100-200 movies is not much of an accomplishment. But it doesn't take any longer than that to run for Mayor, or write a few comic books, or discover a few beetles (for a field biologist). We should judge these people against others in their industry. What percentage of all full-time musicians meet our criteria for inclusion? Perhaps we should try to profile a similar percentage of porn stars. I can tell you right now that will be a big percentage.
    • I don't think a "Birth Date test" is appropriate in this case. Surely we would not pull an article on a famous person from the 1800's because of uncertainty over the year they were born. We would not rule out a fictional character from a novel on that basis either. Similarly, the special characteristics of this industry mean that a publicized birthdate is not a common barometer of how important (or not) they are to their field. Johntex 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent point, Johntex. I think we can all agree that a porn actor/actress/movie is not inherently notable. So the question is, what makes a person notable within the field of porn? I think the amount of fans a person has would be representative. Also being represented in the media in another field than porn would help. Radiant! 13:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for orgasmic growth. ElBenevolente 03:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — J3ff 00:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. SγωΩηΣ tαlk 12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. [18] --Haham hanuka 14:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 100 films is quite an achievement. She's earned her fame -- Longhair 15:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep She earned her fame -- Darwinek 16:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 16:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, despite nominator squeamishness - David Gerard 23:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You know, David, it's not that hard to make a vote without making a personal attack. Radiant! 10:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. A distinct member of a distinct industry.
  • Delete: pr0ncruft. Another product of the sex industry assembly line. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, porncruft. JamesBurns 11:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no harm in it staying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Knowledge encompasses alot of things not just intellectual topics. There are plenty of articles similar to this one that have remained untouched. Vincent Gray 15:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and there have been plenty of others that have been deleted. This is not encyclopaedic material. Leanne 23:54, 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Author of a single book. Notability not established. Radiant! 16:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • A book published by a vanity press, no less. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 21:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 23:54, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nci

Danish institute in India? Sounds self-contradictory. Notable? Radiant! 16:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Surprisingly, relatively high rank on Alexa (7819, better than 10,000 is often considered notable). However, the article is a direct quote from their website and doesn't even include their mission. Not qualified to comment on notability, so I'm not voting here. HyperZonktalk 19:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite and expand, passes notability. Megan1967 23:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Alexa rank indicates adequate interest. Kappa 22:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. JamesBurns 11:17, 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 REDIRECT. jni 10:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vorpal Sword

Name overlap with the redirect Vorpal sword (The S in Sword is uppercase in this page, lowercase in the redirect). The page Vorpal, pointed to by the redirect, contains a superset of the information in the canidate page. Allen3 16:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • A redirect to Vorpal is cheap. —Korath (Talk) 18:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect — Completely redundant. — RJH 20:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vorpal. Agree. Zzyzx11 21:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vorpal. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 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 10:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Images of autofellatio

Dup of autofellatio. Vacuum c 16:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Please count my vote as neutral. I am merely converting it from an errant speedy to VfD. Vacuum c 23:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, was broken off without discussion. --SPUI (talk) 17:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant page. Binadot 17:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see a reason for a split. The whole controversy at autofellatio is about the images, but this won't solve it - it's not like the anti-image people won't be against images on this page, too. And otherwise, any content that could be written here should be in the main article. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Ed's irony, but delete this fork. —Korath (Talk) 17:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete gcbirzantalk 20:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • abstain. This is part of an ongoing discussion between ed poor and others. I don't want it to be deleted yet although I don't think it's necessarily going anywhere. I'd like to reserve the right to vfd, if necessary, after discussion has proceeded for a while--although I expect that Ed himself would be quite willing to list it if it came to that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons discussed in detail on [19], mainly that the fork will not resolve the issue. Johntex 23:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant/duplicate fork. Megan1967 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Independent of the controversy, there is no good reason for a separate article consisting only of these images. "Images of autofellatio" is not an encyclopedia topic. If the consensus is not to have these images in Autofellatio, then there is no valid reason to have them in a separate article. --BM 02:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above Arno 04:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- this won't solve anything -- Longhair 10:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ongoing discussion. – flamurai (t) 04:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

The internet fetishes

Non-notable band, it looks like they're still in high school. Gamaliel 18:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - 11 Google hits with filtered results, possible band vanity. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 09:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Were it that every young band, struggling to make their song and voices heard, were smacked down by such cruel and unfair judgement. Did the Beatles stop playing because people in Germany never heard of them? Did Jimi Hendrix put down his guitar because his name was unknown? What travesties must occur for you people to see the light? --Jscott 13:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Que?
  • Calm down, nobody wants to take these kids' guitars away from them. Wikipedia is not the place to discover brilliant new bands, it is a secondary resource which records the careers of already notable bands. Gamaliel 16:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - rubbish Brookie 20:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Jscott. Plus, how many of you people are into little-known music groups? Let me tell you, for many of them it's almost impossible to find any information on them. Even if they have a findeable site, it's usually never updated. These guys seem to know what they're doing and put a lot of effort into it. Let's give em a chance, huh guys? DarkPhoenix113 23:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's vote was his first edit Carrp | Talk 04:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • So their own site isn't going to be updated, but somehow they are going update their wikipedia article? Get outta here. Delete. -R. fiend 02:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non famous --Melaen 17:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - sorry. Gabaliel explains the situation well. CDC (talk) 17:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What happened here? This VfD was initiated on 11 Feb, and I recall seeing it earlier. How did it end up amidst the 17 Feb votes? --BM 18:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At first glance, I read this as "The internet fishes" which is where this will be sleeping soon. Delete. —RaD Man (talk) 11:20, 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 10:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AJ_Riddle

Vanity, plus he deleted the "vanity" warning I left him yesterday. DS 17:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I can make a webpage. I can make hundreds of webpages. And as much as it tears me up inside to say it, this does not make me notable. --InShaneee 21:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.Jcsutton 12:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Theo (Talk) 17:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, just simply move it to his profile page. Megan1967 08:04, 25 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) 06:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Cannot be deleted due to block revisions. The article has been moved out the way (Georgina Russell/delete) to allow normal operations of the Wikipedia. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Georgina Russell

This individual ran for governor during the California special election as part of the 2003_California_recall (which ultimately resulted in the stated being terminated). Out of 8,000,000 votes, Georgina Russell received 2,000; this works out to be about %0.025 of the vote, if my math lessons serve me right. Are all people who run for public office noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, regardless of the outcome? GRider\talk 17:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep also on cover of USA today INTERNATIONAL edition and National edition
  • Keep She got more than one article, try 100. Check out her website where you can see she was covered in Germany. She also was one of the first to throw her hat in the ring. And the recall wasn't a "minor" election, as InShaneee suggests.
  • Comment. There was a Slashdot Interview, probably that's why this article was created. :-) Bogdan | Talk 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - some very minor candidates could be notable - for example, if they had a substantial impact on the race, or were otherwise unique in some way. The article presents absolutely no evidence that this was the case here. CDC (talk) 18:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • More than 100 people ran for governor then. I think the major candidates, and those few who were already famous deserve articles, but gathering 65 signatures and paying $3500 does not make one notable. Nor does an interview at Slashdot (pay attention, Slashdot trolls). Delete. -R. fiend 18:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She was one of the few minor candidates to recieve media attention outside of California. --Carnildo 20:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete So now you don't even need to win a minor election to be noteworthy? --InShaneee 21:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 23:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being from California, every minor candidate was given at least one interview by a local paper, web site or TV station. Zzyzx11 01:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor party candidates, and/or those with no chance of winning, must present other evidence of notability that is not given here. Meelar (talk) 02:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Meelar. Delete Radiant! 12:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep information, but merge with 2003 California recall. She deserves a full paragraph, but probably not a full article. EggplantWizard 02:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Yuckfoo 04:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge w/2003 California recall. BD2412 19:23, 20 Feb 2005 (EST)
  • Keep. Concur with Carnildo. — Gwalla | Talk 01:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete She hasn't really achieved anything yet apart from try -- Longhair 01:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable — Linnwood 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 07:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge w/2003 California recall. Kappa 22:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, media notable. JamesBurns 11:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2003 California recall; it's mostly there already. If anything is broken out of the article (which is admittedly fairly long), it should be the list of candidates as a whole. —Korath (Talk) 14:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Over 16,000 google hits, on cover of major newspapers, appeared on nationwide networks (at the least NBC). After Arnold and Gray Davis she was the first, as far as I can tell, to join the race. This isn't some high schooler that is promoting herself and there is no precedent for deleting this. Review [Wikipedia is Not] and search for the bullet this falls under

