Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 8

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 19:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Student newspapers are not inherently notable, and the article fails to establish notability for this one. Uncle G 00:31, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• Keep Cambridge is quite a well known university. I will categorise the articlePhilip 01:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC). Never heard of it - where is it ? Brookie 19:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily notable. Samaritan 01:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: expanded to include claims of notability from their website. Kappa 01:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree that not all student newspapers are notable, but come on... this isn't Podunk Township Middle School we're talking about here. Well above the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • That the university is notable does not automatically make its student unions, buildings, newspapers, academic staff, catering services, or groundskeepers notable. The worthiness of the newspaper has to be considered on its own merits. The circulation figure is one such datum. But I'm not quite persuaded by it. The (equally) free local newspaper that comes unsolicited through through my door every Thursday, and that I throw directly into the recycling bin, boasts an uncombined readership of 42000, nearly three times that of The Cambridge Student, and it too sports interviews with prominent political figures, campaigns on public issues, coverage of national news, features, and reviews. I'm not persuaded that it is notable on those grounds, so I'm not persuaded that The Cambridge Student is notable on solely the same grounds, especially given the pretty much identical distribution and funding mechanisms. Persuade me either that The Cambridge Student is somehow different to my local free newspaper, or that my local free newspaper is notable. ☺ Uncle G 06:18, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • This paper will almost certainly contain contributions from numberous students who go on to become national figures in many fields. It is likely to be a leading training ground for distinguished colummnists and editors. But your local paper should also have an article. I can't understand why some people want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a comprehensive guide to the world. Philip 18:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Student newspapers are frequently notable. This one certainly is. --Centauri 03:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make everyone read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep no less. —RaD Man (talk) 08:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but its not as good as Varsity Fuzz 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Student newspapers aren't inherently notable, but the main student newspaper at Cambridge University probably is, and indeed it has a Wikipedia article: Varsity (newspaper). However, this isn't that paper. This article is about the free weekly put out by the Student Union at Cambridge for the last five years or so. I wonder if the people voting Keep even bothered to read the article. Notability not established. --BM 14:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • *GASP* I'm shocked. —RaD Man (talk) 21:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Both the Varsity and TCS are free, and are both "main newspapers" in Cam although Varsity does have a longer history and is more notable, I believe the TCS is still notable enough for inclusion Fuzz 14:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It's a good start for an article. --Neigel von Teighen 14:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Student newspapers do derive some of their notability from the notability of the university they're associated with, by virtue of the fact that the papers derive some of their capability to cover a wide range of things and their circulation from that association. Varsity (newspaper) is probably more deserving of an article in general, but that doesn't mean that this one is not. If the 15,000 circ. figure cited in this article is correct, that makes it a pretty good-sized student newspaper. (I worked many years for my college newspaper, UT's The Daily Texan, the largest student newspaper in the US with a daily circ. of approximately 30,000.) Katefan0 16:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 17:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, campus newspapers aren't inherently encyclopedic, this one is. Wyss 20:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Cambridge University Students' Union. No more notable than the student newspaper I once wrote for - in fact, probably less so since this isn't even the dominant student newspaper for the university. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. --JuntungWu 18:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it.. This is prime wikipedia material (of course if people want it improved - then improve it! max rspct 21:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not? Student newspapers at sufficiently notable universities are notable. - Mustafaa 22:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Mustafaa. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep. Agree with Mustafaa. Bart133 (t) 21:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all of the various student unions, organizations and cruft at cambridge into one keeper article. They don't ~really~ merit standing alone, but may figure in future biographies as starting places of others. Not to mention may aid in research about someone going to that school. --Dbroadwell 19:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Joyous 00:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article is not bad in itself but it's a recipe so it should really be in the WikiCookbook -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:50, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• {{recipe}} is the correct tag for that, not {{subst:vfd}}. Uncle G 02:10, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• transwiki since recipes are one of the few things specifically and expressly out-of-bounds for WP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki or delete. Megan1967 07:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki it. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, it's a recipe. Wyss 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki - send for Fanny Cradock ! Brookie 19:18, 13 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. Rje 05:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone who gets a black belt at a young age isn't sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Delete.-gadfium 01:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "Wtf black belts?" Uh... indeed! Congratulations, but delete. Samaritan 01:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a fairly impressive achievement, but not an encyclopedic one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. How many 10-year-old black belt owners do you know? I think his young age makes this sufficiently notable. I would like to see this expanded so it's clear which sport he got it for and it should be edited for spelling and such. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it were true, how can we verify it? RickK 07:46, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's not a world record, Delete unless it has a place in the articles on karate or martial arts. --Dbroadwell
• Delete Vanity. JimmyShelter 09:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've now formatted and rephrased the article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Comment: I don't know much about martial arts, so I may be wrong, but at least in some of them there is a "junior" set of belts for children, with anyone attaining a black belt as a child having to begin from the bottom again when he reaches the adult class. Not that it would be much of a problem, I suppose, if he keeps up his training. But many don't, so a black belt may not mean that much at that age. / up+land 09:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I seem to hear of young people getting black belts all the time. There was one on TV just the other night in karate, probably about the same age; it was in the U.S., so it wasn't the same boy. I don't think black belt recipients are notable, even the "youngest Romanian black belt in some unspecified martial art". But my real problem with this article is that the information in it is unverifiable as it currently stands. It could also be vanity. --BM 14:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, standard vanity, lots of kids have impressive personal accomplishments. Wyss 20:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. GeneralPatton 01:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - after a long wiki-day voting against rubbish - we get this ! Honestly! Brookie 19:20, 13 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. dbenbenn | talk 19:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, what is "genuinely free media" without genuinely free advertising and Google page rank manipulation, courtesy of Wikipedia and its mirrors? Uncle G 01:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

________________________

But how can you include entries for some similar webpages, like Daily Kos and Atrios and disallow others? - Carlo

Please sign your comments, User:64.12.116.203. Thanks. Joyous 01:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia tries to include webpages which are important, or at least popular. This article has no evidence of either. Kappa 03:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nawab, which mentions the actual origin of the phrase "nattering nabob." Joyous 01:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nawab. Barno 01:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nawab, otherwise Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to nawab. Samaritan 04:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, I think a redirect should go to Spiro Agnew, he who actually coined the specific phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity". Or go ahead and redirect to nawab, but credit Agnew in there as the source of that phrase. "Nawab", as written, just mentions the source of the word "nabob", and "nattering nabobs of negativity" is an example of the word in use; the article doesn't claim "nawab" is the actual source of the phrase "nattering nabobs". Bearcat 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As it now does thanks to Bearcat, so I'm creating nattering nabobs of negativity (and the singular) as redirects to nawab, and adding a wikilink at Spiro Agnew for good measure. Samaritan 14:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ...and now I realize his original use was nattering nabobs of negativism. Anyway, all are taken care of now! Samaritan 14:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability, blog advertisement. Megan1967 07:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity" was used by Spiro Agnew, but his speechwriter, William Safire, actually coined the phrase. - Frank P.

• Delete, blog ad, borderline spam (author may have misunderstood WP's article guidelines). Wyss 20:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Actually, I LIKE this blog - I may keep reading it - but it shouldn't be an entry. - Peachallie

• Delete -the "Nattering Buffoon" would be better name- a vanity puff from a nonabee. Brookie 19:25, 13 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 19:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is an advertisement and is neither notable (4 Google hits [1]) nor encyclopediac. The external link is in Russian Macedonian.
  Carrp | Talk 01:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It's not an advertisement because we're non-profit organization. What do I advertise? The external link is in Macedonian.