--Archier 05:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only 848 google hits, not 18,000. Bogdan | Talk 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually 6,480 Bogdan | Talk 18:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably more like 4,080. We could go on like this for days, you know. sjorford →•← 16:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was IRRELEVANT. This isn't WP:CFD. dbenbenn | talk 15:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chicago Alderman

(Grider marked the page for VfD but did not finish the job).

  • Relectant keep. But the articles in this category must be raised above stub level. We have 659 articles for the House of Commons. So allowing 50 for Chicago (population 2,896,016) seems reasonable. "One stereotype about Chicago is certainly true: its citizens love politics" - from Chicago. -- RHaworth 18:27, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Other than quoting another article from Wikipedia, how can you substantiate this? Are we being fair, or demonstrating a systemic bias towards articles focused inwardly on local municipalities in the United States? GRider\talk 19:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Can't be systemic bias surely - I am a Brit and totally bored with American politics. The love politics quote was put in to suggest that possibly we will not be inundated with lists for every American municipality.
        On the other hand, we don't even have cast lists for every UK local government council - still less articles for each member. The Greater_London_Authority covers about 8 million people but I see no list of its members here. Perhaps, for the USA, we should draw the line at the level of State legislatures. But I will leave my vote unchanged. -- RHaworth 03:14, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • As long as the articles exist, KEEP category. I personally don't think this level of politician is encyclopedic, but many have been kept, alas. FWIW, Chicago is notorious across the US as being the most machinistic politially, especially locally, between the Daley machine, and their notorious "vote early, vote often" motto. If the articles get deleted, of course delete the Cat (not that this is normally the place to raise this issue, but since the articles on the cat are being questioned here, might as well keep it all together). Niteowlneils 19:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you please cite examples where other U.S. or Canadian politicians (or otherwise) of minimal notability were raised on VfD and later kept? GRider\talk 19:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there's so many non-notable people in this category - how about merging them into a simple list (with birthdate and profession and some other details as needed). Radiant! 20:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with a merge and (maybe) redirect to the Chicago aldermen page. Then the category can be replaced with Category:Chicago, or some such thing. -R. fiend 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Radiant! and R. fiend, though wiki ought to have a guideline about things like "minimum population of articles that merits a category". It would resolve this kind of thing in the future, and facilitate less moderation time. EggplantWizard 21:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, contains many non-notable individuals and stubs, not useful. Megan1967 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bernie Hansen. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • This should have gone up on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I say keep but rename to Category:Chicago aldermen. -Sean Curtin 01:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sean Curtin. Meelar (talk) 02:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All of the Aldermen should be merged on one page instead of stubs. No need for a category. — Linnwood 07:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Get rid of the individual articles and merge them. No need for a category in this case. Carrp | Talk 07:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need for this. JamesBurns 11:21, 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. But I'm going to leave the redirect that's already there. dbenbenn | talk 15:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vi Daley

Another 6-word substub reading: "Vi Daley is a Chicago Alderman." Is this Alderman-cruft, or a valuable contribution to Wikipedia and its readers? Are all Chicago Aldermen inherently notable and encyclopedic, such that simple elementary school styled sentences are acceptable as articles until expanded? Better yet, would this sort of "contribution" be tolerated if this were an article about a member of a municipal legislative body in a small town outside of U.S. soil? GRider\talk 17:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Right on, Rider. This is totally and utterly useless. Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 18:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that aldermen are not in and of themselves notable. There's just way too many of them. Apply the professor test, I'd say. This one, unless significantly substantiated, should go. Delete Radiant! 18:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Personally, I don't think politicians at this level are inherently notable. However, I believe quite a few have survived VFD (mostly from Canada, if I remember correctly). I would really like to see VFD become more consistent, and less fickle. Niteowlneils 19:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If possible, can you please cite examples? GRider\talk 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Pretty tough, since VFD:Old only has articles that were deleted. Haven't yet found any such articles that have survived Vfd, but I did find a surprising number of bluelinks at Toronto City Council. Niteowlneils 22:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Finally found an example: Talk:Peter_Hume. Also, note the number of bluelinks for mayoral election losers, as well as blue and redlinks for people who sought city-level offices at Ottawa municipal election, 2003. Niteowlneils 22:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Obviously these articles are much more sophisticated than 6-word substubs, but I will review them further as soon as I have a moment to spare. GRider\talk 22:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Canadian politicians I've seen in the last few days have been Members of Parliament--roughly equivalent to the legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives. There seems to be a building consensus that politicians at the national level are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. On the otherhand, municipal politicians are more of a mixed lot. I would suggest that Mayors of all but the smallest communities should get the nod. As for aldermen, city councillors, and the like—I'd say that they need to be notable for some particular reason (in addition to just holding office) to be worth mention.
  • Delete, non-notable. --Carnildo 20:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bernie Hansen. Uncle G 00:38, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
    • Reply: If the Vi Daley substub was even a fraction of one percent as good as the Bernie Hansen article, believe me, it would not be nominated here for discussion. But thank you none the less for the link. GRider\talk 00:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, can we at least agree that, if we had a good article on Vi Daley, it should be kept? This particular article has no content, and I'm indifferent to it. But if somebody adds even a small bit of detail, keep. Meelar (talk) 02:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, only if said article establishes notability beyond him being a Chicago alderman. Radiant! 17:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Meelar. I think Chicago aldermen (and their equivalents in other major cities) are inherently notable, but I also think substubs like this are useless. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded beyond stub status before February 22. —RaD Man (talk) 11:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:54, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Merge These should all be merged on to one Chicago Alderman page — Linnwood 07:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remember this is VfD and not the Crusades. Hyacinth 00:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per my other votes on Chicago aldermen. Megan1967 08:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I decided to be bold and I redirected this to Chicago aldermen, as the other substubs generally have been. -R. fiend 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Manuel Flores

This ultra-sub-stub reads "Manuel Flores is an Alderman for the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago."; end of article. As fellow Wikipedian R. fiend points out, there are dozens and dozens more sub-stubs just like this one under [[Category:Chicago Alderman]], with more on the way (currently red-linked). Manuel Flores turns up 274 hits on google. [20] Does merely being an Alderman make one "notable enough" for inclusion on Wikipedia? If so, why? GRider\talk 19:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Personally, I don't think politicians at this level are notable. However, I believe quite a few have survived VFD (mostly from Canada, if I remember correctly). I would really like to see VFD become more consistent, and less fickle. (and for goodness sake, kill the redlinks until the issue is decided.) Niteowlneils 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Consistency is good. There are several related discussions at the other Chicago aldermen VfD entries. I believe consensus tends towards the view that elected politicians are only in and of themselves notable if elected at a national level. Delete Radiant! 12:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Carnildo 20:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bernie Hansen. Uncle G 00:37, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Keep, major-city council members/aldermen/etc. are notable. Meelar (talk) 02:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • As with others: I think probably notable, but these tiny non-articles are useless. -- Jmabel | Talk
  • Merge These should all be merged on to one Chicago Alderman page — Linnwood 07:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Make one page with all the aldermen, as Linnwood suggested. Carrp | Talk 07:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians. Android79 00:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. (Deleted and moved to WP:BJADON) -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barbazonoid