User:Eclipse-vvrg 01:51, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:28, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

• (there is a notice that it is in Macedonian. Any problems w/ that?)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 01:58, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

• (if this is an advertistment, then what BMW Z4 (for example) is??) (you offend me!)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:05, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

• (UCK is terroristic organization and it is encyclopediac!??)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:15, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

• oh I thought you were searching yahoo. sorry! :)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:18, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

• Comment User:Eclipse-vvrg, the author, has been vandalising this page. I've put it down to unfamiliarity with talk page etiquette, left a note on the user's talk page, and refactored the comments.

Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-interested publicity relating to a non-notable organisation HowardB 05:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If terroristic organisations like UCK can have page in wikipedia, why we could not? I don't know. Can you please tell me what's my point of "advertising" here?
  

Delete if you want to do it so much.
User:Eclipse-vvrg 08:53, 8 Feb 2005 (CET)

• Delete Except if it gets rewritten in a encyclopedian manner, like without the word 'we'. JimmyShelter 09:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Local concerns of a small group, not encyclopedic. jni 13:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article was rewritten in a encyclopedian manner, without the word 'we' Eclipse-vvrg 20:08, 8 Feb 2005 CET

• There's still the issue of notability. 4 hits on Google is pretty non-notable in my opinion. Carrp | Talk 19:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, press release. Wyss 20:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable - kaal 01:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please!! DELETE! Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Eclipse-vvrg 11:46, 10 Feb 2005 (CET) OK s- let's not throw our toys from the pram and then disappear as a User! Brookie 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - shallow nonsense of no merit and written badly! Brookie 19:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --- Hey, admins of Wikipedia?! Are you online? Listen to me really carefully.

Your user (Eclipse-vvrg) is trying to enhance Wikipedia project, to spread the word to the whole planet, that there on the Earth is one non-profit organization called V.V.R.G.. Like they said ... " V.V.R.G. ... devoted in education and aiming the youth to the genuine social, cultural and intelectual values and principles". They are good example for their environment. Someone will see their info at Wikipedia, and maybe this will stoke this viewers/readers to found similiar organization, to activate their young friends, to start some projects for the good of their community. Maybe V.V.R.G. and this new organization will have some together projects from which the whole and the only benefit will see our mother Earth, our global network, your local community Mr. Admin, your children Mr. Carrp (or Mr. Crap, I'm sorry but can't see too clear your name without my glasses),... Or, maybe Wikipedia is oriented to promote bad things, to encourage wars in the future? It must be that I missed that when I became a member of this community.

Try to read between the lines Mr. Admin. Aren't this "DELETE bunch" just a friends of Mr.Carrp? Or,.. maybe Mr. Carrp is an admin itself? God save Wikipedia if this is true! There are lot of intriguers all around. They just want to put their hands in every dish. Get your hands of V.V.R.G.! They are not English people, they are Macedonians, but however they want to spread their ideas to the world. They spread their ideas in English, the language that is not their native one. This is not a plus for them, to their contribution to Wikipedia?! They are not all so English-perfect like Mr. Carrp, but 99% they are. Let me see few sentences from some of this "DELETE buch" to write in Macedonian (the sentences can be no perfect, I will take them as correct). V.V.R.G. want their ideas/projects to be understandable for the bigger part of the earth's citizens, so are you have some problem with that?!

And what about Google? I think this is another project than Google Mr. Whatever! Are you an employee in Google Ltd? Aren't you promoting online search engine of a PROFIT ORGANIZATION here?! Is Wikipedia prohibiting new terms to be presented, other that Mr. Whatever, Mr. Howee Bee, Miss Broke E. knows ?! Greenpeace was BIG/notable organization from the first moments (seconds is better term) of it founding?! Hah! V.V.R.G. is not notable?! So?! From when Google DOT COM is relevant factor to present some new term to Wikipedia?! Say "power to the big companies, smash the new non-profit organizations". That's your silent words "DELETE bunch"! I can smell that, and my respiration tract is clear as summer sky in Vratnica, Macedonia, believe me.

People, take the information (if you want it) and go further. This article about V.V.R.G. is just a plus for Wikipedia, not a minus. However, if my words wasn't enough to convince you to keep the article - then simply delete it. And don't put this kind of "voting pages" in future. Simply push the button (DELETE of course, not the one from the Chemical Brother's song "Galvanize" :) ). For sure You got the power (not that of "Snap", but however you got it). Another :) .

I'll monitor this page to see what will be the conclusion of the Wikipedia Crew. Just for info (nothing more, I swear): if V.V.R.G. 's page will be deleted, Wikipedia's links at few of my web sites will be not there anymore. I don't want to support someone who don't want to present earth's "things" to the human kind (V.V.R.G. don't ask to link back, they just point to their own web site to inform the world about their news/realized/and new projects in future - A NON-PROFIT WEB SITE, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION; I don't ask to link me back neither, I am your user and I am enhancing O-U-R project ... Wikipedia).

V.V.R.G. (Vratnica Virtual Reality Group) will continue to exist whether it is on Wikipedia (DOT ORG?,.. Hmm?) or not.

Peace! DeeJay 16:36, 14 Feb 2005 CET

• Comment:That's quite the message. I know how I'd like to respond, however I'm a calm and reasonable person that has great respect for the policy of don't bit the newbies:

I have nothing against the V.V.R.G. organization. When I posted a VfD on the VVRG article, I was only stating my opinion on the article, not the organization. I'm sure it's a wonderful organization, but it does lack notability. When a user believes that an article's subject is non-notable, they may choose to post a Vote for Deletion. This gives other members of the Wikipedia community a chance to express their opinions on whether the article should be included or removed from the encyclopedia. If it turns out that the subject is notable, the article is kept. It's a very common process and as you can see from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, there are many other articles nominated for deletion. From the voting thus far, other users seem to agree that VVRG is not yet notable enough for inclusion. I wish you happy editing, although I do suggest you try to observe the guideline of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 17:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: --- Yes, Mr. Carrp you just noticed that there are newbies at Wikipedia, so give them support. They'll return to all of us with some new articles/stories for the things we don't even know they exited. And by the way I am not making any personal attack at Wikipedia users, that's my style of writing. No offense word was used in my "Support the V.V.R.G." article. They are all in function of my support to V.V.R.G. (to present better my viewpoint for this "case"). There is present "playing with the words thing", but that doesn't mean that I am attacking someone. Have a nice day/night! DeeJay 20:00, 14 Feb 2005 CET

I fully support the newbies of Wikipedia, after all, everyone here was once a newbie (except perhaps Jimbo). This support does not extend to letting newbies add any page they wish. This is an encyclopedia and there's standards that an article must meet. When a user believes an article doesn't meet these standards, procedures such as this VfD come into play.

As for the "no personal attacks" comment, I was referring to when you wrote "...Mr. Carrp (or Mr. Crap...". Now, I wasn't very offended, but some people would have been. Insults don't help you to "present better my viewpoint for this 'case'". I do hope you enjoy editing here at Wikipedia and wish you the best. Carrp | Talk 19:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: --- I am not an expert in English language, but in colloquial way (language) 'Crap' means 'whatever thing/things, anyone,...' (besides the bad meanings, that for sure I was not alluding to). In my sentence Mr. Crap means Mr. Whatever, like you can see in the rest of the comment. Happy Valentine (holiday in Catholic church) & St. Trifun (in Orthodox)! DeeJay 00:45, 15 Feb 2005 CET