Patent nonsense about an imaginary creature. Web search on goole turns up no hits whatsoever.Simon 17:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep — Disregarding this mythical creature is denouncing the aligibility of religion and the self's right for freedom of belief. Since google is not into searching in Aramic, there is no reason for it to show any entry on this marvelous and mysterious creature. I strongly protest this dark attempt to eliminate any trace of this animal in one of the only strongholds of human knowledge - the wikipedia. voting off this entry is an insult for intelligence and for those who seek it. 17:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: Above vote was made by 212.143.70.168 on 01:59, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC). Unregistered and unsigned votes do not count. --Andylkl 11:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Nonsense" is right. So we have an office-dwelling, platypusesque creature, first seen in Constantinople, and we're supposed to be searching for it an "Aramic"? You do know they spoke Greek in Constantinople, right? This article is utter crap. Delete, speedily would be fine. -R. fiend 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur, delete or speedy. Nicely formatted though. Kappa 19:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Appears 2B nonsense. Rubik's cube induced hysteria. — RJH 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Carnildo 20:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I heard people using that word. Chatool 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a nonsense-writers' email group. Flush it down the toiletatory. Anthony Appleyard 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think i saw this creature once or twice . Tiresiasss 20:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    This is the user's first and only edit. --Carnildo 21:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN and delete. =) --Andylkl 11:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax/vandalism. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but put in BJAODN cuz its funny. -CunningLinguist 09:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Megan1967 07:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. JamesBurns 11:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should trash a name as funny sounding as "Barbazonoid". Move to BJAODN. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:30, 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 redirect. The consensus was unclear, however I have made it a redirect anyway since it makes the most sense. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italy war crimes

Very poorly-written, very POV article that needs to be a redirect - where to? Deb 18:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV essay. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably Shoudn't Redirect. Not sure if an article exists that's relevant enough yet. Strongly POV -- if original article author wishes to assert that Italy has been accused of war crimes, he/she needs to reference who the accuser is, and include it in a relevant article such as Italian Military (which needs more depth, anyway) in a NPOV manner.
    • (Of course, if there's already a discussion of alleged Italian War crimes somewhere that I missed, this should probably redirect, otherwise, just can it). EggplantWizard 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV essay, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has potential if references are added. Suggest moving it to Italian war crimes. JMaxwell 11:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is telling us things Italian public is not aware of and all Italian governments try so much to hide. It should be improved - by adding references.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 00:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Stone

Another 6-word sub-stub. Is this figure "notable enough" to tolerate these types of articles? If so, why? GRider\talk 18:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. --Carnildo 20:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, probably notable, but this article is useless.
    • Do we really have to set things so that we separately handle each of presumably 50 articles like this? Isn't there some way we can combine cases, like the U.S. Supreme Court does?
      • That would be a good idea, yes. Maybe it should be possible to make a sub-nomination for VfD, thus stating that article X is to be deleted if and only if an already nominated article Y is to be deleted. Radiant! 11:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carl Adolph Agardh

If I were to tell you that Carl Adolph Agardh was a Swedish botanist during the 1800s, you would then know everything there is to read within this substub. What is it about this article that makes it worthy of keeping? GRider\talk 18:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the sentiment that six word (plus a couple of dates) substubs aren't worth adding--better to have a redlink until someone with more to say comes along. However, I also have difficulty with deleting encyclopedic subjects, so I added a bit paraphrased from a machine translation of the fr: WP. There apparently is much more about the guy that is encyclopedic (I couldn't figure out enuf about why it is claimed he was also an economist to add it) so I vote a weak keep on the slightly expanded article. Also, the original contrib is a long-time, respected WP editor, so any questions/comments about the brevity of the original article should probably be raised on his (I'm assuming) Talk page. Niteowlneils 20:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Noted botanist and economist. Megan1967 00:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable botanist. --Viriditas | Talk 04:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable botanist. Someday someone will add something. --LexCorp 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally speaking, this amount of biographical information is better to add to an annotated list of people, and start the article, whenever one gets the time, with at least a two- or three-paragraph stub. I have destubbed or at least desubstubbed a number of Swedish scientists. Agardh has been on my to-do-list for a while, together with his son Jacob Georg Agardh. They were both among the leading algologists of the 19th century (CAA probably the leading algologist of his generation). I don't know anything about algae, though, so if somebody who does will fill in that part, I will add the general biographical info from Swedish sources eventually. / u p p l a n d 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. Notable Swedish botanist and MP. Also on our List of members of the Swedish Academy which also indicates that he was fairly notable in the scientific community. Thst he has an article on the French Wikipedia also tends to indicate notability. Well done Niteowlneils for the rewrite and look forward to Uppland's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I'll redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 15:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carl Meredith Allen

Redirect Delete
2 3

Poorly written and uninformative. Is this the type of material we want housed on Wikipedia? Is this best kept, deleted, or redirected? GRider\talk 18:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Uninformative article about a small-time crank who may or may not actually exist. --Carnildo 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somethign of significance can be added. Agree with Carnildo. -R. fiend 21:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Philadelphia Experiment. --Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Philadelphia Experiment. Megan1967 07:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Save. I'm the primary author for the Philadelphia Experiment article, and I have more information on Carl M. Allen which I could use to expand the article to about three paragraphs or so, including place of birth, family history, and such. If I added this - which I can do this week - would that be enough to save it? - Scooter 20:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Is he notable for anything other than originating the Philadelphia Experiment? --Carnildo 01:33, 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Carla Howell

Is this a case of vanity, or notability? Carla Howell, like countless thousands of others around the world, ran for public office and failed. She helped field a ballot measure, which also failed. Is Wikipedia a better place by the inclusion of this article? Why or why not? Discuss amongst yourselves. GRider\talk 19:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This one stretches the bounds of notability a bit, but I think she still makes the cut, as the "repeal the income tax" initiative she proposed was reasonably noteworthy for the state of massachusetts (will likely still be discussed in 50 years), she's still active as a libertarian activist, and she'll have a new Political Action Comittee starting up this year. On the other hand, the article for "Michael Cloud", who is in the same general category should possibly be put up for a vote. Eggplant Wizard 20:35, 17 Feb 2005
  • Keep, and expand. 5000 Google hits. Megan1967 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete members of political parties that have not been in office are not notable enough--nixie 09:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sarge Baldy 09:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This should not even be a consideration. Agree or disagree with her views, she is an important player in politics.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 10:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brett ansite

Article doesn't establish notablity. Zero hits. Seems to be just another youngster marking his territory on Wikipedia. Niteowlneils 19:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Either vanity or non-verifiable original research. GRider\talk 20:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure and simple vanity. -R. fiend 21:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure that "Oregon is a mighty place, and indeed it is green". But meeting "some fine people like Zkete, Teembi, Scrooge, Zeus, J-rat, Feesh, and Tally" does not make you notable. Zzyzx11 23:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Aw, come on! Surely J-rat at least? -R. fiend 01:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - zero google hits, vanity. Megan1967 00:10, 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Agostini

This article sub-stub was created in July of last year and has not been expanded since. It reads, "Carlo Agostini (April 22, 1888 - December 28, 1952) was an Italian Roman Catholic patriarch." A google search for this name returns 552 hits -- many (if not most) of which are unrelated. [21] Does this figure meet or exceed "the bar"? Under what circumstances should this text be included on Wikipedia? GRider\talk 19:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Considering that a 'patriarch' could simply be the male head of a small family - delete unless significantly substantiated. Radiant! 20:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Notability established, so change vote to keep. Radiant! 12:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • An archbishop and patriarch of Venice who was posthumously elevated to cardinal (hit no 2 in Google search) is inherently notable. Keep. / u p p l a n d 21:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I just expanded it. DS 22:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 00:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 00:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 23skidoo 05:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent Churchman. Capitalistroadster 11:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The VfD listing for Carol Alt (a few entries down) asks whether Google is "a level barometer" for determining notability. No, it isn't, partly because it underrepresents anyone whose notability predated the Internet -- like this fellow. JamesMLane 09:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nomination is a violation of the deletion policy - David Gerard 23:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the deletion policy, it could have been nominated as suspected family vanity (criterium #4), or genealogy (criterium #6 from 'WP is not a general knowledge base', which is criterium #5 for 'unsuitable for wikipedia', which is criterium #1 from deletion policies). Just because it turns out to be notable after all, doesn't mean that nominating it was a violation. Radiant! 12:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • The only requirement for a nomination, AFAIK, is that it be made in good faith. This nomination appears to have been made in good faith, and thus violated no policy. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Tuf-Kat 02:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 10:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ink Trace

Pointless; we might as well have a "ASCII/Unicode Text on White Backgroud" article. Borderline BJAODN material. Szyslak 19:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or transwiki to Wikipedia. This is a valid term, has potential for growth and expansion, and is in need of cleanup. See also: http://home.howstuffworks.com/pen5.htm -- GRider\talk 20:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Change of vote: transwiki to Wiktionary, do not keep on Wikipedia. GRider\talk 00:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless breakout of some fairly technical term which makes no sense outside of its context. The example cited by GRider is not an example of the term as defined in the article, but merely an ordinary English phrase containing the two words "ink" and "trace" in their ordinary dictionary meanings. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef of a very specialized term. --Carnildo 20:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Delete Radiant! 12:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, yeah. Since it's incomprehensible, I don't really know how to vote. So why am I writing this? RickK 23:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with RickK. Barno 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the second definition of Patent nonsense is "Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Transwiki. Megan1967 00:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless definition. Delete, don't move to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 17:03, 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 DELETE. jni 09:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hypergravy

This neologism fails both the Google Groups and the Google Web tests. Uncle G 19:54, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Delete as trivial nonsense. GRider\talk 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 20:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Simon 22:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like neologism until I see some evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 23:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although my first thought was "Mmmm, hypergravy! Sounds delicious!". Meelar (talk) 02:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, apparently an in-joke from somebody's IRC conversation or something of the sort. — Gwalla | Talk 01:23, 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Karl Genzken

Are all members of the Schutzstaffel inherently noteworthy? A google search for Karl Genzken results in 62 matches. [22] GRider\talk 20:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • He wasn't just Schutzstaffel, he was a defendant at the Doctors' Trial. As such, I think his notability is established. DS 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Senior war crimal. Kappa 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Xezbeth 21:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Megan1967 Lectonar 11:48, 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carol Alt

Are all female supermodels inherently notable? Is this one? What with the nature of searches on the internet such that female actresses, movie stars and models are the most searched for queries, does this really make Google a level barometer for determining this comparitively and fairly in relationship to other existing biographical stubs? [23] GRider\talk 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Not all of them, and not this one either considering the length of the article. Also she's 45 so if she's done nothing but modelling, I'd say she's passe. Delete Radiant! 20:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) Radiant! 12:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't do her justice. In the early 80's (I think it was--maybe late 70's) she was probably one of the top 3 best known supermodels (at least in the US), with numerous Sports Illustrated inclusions. Her IMDb article[24] has 43 entries under "Actress - filmography" and another 17 under "Notable TV Guest Appearances". She's a published author[25], and (according to the IMDb bio) "Life Magazine called her "The Face""according to her website, in 1980, Life called her "The next million dollar face". She's had a far more encyclopedic impact on the world than about half the people at Category:Porn stars (and yes, I'd vote to delete at least half of them--being a Ron Jeremy or a Nina Hartley is one thing--being an Internet-era 'pornblip of the week' is something else--I would argue nothing), or, say, Yamila Diaz-Rahi (a younger SI vet). I guess I'm saying keep. Sometimes it's best to base votes on something other than the current WP article. Niteowlneils 21:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I can't believe someone is actually nominating an actress with 43 different film/TV credits spanning 3 decades, a career as a supermodel, as well as a starring role in a network TV series ("Thunder In Paradise")! I'm willing to assume good faith and everything, but come on... please do at least some research before nominating things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Oh, and also an exact-phrase Google rank of 153,000 hits! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known model. RickK 23:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep She is well-known and has a long resume on the Internet Movie Database. Zzyzx11 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep obviously. it's inconceivable that this would pass vfd. Wolfman 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Supermodel from the 80s. Megan1967 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Celebrity = notability.--Centauri 00:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Quite well known for quite a while. In about the same league as Farrah Fawcett and Cheryl Tiegs. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Why the sudden concern over an article that's been here since July, 2003? Is the nominator genuinely concerned about this article or is he trying to illustrate a point about criteria for notability? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article's way too short - Niteowlneil's above description is far more detailed - but it's at least a decent start. She still shows up on TV and print ads. - Lucky 6.9 01:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly famous. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Article needs expansion, but Carol Alt is as worthy of an article as many of the other supermodels out there. (And, BTW, by definition anyone qualified to be called a supermodel is notable on that merit alone.) Alt also has a number of movies to her credit as well. 23skidoo 05:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've done an initial expansion that better reflects her notability. Niteowlneils 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nice! (But you forgot to mention that she got an IBM PC key named after her). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — J3ff 00:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - David Gerard 23:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable supermodel. — Gwalla | Talk 01:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 02:52, 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 delete. Delete 4, Keep 1. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jon Mayo

Doesn't establish notability. —Korath (Talk) 20:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article merely states that he is a school teacher. Average Earthman 22:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After reading it, all I can say is "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 23:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as (in the nicest way possible) vanity page or something similar. Theaterfreak64 02:23, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:53, 25 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) 12:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neil Rogers

Are non-syndicated radio show hosts inherently noteworthy? 810 google hits: [26] GRider\talk 20:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:16, 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 REDIRECT to Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wan Azizah Ismail

Oddly, this minor stub questions itself in its first sentence. Does keeping this incomprehensible text benefit our readers? Is this article beyond cleanup? GRider\talk 20:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Keep', cleanuppable and from the article looks like she was elected to the national parliment. Nice of people to make omissions explicit with question marks. One might also follow "what links here" to Anwar Ibrahim Kappa 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) merge/redirect the two articles as appropriate. Kappa 09:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. Nominated article is currently a duplicate article and does not represent the most common name. I've merged content from the article nominated for deletion. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), the article name should use the most common form of the name used in English, especially for non-European and non-Western names. Google test returns 1,320 hits for "Wan Azizah Ismail" and 5,160 hits for "Wan Azizah Wan Ismail". English only google test returns 793 English pages for "Wan Azizah Ismail" and 4,200 English pages for "Wan Azizah Wan Ismail". --Viriditas | Talk 04:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 00:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's probably easy to forget wan wan I mean, one "Wan" in the name. / u p p l a n d 08:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail is the real name. __earth 15:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 18:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars MUSH