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

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

• Delete. This is the fake name that a movie character assumes for a few scenes in the movie Analyze This. I wouldn't even vouch that it's spelled correctly. I don't think it's even worth a redirect. Joyous 01:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Carrp | Talk 01:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt even the people who claim notability isn't a reason for deletion would be sad to see this one go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit from a web dictionary. Megan1967 07:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable by a long shot. JimmyShelter 09:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The correct spelling is Sobeleone anyway, with which one finds a full five Google hits. (Please don't take this as an invitation to create that article.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft. Wyss 20:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete um....because everyone else says so??????
• Delete pointless. Christopher Welsh 04:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 19:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A vanity page which the subject helpfully signed for us. No evidence that xe meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, of course. Uncle G 01:58, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• Keep actually, due to his association with Sens Unik, he meets a lot of those guidelines, at least the first seven. Admit this is a clumsy attempt at an article, but he's a fairly notable ex-member of a VERY notable group! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Starblind is right; Sens Unik even have a fairly detailed article already, and it does mention Rade. Google also confirms. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 06:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if he wrote that article, evidenced by the signoff, then its vanity. Wikipedia frowns on autobiographies. Outside of Sens Unik, he hasn't done anything notable. Megan1967 07:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten the article adding information about his career and taken off the signature. However, in doing so, I have discovered that our article on Sens Unik is an almost direct copy of this article. 1. I will report it as a copyright violation now. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not copyvio as that article is credited to Wikipedia and GNU license at the bottom of the web page :) Fuzz 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Could be vanity, but the rewrite is good. JimmyShelter 09:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to rewrite, though I'm not sure we are all looking forward to the solo album he will record in 1995 Fuzz 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wellspotted Fuzz. have corrected the typo. Capitalistroadster 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm likewise suspicious of the "started off in 1998" date. Evidence and references supplied. However, I'd still like to see things like, say, the man's actual name (compare Scooter). Moreover, the Sens Unik discography belongs in Sens Unik (and is already there). Rade should tell us "Rade appears on Sens Unik's albums X, Y, and Z.", and only go into details of release dates and hit songs if they are relevant to Rade specifically (such as if he wrote them, for example). Keep and send to Cleanup for removal of duplicated information. Uncle G 17:33, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Keep. Capitalistroadster's attentions should be an official reason to pull articles off vfd. :) Samaritan 15:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sens Unik. As usual Cr's rewrite is a great improvement, but in this case I don't think there is a need to have the same information twice, unless there is some notabile information about this musician which doesn't make sense to mention in the article about the group, such as a released solo album. --BM 15:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 20:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in tact with corrections by Capitalistroadster. Do not redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 21:39, 9 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 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a neologism. :) - RedWordSmith 01:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. Wikipedia is neologiphobic. What a shame. Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 02:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If I vote to delete it, does that mean I have it? I just did. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Neologiphobi... cruft? Samaritan 05:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I think someone's bitter. Delete, but do it for being "anti-Wikipedia POV" rather than "neologism". Bearcat 06:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing personal, it's just that I fear the unfamiliar. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The word frightens me. JimmyShelter 09:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But honestly: not bad Lectonar 10:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense as mildly amusing Fuzz 13:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, heh heh. Rant. Wyss 20:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 06:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikinonsense. ElBenevolente 07:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with slight laughter. Neologism! -Idont Havaname 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, move to jokes and deleted nonsense -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 00:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity, and not well-written vanity at that. EvilOverlordX 17:01, 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:

• 07:17, 2005 Feb 18 Jni deleted Hardmob (Vandal sandbox, see its VfD entry for further discussion)

Page has no useful content... and looking back through all its edits, none of them appear to be very much better. Talk page also looks like a sandbox. -Goldom 02:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as joke/attack page. It's actually a Brazillian video-games forum, if anybody cares. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, delete.HowardB 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible prank/joke. Megan1967 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete (the guy is creating this insistingly also in wiki.pt) muriel@pt 00:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I speedy deleted it as a vandal sandbox. Every revision was either a CSD #3 (General class) or a CSD #1 (Article class) case. Given that also this VfD-page was (successfully) vandalized, there is not much point in voting any more. Move along, move along... jni 07:17, 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. It was apparently merged. dbenbenn | talk 19:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is useful/notable...it's just a curriculum for a class at some college. Adam Bishop 02:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you'd followed the links, you'd know that this is not merely part of a class curriculum, but is part of St. John's College, Santa Fe's Great Books Program. Certainly as notable as say, a TV show episode list. --Calton 04:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Are we going to list every college's curricula? This is not encyclopedic. Delete. RickK 06:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, more than just some college's curriculum. Click on either St. John's College, Santa Fe or Great Books and see. Maybe you'll decide it's still not noteworthy, but at least don't mischaracterize it. --Calton 10:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I vote delete too --nixie 07:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat.
• Delete Non-notable. JimmyShelter 09:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not really much more notable than the summer reading lists given out at every middle and high school in the universe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is more notable than the summer reading lists given out at every middle and high school in the country, because it is the entire curriculum of a well-known four-year baccalaureate program at more than one university. -- Dominus 20:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Andrew Starblind Lenahan. --Neigel von Teighen 14:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a reading or webguide, this is not an article. Wyss 20:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and then delete, with proper history notes in Talk for GFDL Dpbsmith 10:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Significant educational philosophy and the list of books actually used is a valuable datum. Assuming the list is the same as that used at St. John's College, Annapolis, merge there, as it is the original campus. The use of direct source texts of the "great books" is a fairly interesting educational philosophy. Notice that this is not just a recommended reading list, these are (supposedly) the books used as the textbooks. I don't think there are many colleges other than St. Johns that do this, so it is a notable curriculum, not just any old typical liberal arts curriculum. It might be worthwhile to try to coordinate and refactor the articles on the Harvard Classics, Great Books, Great Books of the Western World, the two St. John's College articles, the St. John's book list, and, I dunno, maybe Stringfellow Barr, Mortimer Snerd (sorry, couldn't resist), Charles W. Eliot, Robert Hutchins, etc. since these all bear on the same idea. I've always wondered how the teaching at St. John's is actually done; I'll bet the professors have developed elaborate methods of subtle cheating to insure that students don't end up believing that combustion is caused by phlogiston and that light waves are caused by vibrations in the aether. Maybe the Great Books are the only official texts but the students smuggle in current textbooks and hide them inside copies of Playboy so they won't get caught? Maybe the upperclassmen trade lists of the books you really need to read in order to ace the tests? Just wondering... Seriously, this list is a keeper, but not as a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P. S. I just learned something new from Wikipedia. This educational philosophy is known as Educational perennialism in general, and secular perennialism in particular. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P. P. S. Sufferin' succotash! Four whole years of nothing but dead white European males... no, if you stick it out for three years you do get W. E. B. Dubois and Virginia Woolf in your senior year. By the time you graduate, you probably think Allan Bloom is a radical. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, wait, you get Jane Austen in your junior year. Sheesh. RickK 23:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