Vanity article Non-notable. Delete. --Spinboy 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First nomination for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars MUSH/first nomination
  • Delete. Advertising. 24 players online as of right now. Notable MU*'s—and there are very few—don't need to advertise for players on Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would have hoped that would have been done by now, since this is the second listing on vfd. --Spinboy 00:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Yes, but the first VfD was barely 2 weeks ago. [27] As VfD is not designed to be utilized as a cleanup tool, keep for now and allow for furthered organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 00:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The last VfD for this was two weeks ago! Unlist from VfD. -Sean Curtin 01:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "no consensus" means something different for you than it does for everyone else. —Korath (Talk) 09:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • This should have probably been a continuation of the old VfD rather than an entirely new one. Delete, again. -Sean Curtin 02:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • I tend to agree, but it was recommended we restart vfd. --Spinboy 02:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for expansion. <POV> For some reason, I'm interested in this now. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 09:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though needs MAJOR work. Other MUSH'es are listed in Wikipedia and if it can be verified that this was the first of its kind, then it's OK by me. Too bad the title sounds like porridge. ;) 23skidoo 05:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it needs work though. Mark Richards 11:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it survived two weeks ago, so the renomination may seem to encourage querulous renomination - David Gerard 15:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a renomination, it's a relisting because there was no consensus on the first one. There is ample precedent for relisting a VfD with no clear consensus. On the original nomination, I count 5 deletes and 3 keeps. Hiding the old discussion isn't particularly useful though. Radiant! 17:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Since this is a continuation, the old votes should still stand... Spinboy: Delete, Korath: Delete (revoted above), Ellsworth: Delete, Oarias: Keep, BM: Delete, Sean Curtin: Delete (revoted above), Radiant: Keep, Megan1967: Keep (revoted above).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (was converted as a redirect during voting). jni 09:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pestpatrol

Advertisement. Doesn't appear notable. --InShaneee 21:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • They do get lots and lots of google hits, so they could probably be notable. But the current article is worse than none IMO, and seems to be mostly copied from their press release. Delete unless rewritten. Thue | talk 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is just an ad. Zzyzx11 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the software it popular, there is a much better article with different capitalization, PestPatrol
  • Redirect. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 05:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:29, 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 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Airdefense

Advertisement. Doesn't appear noteable. See also Pestpatrol. --InShaneee 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Blatant ad. Speedy delete, possible copyvio anyway. - Lucky 6.9 21:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:01, 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 DELETE. jni 09:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ipholio

Doesn't state why he is notable. Only 365 google hits. Thue | talk 21:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Those 365 hits dwindle to 35 (23 displayed), almost all of which are entirely content-free, if you exclude deviantart. —Korath (Talk) 22:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Marginal speedy, but I can't quite get either article case #1 or #3 to fit. Andrewa 17:31, 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. jni 09:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indian fascists

POV rant ("spineless cowards who shit in their pants"). -- Curps 21:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV rant. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This might even be a speedy candidate. I'm not sure Wikipedia should keep articles on its site that could cause riots! --Woohookitty 21:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Ignore the length. This is an obvious attack article. --InShaneee 21:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. —Korath (Talk) 22:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What grounds are proposed for speedy? Andrewa 17:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedy! -- Longhair 12:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Read above. --Patrick Lucas 03:32, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Craig Miller

Non-notable. Vanity. Local radio DJs fall into same catagory as local news anchors, unless they pass the Google test and this was one does not. --Woohookitty 21:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This local DJ votes delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is the subject of the article non-notable, the article itself is highly NPOV. Bratsche 14:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Jones (Alex Rider)

This may qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion. If wondering, I hold no known relation to the author or subject of this article. GRider\talk 21:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Merge. Context is your friend. —Korath (Talk) 23:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Come on, (Alex Rider) tells you it's fiction already. Merge with Alex Rider or keep. Kappa 22:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, but one of the other articles on fictional characters in these books, Alan Blunt, already contains more on this Tulip Jones. What about merging all of them with the main article? / u p p l a n d 08:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alex Rider. Megan1967 08:47, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Avathar (MUD)

Online game; notability not established. —Korath (Talk) 21:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable enough, but does belon in the MMOG section if it's not already there. EggplantWizard 21:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Delete. Radiant! 11:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:41, 25 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) 12:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beleriand (MUSH)

Advertisement for a non-notable online game. 4 players online when I checked. —Korath (Talk) 21:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. Belongs in general article EggplantWizard 21:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Delete. Radiant! 11:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • With so few people even playing it, who's going to expand it? —Korath (Talk) 02:20, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anyone really inhabiting Deimos these days either, but there's an entry for the little Martian moon, isn't there? The article needs expansion; but regardless of whether it ever actually achieves it or not, it should stay. Wikipedia is here to describe things, which the article attempts to do. Keep. Unsigned vote from User:Anatinus. First edit.
  • Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. Any media coverage? Gamaliel 07:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 12:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DartMUD

Non-notable online game. 26 players online when I checked. —Korath (Talk) 21:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete EggplantWizard 21:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plenty of MUDs like that, and I'd wager it uses all the standard areas from Diku. A MUD with hundreds of players might be notable. Radiant! 22:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • It has all custom areas and skills, and a skill-based advancement system (as well as a numberless classless interface). Also note the tens of thousands of google hits on "Dartmud". Pakaran 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither custom areas nor skills are unusual, and a numberless interface isn't uncommon either. Of those tens of thousands of google hits, only 266 are dissimilar enough from each other for Google to display. —Korath (Talk) 23:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Radiant makes a generalization of the mud without ever having played it. First off, it's not even Diku. It's LP. Also, it's not how many users, it's how the users interact. Some muds with hundreds of users you can't ever find because they're never interacting with anyone. Also, it uses no custom areas, and has been running since 1991. --Shadyman 01:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, as I outline above Pakaran 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Hoary 05:00, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations of expansion. see comments above. --Shadyman 01:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's sixth edit. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • How is a personal attack relevant to this discussion? *7th edit*--Shadyman 02:42, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dartmud is small because it is a mud among muds, where only the quick-thinking and adaptable survive. I'd take a small challenging mud - next to one of those giants with 1500 newbs who gripe constantly to the GM's - any day, as would anyone looking for a game worth playing for years without tiring. If you doubt, play for a week or two. And yes, the current description is severely lacking. Kiev
    • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It has changed my life. WARNING its will addict you like no other *strayne*
  • Keep: I've been active on muds for several years and have experience a lot of them. I have not seen another MUD that resembles Dartmud in all that time. Before you knock it, log in and give it a try. While it is an ADVANCED mud, it is easy to become involved and your character integrated into the multi-facted social system. --Donovan 02:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 02:50, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the above further cement my position that this is primarily an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. —Korath (Talk) 02:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have played Dartmud for over 4-years. I have been banned repeatedly and am still attracted to the originalities, player interaction and deep skill base, that I find myself, despite being banned, searching for alternative methods to playing Dartmud. However, I have also played other muds, like, Achaea, Age of Chaos, and Ancient Anguish. It should be noted that, in comparison, none of these muds come close to the kind of quality that Dartmud possesses. Thank you.
  • Keep - I'm a longtime player of DM, but I don't say "keep" for that reason, nor for DM's general wonderfulness. I vote to keep it because DartMUD happens to be one of the primary sources of inspiration for Ultima Online (which in turn inspired many other MMORPGs), something I notice isn't mentioned in the entry. Also, the first two posters who left comments could do well to remember that "notable" and "popular" are two different things entirely. As has been previously noted, the second person to comment made a generalization which was wrong in every aspect. I do agree that the article needs expansion.
  • Keep - But only if the description is changed. Dartmud is notable, as a small mud that has lasted longer than most. It's strong emphesis on roleplay creates an absorbing environment that one can easly be lost in for hours. It was innovative at the time of it's change over from level/xp to skill system, however in today's gaming society it is nothing new or innovative. It can be fun, it can be addictive, but that doesn't make it notable. 09:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Raph Koster, a creator for Ultima Online, once wrote: "DartMUD was influential on me, certainly--ought to have been for everyone. I think the key problem they had was that their system required a critical mass of players of diverse types in order to function, and they never really achieved that mass." Not a huge playerbase, yes. Influential? Yes. (It seems the original article has vanished. My source was an old post in our forums, which you can find at www.surfon.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ topic.cgi?forum=2&topic=351.) Further, Björn Morén wrote: "One of the chief inspirations for simulationist design in the hobbyist community was the game DartMUD." (a live link http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/01/the_value_of_re.html). I apologize if my previous post came off as an advertisement. Kiev
  • Keep Though the original article could use some changes. I am a long time player of Dartmud - and it is truly unique in many ways. One way is the way its political system works. Dartmud has the only completely unrestricted PK system I have seen which actually works. Most characters who have been around a few months have the ability to kill and hide most other characters - but the fact that a pk'er who makes one mistep will loose his own character tends to keep pk under control. It is true that most of the votes for keeping the page here are probably from Dartmud players - but I see no problem with the page existing on Wikipedia.
  • Keep Each request for delete listed stems from ignorance on the part of the deleter. To briefly adress the points, the userlist numbers are not reliable -- this is a feature which allows users to hide their on/offline status. This is not a Diku. Although numberless interfaces are not at all uncommon, DartMUD pioneered the concept in '91. All areas are original, there are no stock areas anywhere in the Mud. Dartmud originated the 'craft' system. In all probability the move to delete was started by one or more players recently banned for cheating (apropos any number of recent threads at the dartmud forum http://www.surfon.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=2 where the banned players have been causing any amount of trouble). With regards to the limited returns from a Google search, this is a result of an in-game policy which dissallows dissemination of information which can be obtained in-character through other means. DartMUD has a long history, has influenced the development of nearly every mud currently existing, and all of the commercial MMOGs currently running from Everquest to WoW. The DartMUD article certainly needs to be expanded such that it reflects the importance of DartMUD and its shaping of online gaming, but it is certainly noteworthy in any discussion of persistent online games.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 10:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DIY-Dragon