^{Above comment aimed at the curriculum, not Dpbsmith). RickK 23:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I still don't "get" Jane Austen. Maybe when I grow up... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. For once, it is a coherent list that illustrates the notable and unusual curriculum of a college. I'd comment, by the way, that at a lot of the more demanding colleges the humanities undergraduates will read a substantial percentage of these books in their entirety and even more of them in part. Plus, they will read a great deal more besides. Depending on how much depth they go into, if this is the entire 4 year reading list, it seems a bit light. --BM 23:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there have been far less notable, trivial lists that have been kept on Wikipedia. Perhaps the article could de with a bit more explaining on why those books are chosen. Megan1967 00:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a book list is totally useless and does not convey anything. If this curriculum is important or unique than it should be written and expalined in the article. Otherwise it would open the floodgates for people putting down curriculum lists in wikipedia for the thousands of courses. kaal 01:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So, what would you think about "merge into St. John's College, Annapolis and delete?" The article(s) on St. John's do "explain the curriculum." BTW, I've done a bit of Googling on "perennialism" in various combinations, and so far St. John's is frequently mentioned as an example of a college using that philosophy, and I have yet to see a mention of any other college using such a philosophy or curriculum, so St. John's curriculum is notable as one of the few actual examples of such a curriculum in actual use. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If there's agreement (which there currently isn't), I'm prepared to do the kind of merge-and-delete that merges histories, keeping things GFDL-kosher. I was thinking of just doing the merge right away, but the history shows contributions by too many editors to just put a simple note on the Talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Copyvio? The article was contributed in almost its present form by User:Desert Pyrate on 28 October. Three edits to this article are his only contributions. The article is essentially the same text as this list from the St. John's website. Since then, there have been scores of edits by several editors, but virtually all of the edits consist of linking or fixing links in the names of the works and their authors. Since I want to keep the list, I'd like to think that there isn't a copyvio, but I dunno. An anthology of public domain work certainly can have a compilation copyright, but is its table of contents copyrightable? Is this just a list of names like a telephone directory, or does the creative act of selecting them make it copyrightable? Could St. John's sue me successfully if I were to start my own college and use their booklist as the curriculum? I'm probably losing the argument to keep this information anyway so it probably doesn't matter, but... whom to ask? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, the folks at St. Johns would almost certainly ne more happy than not if others copied their curriculum. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep .. although I think it should be merged with the Annapolis campus book list. St.Johns is a very unique school, and this list is very helpful for those wishing to study the Great Books. If you have never heard of St.Johns or the great books program I could understand why it might seem non noteworthy. In any case if this does get deleted, please let me know first so I can copy this down somewhere for my own personal reference! --Stbalbach 22:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The list is available on the St. John's website at http://www.sjcsf.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302 . Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with Stbalbach, though I wouldn't object to a merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The list is more notable than it may appear. I'm not sure about the "Santa Fe" in the name: it seems "Annapolis" or "St. John's" would be more appropriate. So maybe move. LizardWizard 08:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP:It's well written enough, intresting, St. John's seems notable, unusual, --The_stuart 16:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in any possible way. What this boils down to is a list of books that in the opinion of this college are the most important in western literature. In that sense, one could even argue that the article is inherently POV, though I admit that could be stretching it. Indrian 20:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not inherently POV to report that "X said Q" or that "Group Y believes J" or "Institution Z holds core principles K," and such statements are encyclopedic if X, Y, or Z are important and notable. The issue is really whether St. Johns and/or its curriculum is a) notable, and b) notable enough to be worth including this level of specific detail. I think they are, since this is all part of the Great Books movement, and which books are considered "great" is important in understanding the movement. The article on the Harvard Classics lists the actual contents of the volumes, and that makes it a better article than it would be without the list. Great Books and Educational perennialism are significant, and St. John's is notable as a reasonably well-known, successful, well-regarded institution that actually puts these ideas into practice. I don't think the detailed curriculum of any old "good small liberal-arts school" like Haverford College or Reed College would be notable, and I don't think St. John's would be notable if there were a hundred schools that followed the same curriculum—but there aren't. (I've recently learned of two more: Thomas Aquinas College, http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/, in Santa Paula, California, and Gutenberg College in Eugene, Oregon, which are respectively Catholic and Protestant Christian schools with a Great Books curriculum). By the way, I think it's clear from my flippant remarks above that I am not personally thrilled by the Great Books idea; it's not my POV. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. or merge. St John's and the Great Books movement are a significant, although non-mainstrean, educational philosophy. Probably this should be merged into the main article on the origianl St John's, or else one on the Great Books movement as a whole.
  • Unsigned comment is by User:DESiegel Dpbsmith (talk)
    • Sorry forgot to sign it. DES 17:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless the list is available on a web site to which Great Books could link. It's clearly neither just a college curriculum nor restrricted to one college (as a glance at the Great Books article confirms). The fact that some users disagree with what's on the list (as in certain respects do I) is irrelevant to the VfD debate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Annapolis campus article and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand; why do you think that this should be done? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable list developed at University of Chicago many years ago. Unique curriculum that is well-known as well-respected. A list of the books is a useful reference (one I have actually looked for). -- Decumanus 19:53, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some fellow rambling on some other fellow he knows, the kind of stuff you'd find at urbandictionary To quote, for instance, "Varun Chandra synonyms - Wanker/ cock face / loves to be liked"

• Delete or even speedy delete, clearly a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Unequivocal speedy material. Samaritan 05:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack/rant. Megan1967 07:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as libelous patent nonsense. -- Curps 08:03, 8 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is filled with nonsense. — J3ff 03:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "He is the first foreign born black woman to hold that position." (U.S. Secretary of State) IMO makes it speediable as patent nonsense #2 ("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.") Samaritan 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Um, there was nothing there at all a few minutes ago... HowardB 09:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK speedy deleted it. Samaritan 14:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment That name sounds familiar. Didn't we delete some high school vanity article by or about someone with a name like that a while back? Seems to me it was a Canadian high school student, and he or someone else had put in the names of several friends as notable alumni.... "sfontaine" sticks in my mind, we don't seem to have a User:Sfontaine, maybe that was his email address... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reynolds Secondary, that's what it was. Yeah, I emailed him and he replied "Hey mate. Sorry bout that I used it to show my friend Mike (Michael Jordan (Anker)) how to use Wikipedia." Methinks Anker or maybe Lappy has been up to some mischief. Given the circumstances it seems virtually certain that this is a prank or some other Reynolds student's newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 8 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 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

non-notable — J3ff 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - less than 20 Google hits, article comes across as a personal attack. Megan1967 07:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, clearly a personal attack. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, vandalism, libel. Wyss 20:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, v. obviously a personal attack --Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:13, 13 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 19:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

non-notable — J3ff 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. Agriculture 04:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. utcursch 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. at0 06:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 20 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as user test with zero context. Wyss 19:59, 8 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 19:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

non-notable family — J3ff 03:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Entire text "The Eversole Family of SouthWest Ohio. They are a Capatilist Family that has lived in the area for over a hundred years." Delete. Samaritan 06:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable JimmyShelter 09:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sub-substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as genealogical fragment, possible vanity or prank. Wyss 19:58, 8 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 19:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Gamaliel 03:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: See also the attached Image:Floydbuster 2.JPG and the linked article Keystone Phil. 68.81.231.127 04:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Newprogressive 04:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Above user is author of the article.

• Keep --User:MikeAssad 12:20, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

• Above user is also a subject of the article.
• To be fair, he also helped write quite a bit of it --Newprogressive 06:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this bad role playing game. Samaritan 05:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--nixie 05:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  • The above by User:Scpivo21, in his/her first day of editing, whose only other edits are to Idjut crew. RickK 07:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Micronationcruft. And of the utmost nonsensical epitome of it. Delete. RickK 06:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. gives appearance of notability that is not deserved. not-notable. RJFJR 06:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  • The above by User:4.4.52.153. RickK 07:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat.
• Keep Anyone against this denys Mike Nasos landslide abilities.
  • The above from User:4.4.52.153. RickK 08:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, and mostly nonsense. Megan1967 08:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, vanity, nonsense, sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Has no real information value what so ever. JimmyShelter 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. If he's really that important someone who doesn't know him personally will write the article. Not notable, no clear explanation of what Atlasia really is. Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Egotistical nonsensical delusional fictional micronation cruft. Average Earthman 10:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; and to think that all this furthers entropy...Lectonar 10:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as micronation-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsensical vanity. jni 13:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I denys Mike Nasos (where's the apostrophe?) landslide abilities. Does that mean he's capable of starting landslides? No big whoop. :^P Delete as vanity, though better written than most. - Lucky 6.9 19:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, vanity, sockpuppets...this page has it all. Carrp | Talk 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this prankish vanity, note the heavy smell of socks. Wyss 19:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This will likely now be deleted, though I would like to thank Lucky 6.9 for saying that its well written. I would also ask why there is a heavy smell of socks. I would also like to challenge the defintion "vanity", since this isn't written by the person it pertains to. Vanity has many definitions under the dictionary, and I believe that this particular page is better fitted by "total and utter b****ks" or similar. --New Progressive 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Vanity.
• Read that, but it really is so vague as to encompass all manner of sin. You people really ought to come up with something a little more specific --New Progressive 00:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Don't deny his vigour and decisiveness. He will destroy you with an exploding ballot.Dubya 2004 19:55 8 Feb 2005
  • (User has 1 edit.) Please don't do that. You've been good sports, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom, a collaborative art form, or a stage. 68.81.231.127 04:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't do what? There's no plan to troll over wikipedia or any such action. BTW we are fine for you to delete it now since we have acquired our own wiki site; I hope this meets with the approval of the guy who has a problem with entropy. With Vigour and Decisiveness --New Progressive 15:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Create accounts for frivolous or fradulent reasons. Wikipedia:Sock puppet may also explain some earlier references. 68.81.231.127 01:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Non-encyclopaedic. Also possibly criminal for impersonating the White House Chief of Staff? The article should at least stop inappropriately using the succession box. --bainer 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Totally irrelevent and pure vanity. Plus, we have to keep egos in check, there's only so much space in the world afterall. --Kross 8:55, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
• Delete I am aware of the community surrounding this article. There are no sock puppets involved, I don't think. It is just a number of people conspiring for a joke and should be deleted. I don't see malicious intent. --131.191.48.179 01:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -his hair is enough for a deletion vote on its own -nonsense Brookie 15:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pure vanity, not notable GeneralPatton 01:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already. (It is funny, though.) Rlw 17:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 20:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a vanity page. - Omegatron 04:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Middle school band of no notability. Delete and redirect to Stun gun. RickK 06:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stun gun. School band has no notability. Megan1967 08:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to stun gun as per above. Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. It's time for the Wikipedia Happy Fun Double Bonus Quiz Round! Quick! Name something less notable than a high-school garage band! BZZ! Time's up! The answer was: a middle-school garage band! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, middle school vanity. Wyss 19:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to stun gun. -Sean Curtin 00:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Band has notability. Band has been featured in such magazines as Time Out New York multiple times and has multiple recordings, as was noted in article. -Travis Emergency 21:10, Feb 11, 2005 EDIT: I have moved the page to my user page. Is this OK?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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 20:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly "of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures." I'm pretty sure that anyone who actually qualifies as an Internet tycoon gets more than three Google hits, and hits from somewhere other than the website for Troop 167. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity HowardB 04:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, vanity. Megan1967 08:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Antaeus Feldspar said. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is one of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures in the same way as I am one of the 13th centuries most acclaimed philosophers - i.e. not at all. Average Earthman 10:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete while Radium5 does seem to exist, it's very obscure, with some 250 Google hits, most of which are "minor" things like URL matches, and only 1 Google Groups hit. If it truly had the sort of multibillion-dollar growth as described in the article, it would be a Fortune 500 company by now, which it obviously isn't. It's either deliberate fraud or a joke (the joke theory being supported by the final two paragraphs). If Mr. Melwing (or whoever wrote the article) happens to read this, I would like to suggest to them that it isn't generally a good idea to publically claim to have 40+ billion dollars when you really don't, as groups like the IRS and the CIA tend to take notice of such things. [Note: the page has since been blanked by the original author] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article has been blanked, too. Wyss 19:54, 8 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 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Gamaliel 04:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this bad role playing game. Samaritan 05:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per VfD comments on Mike Naso. Megan1967 08:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Odd name for a President: PBrunsel. Doesn't explain what Atlasia is. Suspected RPG. Vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• "Suspected RPG." Congratulations, Sherlock. 10:10 GMT Feb 8, 2005
• Delete. Vanity, fictional (and not popular fiction), nonsense, inconsequential. Average Earthman 10:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, This truly serves no purpose as a unique article. If anything should be included in whatever fantasy it derives from. Eelozano
• Delete as micronation-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More entropy Lectonar 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, amounts to a vanity prank. Wyss 19:52, 8 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 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing more I can say. Samaritan 05:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --MarkSweep 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't belong here. also dict-def, non-notable and non-sense. RJFJR 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Made up terminology. Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even anatomically possible, as it would require that both the perpetrator and victim be simultaneously laying down and standing up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prank, vanity neologism, borderline speedy. Wyss 19:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Ooh, rather imaginative. Gross, but imaginative. I recall a bunch of similar "how-to" articles a few months back. Most were deleted. Shiver me timbers and delete this too, mateys! Avast, ye scurvy scum! - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spinboy 23:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Of course it's possible! The victim would have to be squating as the perpetrator would be standing and facing him/her, thus the possible ejaculation into the eye because the penis and eyes are at the same level. Then, you can kick them in the shin. So it can be done. But it's sick and wrong, so get rid of this. Frank12
• Delete. Sounds like something that should be on Urbandictionary.com
• Delete. unless a parrot could be worked in there somewhere :) --Monk Bretton 23:55, 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement, also probably copyvio. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "The Tao of Quitting Smoking is a spiritual guide written in a no-nonsense Dr. Phil-like way..." That Dr. Phil, he's my kind of Taoist. 249 web hits for "Tao of quitting smoking", nearly all online bookstores, one Usenet hit that is from the book's author. Delete this press release; it can't be worth improving. Samaritan 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book advertisement/promo. It's either a copyright violation or plagiarism, see [2]. Megan1967 08:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't have to waste time voting on this kind of commercial self-promotion. HowardB 10:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 19:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which was done on Feb 8. dbenbenn | talk 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page — Zeimusu | Talk 05:27, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• 'His ability to take any music and play it straight through, flawlessly, gives him the right to call himself "The King of Violin".' I noticed king of pop was created earlier today. But... not the same. Delete this vanity. Samaritan 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've turned this into a REDIRECT for Daniel Dae Kim 132.205.45.148 20:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure that's an appropriate redirect. I've never seen Daniel Dae Kim credited or referred to as Daniel Kim. Carrp | Talk 20:55, 9 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 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Entire text: "The Army of God Party is a U.S. Political party founded in 2001. It's sole purpose is to ensure that the laws of the land reflect those in the bible. Many Republicans are rumored to be closeted Army of God members, including President George W. Bush. Celebrity Members Mel Gibson The Rock James Van der Beek" Is there a political party of that name somewhere to redirect to? The only web hits are two references to Shiv Sena on a message board, which doesn't seem like nearly widespread enough usage for a redirect; we'd be popularizing an idiosyncratic translation. Samaritan 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, a top-secret political party. Seems a bit counter-productive. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, note the anon author (69.162.158.161) of that article removed VfD and has a past history of vandalism. Megan1967 08:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax, certainly unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 'Army of God' is the name of a U.S. anti-abortion organization and web site that posts hit lists of abortion doctors and so forth. If they've launched a political party, I can see why members would keep it a secret—but there's just no evidence that that has happened. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles about top secret organizations that exist supposedly and that, somehow, someone could grab information misteriously about them without any refernce?? No, thanks. --Neigel von Teighen 14:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, political hoax, rant. Wyss 19:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would be a pity to spoil the total secrecy that they've managed to maintain until now. --BM 02:43, 10 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 20:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neologism. A weird one too. O_o —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-8 05:58 Z