Webcomic that only started two and a half weeks ago. Far too new to qualify listing by anyone's standards. Possible vanity and self-promotion by the looks of it. --Paul Soth 21:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, delete. A webcomic would be notable if it was running regularly for over a year. Radiant! 22:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page creator seems to have significant Wikipresence (although with anon IPs, it's hard to say for sure), so I don't think it's a vanity page; but web comic which has only been running for a couple of weeks is definitely jumping the gun in getting an article. If it were a new project by a notable creator (say, Jeff Rowland's new Magical Adventures in Space comic, for instance), then, perhaps; but this pretty clearly isn't. As they say in Chicago, Wait 'Till Next Year. --Ray Radlein 23:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too new. Does not meet Web comics criteria for inclusion. — Gwalla | Talk 01:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:28, 25 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.

Three halves

Non notable number. Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers doesn't feel this article should exist. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Three halves? for discussion. I'm indifferent; no vote personally. dbenbenn | talk 22:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is just a silly joke. There are pages on numbers only if they have special properties, and the term 'three halves' isn't notable slang afaik. Radiant! 22:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-direct to Sesquialterum, an article already talking about the number in detail. Georgia guy 22:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Or, move Sesquialterum to three halves which will be slightly more familiar to many people. "three halves" is a very common expression in sport, might be worth mentioning too. Kappa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to sesquialterum. Discuss the best name for the merged article at talk:three halves or talk:sesquialterum. Andrewa 03:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sesquialterum, although I would guess that not many will know what "sesquialterum" means. What happened to the good old "One and a half"? Does not really matter if there are good enough redirects though. 129.177.61.123 10:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sesquialterum. Megan1967 07:23, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Guido Grandi

This appears to be patent nonsense, however a google search does find a professor Guido Grandi returning approximately 150 matches. [28] Is this figure actually notable and worthy of inclusion? GRider\talk 22:17, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gjovalin Shkurtaj

Is this vanity, nonsense, or a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia library? Could any conceivable article on this individual potentially benefit our readers? If so, how? GRider\talk 22:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • From the google results, he's a professor at the Linguistics department of the University of Tirana. Since someone made this page to attack his views, I would assume he's influential and therefore notable. I think leaving it with the NPOV tag is the best way to get an article on him, but the current content isn't much to work with, so no vote. Kappa 22:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - less than 160 Google hits. Megan1967 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - NPOV trauma victim, unexpandable, unencyclopedic, and otherwise unnotable. I know absolutely nothing about this subject area, but the contributing user may want to consider writing a stub about Ghegh since clearly this is a hot-button issue somewhere, even if to a small subset of people. BenSamples 04:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Concur with the NPOV, delete. Radiant! 13:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count ten keeps, two merges, nine deletes, two ambiguous, and an abstention. Contributors are reminded to explain their reasoning, even if they think it obvious. Absent a consensus to delete, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 15:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Thompson

This article stub reads: "Michael Thompson is a Toronto city councillor. [...] He has a BA in Economics from Concordia University." 400 google hits. [29] Does being a councillor in a city the size of Toronto (pop. 2.5mil) make one inherently notable and worthy of inclusion Wikipedia? GRider\talk 22:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • On general principles, yes. It'd be nice if there could be some expansion. Keep Lacrimosus 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go with delete. Mayors of major cities are notable, but not everyone on any governing council. I suppose we'll have the city councillors for Glenville, New York too? Even if this article is expanded it'd likely be mundane boring information about how many kids he has and where he grew up. Maybe throw him onto a list of some sort, like with Chicago aldermen. -R. fiend 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Second that motion. Delete as per R.Fiend. Radiant! 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Er, that's a bit of a specious comparison. Toronto is a city of three million people; Glenville has thirty thousand. Several of its streets are notable enough for articles (Yonge Street, for instance). That said, I do believe that city councillors need to have something besides their office to give them notability. Involvement in major policy or controversy, extremely long service, etc. Delete. (unsigned by TenOfAllTrades [30])
      • I realize it's not a perfect comparison; my point was where do you draw the line? At least with mayors you can make a pretty good claim that major city mayors are notable outside of their cities, certianly Guilliani, Bloomberg, Barry, Daly, etc. are, and you can argue that if a mayor isn't known outside his vicinity then he shouldn't have his own article. But councillors are never known outside of their city (perhaps there are a few exceptions), so we can't use the same criterion, or, if we do then we don't include any, which is I guess what I'm proposing. Maybe put them on a list. -R. fiend 17:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, large-city councillors are notable. Meelar (talk) 02:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but this raises an interesting issue. Where do we find the bottom line as far as city size goes for something like this to descend into unnotability? BenSamples 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is arbitrary, of course, but how about this: if the city itself warrants more than one article, then the major may be notable enough to get his own. If not, mention him on the city page (unless he is notable for some other reason). Radiant! 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to a list. There's nothing interesting here but the fact he's on the council for ward 3. Make a list under a government of Toronto article. Then, any councillors actually notable for something more can have articles wikilinked from there. Wolfman 05:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed (although I should point out that his article is linked from just such a list at Toronto City Council). Linking to such a list seems to be a standard part of Canadian provincial capital's info boxes. Most, like Edmonton City Council, have the sense to not automatically link all the names. For an encyclopedia intended to cover the entire universe for all of time, people who spent a few years as a city councillor/councilperson I believe are not inherently notable. Niteowlneils 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 20:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- SimonP 22:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Councillors are worthy of aticles. Earl Andrew 23:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Toronto councillors play a significant role in Canadian politics. CJCurrie 00:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've created a Toronto community at Wikicities. If the general consensus on city councillors is that they're not notable enough for Wikipedia, then advise me before any change is made so I can transwiki. Note precedent may be set by Chicago aldermen also currently under VfD. Bearcat 01:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete it. --Andylkl 11:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment City councillors are not worthy articles if they do not establish notability. Did he do anything notable? If not, I go with delete (Imagine if I coulda create articles for each city counsillor in Canada...) Ana Jessica 16:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless he has done something over and above serving in local politics. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. &mdash Linnwood 07:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Let's give this one a chance to grow. Thompson is an up-and-coming guy. Likely to be around for a while and do bigger things.Kevintoronto 23:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. City councillors are notable enough, especially for large cities. --Deathphoenix 04:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 10:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ty Janzen