• Delete, maybe even speedy. Same user also created the article Flagmore: President Flagmore was the 24.5 president in America. He founded the state Franchester, but died before the plans got through, he was in presidency for 5 days. He died from the Death disease.. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Not a neologism, a silly hoax. Delete it. Samaritan 06:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --nixie 06:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN that was awesome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 19:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Silly but funny. Inter 21:06, 8 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 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A group of some college students. Vanity, unverifiable, etc. - RedWordSmith 07:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense. Delete. RickK 07:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [This is by Scpivo21 whose all edits are related to this article jni 13:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure crap. jni 13:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity campus prank. Wyss 19:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete You obviously don't have to have brains to go to college. JimmyShelter 20:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Idjut sounds suspiciously like idiot. Inter 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Interesting and creative. Obviously a well established society of intellectuals.
  • The above by User:134.126.203.100. RickK 00:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn. Carrp | Talk 01:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'd give them points for creativity if only they'd taken the time to read the blurb about not writing about yourself. For shame. Made me smile, though. Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Oleg Alexandrov 00:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google search for "United Malay States" yields only 4 hits. Adding the name "Bodowski" to that search brings the total to zero. While the U.M.S. may have some notability, I don't see what this woman has to do with it. If reason is found to keep it, the article needs some serious cleanup. Dismas 07:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 08:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably written when drunk. I'd wager he or she doesn't even remember doing it. BTW, there is no such thing as "United Malay States" HowardB 09:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like nonsense, no evidence of encyclopedic content here. Wyss 19:45, 8 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 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't encyclopedic. Letting this survive will lead to articles such as Chairs in art, Oranges in art, Pyramids in art, etc.. (unsigned)

• I think it would be best to include such info in the article about bridges. Move and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I note that it was originally split out of bridge. Interesting, useful information. Keep or merge back with bridge. Kappa 09:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded this, and may continue Kappa 11:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Entirely encyclopedic. If we can have a book The Pig in Art, Michael Ryba, ISBN 0-85613-544-5 or this external page Noli me tangere in art, then we can have many articles such as this in Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 12:36, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Marge back interesting and encyclopedic, but doesn't need its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Keep information, definitely. Does not much matter whether it is a separate article or merged somewhere, but I think there is enough content here now to warrant keeping. I don't agree that this is a precedent for a family of Cruft in Art articles, because bridges are widely regarded as having an aesthetic dimension. "Earth has not anything to show more fair:/Dull would he be of soul who could pass by/A sight so touching in its majesty"—Wordworth, and I will add this to the article soon. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the information; no opinion really on whether this belongs in a separate page, but there seems to be enough here to justify a page separate from bridge. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bridges can be aesthetic, like many designed objects, and partly because of this, they have been the subject of art works. So what? There might be something interesting to say about what makes a subject fit for a picture or a poem and why bridges fit those criteria. But that wouldn't be this article, since it is just a dumb raw list of poems, songs, paintings, etc that have some connection to bridges, in some cases a very slight connection. For example, it includes "Bridge TV", a cable channel that tries to bridge between opposing factions in the Middle East. If it is not deleted, at least it should be retitled to something like List of art works about bridges, and cleaned up. --BM 16:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps a move, or a merge into something (not bridge), but this is quite encyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 18:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with bridge. Wyss 19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Enyclopedic, interesting and useful. The sort of article Wikipedia needs more - not less - of.--Centauri 21:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done. Gamaliel 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Centauri and Gamaliel said it best. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 21:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well done. humblefool® 00:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Patrick 00:50, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only two Google hits for "Roby Thomas" + vioxx, and one of them (ironically named vioxxsucks.com) doesn't seem to exist any more. Note that the article was created by User:MrThomas. RickK 07:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. JimmyShelter 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 19:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Carrp | Talk 19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and no content Brookie 15:08, 12 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 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only one Google hit for vioxx +hodowanez. See also Roby Thomas, above. RickK 07:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. JimmyShelter 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Wyss 19:40, 8 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 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I came across this page on December 6, and posted a note that it might be a VfD candidate on the talk page. Since then, no one has responded to the comments, so I felt that a VfDing was appropriate. "Sachin Kadam" returns 60 google hits, all of them, IMHO, not notable. However, my opinion isn't set in stone, and I recognise that most non-English-speaking people (as Mr/Ms Kadam may be) cannot always be guaged in notability from their google hits. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk donate 08:12, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable, very likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity CV frag. Wyss 19:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and no content of note Brookie 15:09, 12 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slang term for oral sex. Originally created as Lewinski, proposed for speedy deletion but does not seem to fit the criteria. It's probably not used much anymore after a number of years have passed since the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and it's already mentioned in the Monica Lewinsky article. -- Curps 08:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Monica Lewinsky. Do not merge. RickK 08:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monica Lewinsky. Since the info is already there, a merge is not needed. Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Monica Lewinsky. I misspell the name as Lewinski all the time. Do not merge. jni 12:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with all; redirect both, with no merge; her article mentions the usage. Samaritan 14:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, obviously, content is plainly unhelpful. Wyss 19:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. No merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monica Lewinsky or delete. Nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 00:56, 9 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 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not actually about the "Ministry of Justice of Cameroon", or even the "Justice system of Cameroon". Propaganda more than anything else. Dr Gangrene 09:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Since Capitalistroadster's edit, this looks like an excellent article, and should be kept. Dr Gangrene 14:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy as political ad, put in bad faith under a misleading title. They may be wrong, they may be right, but this is neither the correct place nor method to further a political agenda. UPDATE: Edits by CR have vastly improved this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy. Could this count as a speedy criterion #11? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As always, Capitalistroadster's rewrite is relevant, detailed, and NPOV. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vandalism, libel. Wyss 19:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV political rant. Megan1967 00:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten this from the ground up based on The Statesman's Yearbook 2005 entry for Cameroon, United Nations reports and the US State Department entry on Cameroon. As we are top of a Google search for this term and as I consider Government Departments in general to be both notable and encyclopedic. I propose that we keep this version. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Trust Capitalistroadster. --JuntungWu 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yet another keep due to CR's edits. —RaD Man (talk) 21:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Yep to that, well done CR, keep. Wyss 21:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Spinboy 23:07, 13 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. (Keep 12 - Delete 9 - Merge and redirect 6) -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does it make any sense to have this article? If there's nothing especially noteworthy about gay skinheads as a group, we might as well have articles about, oh, I dunno, gay bakers or gay taxi drivers -- Ferkelparade π 10:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Agree completely. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• On the one hand, it is important to raise awareness of the fact that not everyone who looks like a skinhead is a violent neo-Nazi, a point that is raised at Skinhead. There is indeed a subculture of gay men who from their outward appearance are indistinguishable from Nazi skinheads, but they do not practice or condone violence and hatred (except perhaps, like members of SHARP and ARA, against Nazi/racist skins). They just like the tough-boy look and the attitude. On the other hand, the article as it currently stands does not establish their significance, and is not NPOV ("abusing the skinhead subculture", indeed!). I vote merge and redirect to Skinhead in the hopes that someone will write a paragraph there on the significance of the gay skinhead subsubculture. --Angr 13:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to skinhead wouldn't hurt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• It's a legitimate member of Template:Skinhead. Keep it; cleanup or expand as necessary. Gay skinhead, singular, might be a more Wikistyle title. Samaritan 15:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge and Redirect to Skinhead. Apart from the POV, the article just says that they are skinheads who just happen to be gay. Are Bisexual skinheads, Tall skinheads and Skinheads who like the color blue all legitimate members of Template:Skinhead?
• I think the reason why this phenomenon gets attention is because it's curious, sort of like the existence of Log Cabin Republicans -- why would a group of gay people want to be anything like Nazis, who persecuted gay people in concentration camps? For this reason I think it's useful to keep some sort of reference to them on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that this article as it stands now is compelling enough to keep, but I would support merging with the main article on Skinheads. Katefan0 16:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see notability, and there's always the possibilty this is a subtle attack article. --InShaneee 18:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a valid subculture. I speak from personal knowledge, but a Google search will bear that out. Katefan0 21:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge but needs NPOV work. I think gay skinheads are a significant subculture, unlike gay taxi drivers. Kappa 19:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a peer-reviewed sociological classification, for starters. Wyss 19:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you so sure? It's enough of a phenomenon to draw authorship on the subject, such as Gay Skins: Class, Masculinity and Queer Appropriation, a sociological history of the subculture since the late 1960's. Katefan0 21:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've heard it called rough trade but whatever. Should have said insufficient peer review then. IMHO this is not a helpful (or even meaningful) classification. Wyss 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What's next? Articles on gay punkers, gay rockers, gay postmen? JimmyShelter 20:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subculture subset. Needs to be renamed in the signular however.--Centauri 21:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless stub, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Notable phenomenon, bad article. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 23:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Real subculture of both the gay and skinhead cultures. RickK 00:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Significant and notable queer culture. Megan1967 01:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they are not unrelated concepts - gay skinheads are a distinct and identifiable subculture, certainly encyclopaedic AND definately notable. --Oldak Quill 02:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do they get along with GNAA? Rhobite 18:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) p.s. oops, forgot to sign. thanks katefan0.

Above by Rhobite. Katefan0 15:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. At most, it merits a mention in the Skinheads article that some skinheads are gays who have adopted the skinhead style and sometimes congregate with straight skinheads, but who don't necessarily share all their views and behaviours. If such a mention is made, it should be sourced and quantified (unlike this article). From the current article, I have no reason to believe that someone didn't just make this up, or if they didn't, that it is more than a few people. --BM 16:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --BenWilson 17:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article, in its current form, is nothing short of awful. The subject, however, is significant as a subculture. Keep, but improve. CJCurrie 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with CJCurrie. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to skinhead. --Slowking Man 08:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to skinhead -- as disturbing as it may be to non-skinheads, glbts, and perhaps even to skinheads. sigh HyperZonk 06:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Spinboy 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Guanaco 01:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete this bullshit! gayskins are NOT Skin! Haha, I've even read articles by gayskins claiming that nazi's hijact the movement. If someone did, it would be those gay creeps!SkaHead 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote was above user's first edit. Katefan0 17:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "Gayskin" gets 31,800 google hits. [3], more than "gay skinhead" (19,300) . Kappa 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Postdlf 23:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned odd article about someone called 'father of neo-modern thought'. Google did not find anything sensible. Article reads like some nonsense from new-age pseudo-science journals. Not notable? Original "research"? Hoax? jni 11:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As someone once said, should've made note of who it was, "as patent as nonsense gets without being patent nonsense." The name is rather reminiscent of Herman Melville's novel, Israel Potter. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 19:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 8 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 22:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silly neologism from an online gaming site. 42 google hits, most of which look irrelevant. RadicalSubversiv E 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity/ad neologism. Wyss 19:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's all been said. Inter 20:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Carrp | Talk 01:40, 9 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 22:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One line article about a venture capital firm that gets three hits on Google. --Lee Hunter 12:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as sub-substub. Any article that literally doesn't go beyond "X is a Y" deserves to be deleted, regardless of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a single line of spam with a live link. Wyss 19:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, There is nothing here. Inter 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 4 Google hits, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:03, 9 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 SUPRESSÃO. dbenbenn | talk 22:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A description of every episode of the second year of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...in Portuguese. I would have put this on Pages Needing Translation but I don't think it's worth anybody's effort and I think it would be best just to discard it. — Ливай | ☺ 12:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Los déletǒs. Fancruft. (What's delete in Portuguese, BTW?) jni 13:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Eliminar, I believe :) sjorford:// 16:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as untranslated cruft. Wyss 19:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:04, 9 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 22:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Ano 2. jni 13:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 16:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate content. Wyss 19:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not duplicate content. The three articles describe the episodes from each of three years of production. — Ливай | ☺ 20:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:04, 9 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 22:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Ano 2. jni 13:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 16:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate content. Wyss 19:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:04, 9 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) 04:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Does not make any sense. jni 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. JimmyShelter 13:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's Pokemon-related cruft, if anybody really wants to know. My guess is it's a description of a fanfic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fragmentary, fictional cruft. Wyss 19:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, You want to do the what now? Inter 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but send it to 'Bad Jokes and etc', because it made me laugh (particulary "David Wilcox (Himself)" - who? Toyah Wilcox's more obscure brother?) -Ashley Pomeroy 00:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'll take Delete for $100, Bob. --Froggy 21:39, 11 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 02:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page serves no real function, linking only to two not yet begun articles, and having only one incoming link. I have moved these links to the more general disambig page that already exists for Mantis. Lokicarbis 13:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agreed, Mantis is much better. I added some stuff to it, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unhelpful. Wyss 19:28, 8 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. The article was rewritten during VfD. dbenbenn | talk 02:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Advertisment for astrology book. — Zeimusu | Talk 14:04, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Cleanup book is real but quite obscure. However, there is a much better-known fiction book of this same title by Dion Fortune. Perhaps this could be cleaned up to reflect that, with a small disambiguation note mentioning Jaffer's annual series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bloggish ad, likely self-promotion. Wyss 19:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, has no encyclopedic content, in advertisment, etc. User Khaim forgot to sign this.
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Besides Fortune's book there is also a book with that same title by Lori Read. Suggest the article also make mention of those books. Megan1967 01:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have reformatted and added to the article since original VfD. Megan1967 03:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in the current revision this is noit an ad, and is at least reasonably encyclopedic. The Dion Fortune book, now mentioned, is significant in the history of Wicca. DES 21:21, 10 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 02:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a neologism. jni 15:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ...but, and this is important... should be renamed to Torrentocracy, as whoever wrote this misspelled the title so it sounds like a psychiatric condition. Under the right spelling, it's a notable technology concept with some 8,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, aside from the unencyclopedic writing style and mis-spelled article title, content describes a rather generic media consumption model. Wyss 19:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense JimmyShelter 20:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's another way of putting it :) Wyss 21:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Torrentocracy, and add redirect. 5000+ Google hits. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Further investigation showed that this is also a copyvio from http://torrentocracy.com/ I have reported this on the copyvio page. Given the circumstances (wrong title to begin with), I suggest interested parties do a complete rewrite at Torrentocracy (not in /Temp) and this be deleted after the 5 day VfD lag time runs out. jni 07:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and fix the article title. —RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhh... You want to keep a copyvio? I'm afraid that won't happen, no matter how many keep-votes this gets. jni 15:43, 10 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 02:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Almost 100% overlap with Gundam Seed. See also Romero Pal --InShaneee 15:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Gundamcruft. Wyss 19:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article duplication. Megan1967 01:21, 9 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 02:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

100% overlap with Gundam Seed. See also Kuzzey Buskirk --InShaneee 15:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Gundamcruft. Wyss 19:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Brim 22:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, article duplication. Megan1967 01:22, 9 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 02:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A VfD notice was added 7 February, but no VfD entry was created. This is part of a series of Bangladesh place articles created by anon 194.199.119.17 on 5 February. See Arvumi and Bandorbon, both VfD'ed on 7 February. See also Gongkabor, Hagracuri, Chengmi, and Chakma by same anon user. Barno 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Expand or delete. Not nonsense, but notability isn't established in these substubs. Barno 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article, no evidence of encyclopedic content. Wyss 19:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like nonsense to me JimmyShelter 20:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one sentence article does not establish notability, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. See also my comments on the Arvumi vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or expand Brookie 11:31, 12 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. Keep 11 / Merge 7 / Delete 5. Delete and merges (2), but counted as either delete OR merge. Merging requires to save the page history, so merging is really merge and redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is meaningless. There is no such thing as an "L'État québécois" (Quebec State). There is only Quebec, a Province in the Country of Canada.