It was speedy delete, but it doesn't fall into that category. I propose delete because it's vanity and unencyclopedic. Enochlau 22:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I placed it for speedy because it seemed to be basic nonsense to me. However, I agree, and thus vote for deletion. -- Cabhan 03:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ty who? BenSamples 04:46, 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Carol Harris-Shapiro

Does the value which this article may potentially provide our readers outweigh the costs of hosting this document on Wikipedia servers? This individual turns up 206 unique matches on google (scroll to page 21). [31] What must a Reconstructionist rabbi accomplish in order to be "notable enough" for inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\talk 22:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain, but I did delete the pov header since there is no discussion on the Talk page. I also changed the language about linkage, since that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. RickK 23:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 162 Google hits. Megan1967 00:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her book is regarded by most interested in Messianic Judaism as highly significant, although some deny this so vigorously that they prove the very point they wish to deny! Amazon has some reviews, and 18 new and used copies in stock so someone must expect them to sell. Andrewa 01:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her book appears to be well-reviewed and well-viewed on Amazon. My answer to your question is that I'm of the belief that being a Reconstructionist rabbi who writes a decently popular book might be enough. BenSamples 04:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Jewish theologian. Capitalistroadster 11:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While she is not a noted Jewish theologian as such, her book on messianic Judaism has been widely discussed (and rejected) in the Jewish community. I have rewritten the article to add some details and perspective, and have added a bibliography. RK 16:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This person is not notable as either Jewish or as a theologian. Simply a person pushing a view that they are not even a part of, and have little say over. If she were a messianic Rabbi, it would be another story. SF2K1 14:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Feb27 Keep the page- she is a noted author and up and coming new voice. Even if one does notlike what she says.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normal Bob Smith

Vanity(?) Dunc|☺ 22:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 100 percent vanity and self-promotion. I guess he forgot to mention how he became the center of controversy. Zzyzx11 00:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Did the article that linked to say the "controversy" was a single complaint? A few thousand more and "Dress-Up Jesus" might be notable, but even that doesn't necessarily make the creator of it notable. -R. fiend 00:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The article did not specify how many complained. It only said "some". But it just seems like a local Philadelphia area news story. I never heard of him before here on the West Coast. Zzyzx11 01:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Notoriety = notability. Megan1967 07:19, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 15:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Donna Upson

If you fail in your run for office as the mayor of Ottawa, receive campaign contributions from the KKK and get arrested for breach of probation, are you then notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? In this particular instance, is the sum greater than its parts? Where do you draw the line and how? GRider\talk 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Nah, had she been, say, a labour/social democratic (or whatever they call that in Canada) politician, receiving campaign contributions from the KKK would have made her notable, but if she is a Nazi, I don't see how it could. I'd be willing to hear Canadians on this one though. / u p p l a n d 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Just passes notability for me. Megan1967 00:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a fairly minor candidate. If she's not from a major party/doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning, not notable--delete. Meelar (talk) 02:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As I have said, running for mayor of Ottawa is notable in its own right, add the fact that she created quite a lot of controversy. There are lesser candidates for other elections who were spared deletion, I don't see why she has to be. Earl Andrew 03:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh! Sounds like an attack page. Is this verified? Considering that any citizen can run for mayor, I don't see how that is notable in its own right. However if she was a major news item, then that would be notable. Abstain. Radiant! 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is quite notable. Wanted in several places for crimes, and ran for Mayor of Ottawa. She made quite the headlines. --Spinboy 18:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are we running out of space here? Is his article tkaing up real estate that could be used for something else? Of course not. If there can be bunches of pages dedicated to computers and fantasy games, surely there can be pages dedicated to political also-rans, especially those who are notorious by virtue of their despicable views. It kind of sounds like "I'm not from Ottawa, so this is not important to me, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." Kevintoronto 19:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 365 hits, and some of those are for a guitar teacher in Philly. Couldn't find verification of being 'wanted' other than WP mirrors. I could file in the next election for mayor in either of the cities where I have apartments; would that make me inherently notable? I don't think so. I've even been arrested four times, spent close to a week combined in jail, and lived with a warrant out for my arrest for months. Still doesn't make me notable. Stupid, maybe, but not notable. Oh, and given that there is now a $75,000 fundraising drive, shortly after a $50,000 drive, I'd say yes, 'running out of space' is an issue. Niteowlneils 19:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article provides evidence that Canada is not free of racism. It also helps to show that racism does not have popular support. So, I believe it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. -- James Teterenko (talk) 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia policy is clear that prominent local candidates (even those on the political fringe) qualify for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Being an alleged criminal is not sufficient. Being a failed candidate for local office is not sufficient. Being both at the same time is, unfortunately, not uncommon enough to be notable either. Certainly does not pass the "100 year" test. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough to have her arrest in Atlantic Canada and subsequent run for mayor in Ottawa covered by the national media.AndyL 06:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I hasten to point out mayoral candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates; they need to have some additional criteria of notability. Upson did receive national media coverage in Canada for both her criminal charges and her links to the KKK and the Nationalist Party of Canada, so IMO she qualifies. It's the national media coverage that makes the difference for me, though; there have been other controversial Canadian mayoral candidates whom I wouldn't support articles for, due to their strictly local notoriety. Bearcat 07:01, 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 09:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Monroe_Mafia

pointless little high school clique that existed several years ago in one tiny high school out in the arse end of nowhere. Sorry, I'm grumpy 'cause I haven't had supper. But still. DS 23:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ellsworth 23:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even worth WP:BJAODN, either. r3m0t 23:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In a small town like Monroeville, I cannot see how a group like this can quickly get notable. Zzyzx11 00:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come back when you've shot up your school. -R. fiend 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, schoolkid vanity. Megan1967 00:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or should I say, "whack it?" - Lucky 6.9 01:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. And, for the record, that was absolutely the worst-taste joke I've heard all day. And it still made me giggle. BenSamples 04:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! Glad to be of help. - Lucky 6.9 23:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rub out'. Facinating but not noteworthy enough. --Theaterfreak64 02:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Ana Jessica 06:37, 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 10:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advertising/subsubstub. Ellsworth 23:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks to me like an ad unless I see some evidence to the contrary. Zzyzx11 23:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Delete Brookie 15:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 07:12, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 16:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ike Awgu

Does hosting a politics-oriented television show on a Canadian cable-network equivalent of C-SPAN establish notability? How about running for mayor and receiving 2.92% of the voters support? What if you're doing both of these things while currently enrolled as a student at Carleton University? Do these three things combined amount to being "notable enough" for inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\talk 23:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, media personality + a run for public office = justified entry, Padraic 25 Fed 2005
  • Keep, Wikipedia should be the first to feature someone who has already done so much at so young an age and is sure to rise to national prominence in due course. prowsej 05:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 01:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is also a columnist for the Ottawa Sun. I think it is foolish to even consider deleting this article. Running for the mayor of the capital city of Canada is certainly important in its own right! So is hosting a television show for that matter. Earl Andrew 03:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Megan. Running for mayor is not notable as anyone can do that. Hosting a TV show is only notable if the TV show itself is notable. Radiant! 12:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has done a few notable things, and is likely to be around for quite a while. Are we running out of space here? Is his article taking up real estate that could be used for something else? Of course not. If there can be bunches of pages dedicated to computers and fantasy games, surely there can be pages dedicated to political also-rans and media personalities, and especially to people who are both. Kevintoronto 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 18:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep. His accomplishments are somewhat notable given his age. -- James Teterenko (talk) 19:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. A young candidate for local election who lost. He's still several years older than the Ohio kid who ran for local mayor and won (and who also doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article though it did make a good news article). Rossami (talk) 04:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's certainly in need of improvement, but I can envision a scenario where people would come to Wikipedia looking for information about the subject.Fernando Rizo 04:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I hasten to point out mayoral candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates; they need to have some additional criteria of notability. Hosting a television show with national exposure across Canada qualifies. Bearcat 06:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily falls within the bounds of notability. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:18, 25 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kenya (movie)

Not notable. A Flash movie from Jonti Picking but less famous than Weebl and Bob or Magical Trevor. r3m0t 23:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I don't care for flash movies but I've heard of this one in multiple places. --SPUI (talk) 03:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic and on par with the other articles on internet phenomenon. --Andylkl 19:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Half keep. —RaD Man (talk) 11:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Am I allowed to change my old vote? Is so, I change it to Merge and redirect --DooMDrat 13:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with ... something ... and redirect - unless an article on Jonti hits 32K, there's no earthly reason for an article on each Weebl's Stuff video - David Gerard 23:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jonti Picking, which is too short to justify splitting out stub articles on his individual works. — Gwalla | Talk 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as above. Kappa 22:31, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scampi (movie)

Not notable. Another sweet little movie from Jonti Picking. This one was surely a quickie since the audio wasn't synced precisely. r3m0t 23:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not enough info to justify merging into Picking's bio. — Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 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. —Korath (Talk) 14:45, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Caroline Caddy

This individual picks up 96 unique hits on google (see page 10). [32] Does this stub regarding a poet who won the "1990 Western Australian Week Literary Award for poetry" establish enough notability for inclusion? In this case, what is the criteria for notability amongst poets? GRider\talk 23:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • keep minor, but still award-winning poet. (don't forget the 1991 and 1992 National Book Council awards) why delete? this doesn't appear to be a vanity or self-promotional article. i think it's great that wikipedia is comprehensive enough to cover lesser-known poets. Wolfman 01:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of these "about 140" (when I cliched the search) seem fairly reputable. I know with my additions to Wikipedia, a lot of information and people have been pretty much nonexistant on the web but I've been able to find about them in books. The internet (and therefore google) currently seem to fall short in a few notable areas that a standard library could easily find. An Australian library may have more information on this person. While I have no way to knowing that much for sure, the google links suggest that she is at least as notable as our lower threshold of articles. (Even if there aren't fanpages about her,etc.) --Sketchee 02:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to a database search, a few of her poems appeared in Poetry, the leading journal of its type in English. That added to the info in the article is enough for me. Gamaliel 07:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Australian, repeatedly aclaimed both in Australia and overseas. Another example of why Google may be useful in establishing that something is notable but is nearly useless for proving something isn't. Andrewa 09:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nationally recognised Australian poet who has written a number of poetry books. Capitalistroadster 11:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The World Is A Very Big Place - David Gerard 23:53, 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 09:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Ripper

Non-existant high school radio program (scheduled to premiere on February 18). RickK 23:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is not a high school radio program anymore. It's still there, just under the wing of Ryan and Keith. You obviously can't read. And it's already premiered, moron. No on deletion. IT CLEARLY SAYS: the next "Nickell and Howard Show" to air IN THE WAKE OF THE DEATH OF DOGHOUSE RADIO will premiere on February 18th, 2005. Of course it's not existant, he cancelled it. It's now called THE RIPPER, and IS NOT a high school program anymore. READ THE LINES!!!
    • The above by LoyalMDOFan, creator and sole editor of the article. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and allow for organic deletion. GRider\talk 00:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity, non-notable. And that would be organic decomposition, no? —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Consider blocking user for that above rant. Oh, and take it from someone who works in radio: An audience of five hundred people is pretty thin. - Lucky 6.9 01:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletre. "The Ripper will only continue to grow, and, in time, everyone will know its name." Yeah, but it is not notable now. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 01:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, web radio vanity. Megan1967 02:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We had a pretty good audience for a debut. We didn't really promote it. Fine. Delete it. What's the big deal? It's an actual station.

  • The above by User:LoyalMDOFan. That pretty well shows this is vanity. RickK 05:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV first-hand account of some goings on surrounding the birth of a not (perhaps not yet but still not) notable internet project. No useful content, no evidence it's encyclopedic or ever will be. Andrewa 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jack the Ripper, no merge. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Redirect. Radiant! 13:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 03:37, 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 DELETE. jni 10:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lekh Ram

This page contains very little biographical information about the person being written about. Instead, it reads more like hate literature denouncing the person without providing a good counter-view. In addition, the quality of the writing is very poor. Qwertyca 00:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was listed as a copyvio on 15 February. The author has has simply removed the copyvio notice. They have an interesting edit history and an even better user talk page. No vote as yet. Andrewa 06:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Brookie 15:20, 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 keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verstehen

This is not a good definition.


Dictdef. Incorrect pronunciation, as well. RickK 00:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote. The article needs some assistance, clearly, but, if we remove this, would we have to remove articles like verboten too? BenSamples 05:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Scratch that. Delete, and I'm marking verboten for VfD as well. BenSamples 05:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete, but leave verboten alone—it's been long-adopted into collequial English. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • But how is verboten more than a dictdef? (I put it up for VFD already so you might want to see the discussion there.) BenSamples 07:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So is this about verboten or verstehen? Why do you compare the two words, which have nothing whatsoever in common?

Please reconsider your wish to have Verstehen deleted. It is used in the article on Max Weber, but it has also been on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences as well as Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy. The word also crops up in two lists, List of sociology topics and List of criminology topics.

In other words, first someone thinks we need an article on that term, then someone else decides to have a go at it and writes a stub. Finally, you come along and want to have it deleted again. But the word is still on the Requested Articles list. And what exactly is it that is not legitimate about a stub? Keep. <KF> 00:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand significantly!!! Verstehen is a fundamental component of a significant branch of sociology. See, e.g., [33] --BD2412 00:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I added a little to it - definitely enough to take it out of the realm of mere definitions, but it does need more. --BD2412 02:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, proper article. Grue 12:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but I think it would be more like "fair stay-un". Kappa 22:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:06, 25 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 09:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Future of Indian stars

We're doing predictions now? RickK 00:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Can't this be speedied? In any case, delete, and we have more than enough WP:BJAODN already, but it can be added if somebody wants. r3m0t 00:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, following bollywood publications, this article seems like a good guess about the near furture of various movie stars. Nevertheless, WP ain't the place for this. Qwertyca 01:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That is what my fortune teller predicted would become of this entry after looking at her tarot cards. Zzyzx11 01:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 02:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally inappropriate. --Oarias 02:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Mustafaa 03:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did find it funny however that someone is trying to predict the future of the stars. Usually they try to predict their own futures from the stars. -- Brhaspati 05:20, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 12:41, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_17&oldid=1142647987"