Submitted by JillandJack, (who self-admittedly got stuck with some of the VfD steps). --Deathphoenix 18:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This subject matter seems notable enough, but I don't know enough about Quebec (ie, I don't live there) to be able to verify if this term is in common use by the Québécois. If someone can tell me that this finds common use, I will change my vote to Keep and cleanup to remove some of the POV. Conversely, if this term isn't commonly used, I will change my vote to Delete. --Deathphoenix 18:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I did neither (see below). --Deathphoenix 20:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If there's "no such thing as an 'L'État québécois'", only the "Province in the Country of Canada," why are there over 800 uses of "État québécois" on the websites of that same Quebec provincial government? (25200 uses on the Web as a whole, which is very high for a French Canadian topic.) This nomination strikes me as being based on a POV of Canadian nationalism/Quebec federalism, which I agree with completely in my personal life, but would never seek to press on a neutral point of view encyclopedia by deleting a valid or potentially valid article. Strongest keep, and cleanup as necessary. Samaritan 18:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • From strongest keep to a normal keep. The way the nomination was put got my back up. Also, I fixed my broken google links. Samaritan 00:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the proposer's wording seems to reflect a strident partisan federalist agenda, which I don't share. It's a shame it was worded this way, insisting on "province". -- Curps 01:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do a search for just "Quebec" at gouv.qc.ca... you get 663,000 hits. It's a big website, with tons of obscure policy papers and bureaucratic forms online. Just 800 hits for "état québécois" on that site? That's nothing, insignificant. -- Curps 01:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The term has no official standing whatsoever and has never been officially used (or even commonly used) even by the previous sovereignist governments. You are being quite misleading: if the term is used within http://www.gouv.qc.ca/ (official Quebec government website) at all, it's only buried several levels deep within obscure documents and position papers, in places that you could only reach by using the "Search" box, never by clicking on links from the home page to any commonly viewed page. Go to the home page, go to "Accueil" → "Portrait du Québec" → "Politique" → "Institutions politiques", the term is nowhere to be found: it's simply "Le Québec". Same with the tourism portal http://www.bonjourquebec.com/ . Even the Parti Québécois website at http://www.pq.org/ nearly always sticks to "le Québec". -- Curps 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest anything else. I don't think being on a main page is necessary for a phrase in political discourse, with complicated enough suggestions and implications, to merit a short article discussing its history and usage. Samaritan 00:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • But the phrase is not used in discourse. It's a bureaucratic "officialese" term that is not even official or widely used by officials (even sovereignist officials). Most people simply get around the "province" issue by saying "Quebec" or "le Québec". -- Curps 01:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup as necessary, per Samaritan. Kappa 19:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. "The Quebecois State" is propogandic terminology whipped up by the PQ with no legislative basis. Commentary on this usage belongs in the main Quebec article, not as an entity in an of itself. NPOV is a two-way street. -The Tom 19:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet sits happily by, and everyone would agree it's less encyclopedic, more propagandistic, has no grounding in truth whatsoever, was used exclusively as a joke, and only during one election, and has more obvious merger targets in Ontario general election, 2003 and/or Dalton McGuinty. It would be a travesty if this subject were deleted, Quebec is far too general for it to be discussed fully, and no other subject I can think of is closely enough related. (Note also that the current Quebec Liberal Party government is strongly federalist, but retains hundreds of pages using this term in their gouv.qc.ca webspace.) Samaritan 22:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "No grounding in truth whatsoever"? You're missing the point, have you actually read that article? That kitten-eater article is not about the factual truth over whether anyone eats kittens, or propagandistic POV political advocacy; it's simply an article about how some dumb practical joke backfired during a local political campaign. Likely too obscure for Wikipedia but I can't be bothered to propose it for deletion. In any case, what's the relevance? -- Curps 00:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Not to mention that it was a huge thing in the '03 Ontario election. I don't know if that entire incident made or broke the Tory's chances, but it was a huge factor in getting McGuinty the extra votes. --Deathphoenix 03:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What information would be suppressed by deleting this page? When you clean up the POV in État québécois, you have only a sentence or two of actual information, which could easily be fit into Quebec sovereignty movement (and be seen by more people there, actually). Again you are being misleading about http://gouv.qc.ca/ ... every major page there simply refers to "le Québec", and "État québécois" can be found only buried several levels deep in obscure documents... and this has been true during previous sovereignist governments just as much as today with a federalist government in office. -- Curps 01:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and strong clean-up. There seems to be evidence that the concept exists and that it is note-worthy enough for a Wikipedia article. I struggle with this article because its tone is propagandistic. The problem is that the concept itself is a propaganda concept, and I'm not sure how to write an NPOV article about a propaganda concept. perhaps someone can try to neutralise the article before we reach a conclusion on the VfD? Kevintoronto 19:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, combination of polemics and duplicated content. Unhelpful. Wyss 19:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Quebec and redirect. Let the editors of Quebec work together to present a neutral and balanced article. This is yet another example of the recent tendency to break out articles in order to allow presentation of a specific point of view. If Province du Québec and État québécois are not the same subject seen from two different points of view, what are they? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Quebec and redirect. Dpbsmith makes a good point about breakaway articles used to present a POV. I was going to recommend no redirect (I don't fully agree with redirecting a POV title to an NPOV article), but then I realise that not redirecting would mean losing the history. --Deathphoenix 20:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as only a sentence or two into Quebec sovereignty movement or Quebec. This term is never used in English, and if kept would have to be suitably renamed; but I know of no such commonly or even occasionally used English term. -- Curps 21:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you agree to delete jihad (or, at best, merge to holy war or struggle?) Or move Taliban to, uh, Students of Islam (Afghan movement)? Closer to this, Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois obviously need to go, and since they too don't have any commonly or even occasionally used English terms for them, they'd have to be deleted or merged to Quebec or something. We can and do discuss non-English language political discourse in English under non-English titles! If Wikipedia has a policy against loanwords in titles, please point me to it? We're giving this POV deletion proposal too much credit by focusing on red herrings. Samaritan 22:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Jihad" and "Taliban" are commonly used in English; these are the English terms. In fact, they are now English words. Similarly, "Parti Québécois" and "Bloc Quebecois" are the only English terms for these political parties; they have no other English names. These names are very commonly used in English-language media in Canada and Quebec, as Google shows. However, "État québécois" is not used at all in English, even in Canada or Quebec (as Google shows). This is not a loanword in English; it is simply never used in English, even among political scientists and other specialists. Occasionally you find use of "Quebec State" or "State of Quebec", but nearly always only as literal translations of those French documents that use them; native English documents or articles originally written in English essentially never use them. The term also has no official standing; the Quebec government website http://www.gouv.qc.ca/ does not use it, even in pages that describe Quebec political institutions in French (such as [4] and subpages). And finally, simply read the État québécois article... what information does it actually contain? Other than POV advocacy, it merely informs us that some (not all) francophones in Quebec would prefer to use this term... why could this information not be incorporated into a sentence or two in Quebec or Quebec sovereignty movement? Why puff this up into an entire article? And by the way, it seems a much more common way to get around the P-word ("province") is simply to refer to "Quebec" (or "le Québec" in French), plain and simple. -- Curps 00:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I fixed my broken google links above, showing over eight hundred hits for the term at gouv.qc.ca. I'm sorry. Samaritan 00:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • And not a single one accessible by drilling down and clicking links starting at the main page, I'd bet. Contrast with http://www.elysee.fr/ (President of France's website)... the word "République" is used everywhere, beginning at the home page. -- Curps 01:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What's more, if you search for just "Quebec" at gouv.qc.ca... you get 663,000 hits. It's a big website, with tons of obscure policy papers and bureaucratic forms online. So a mere 800 hits for "état québécois" on this enormous website actually weakens your position rather than strengthening it. -- Curps 01:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What's more, how many of your Google hits actually refer to the subject of the État québécois article? In French, it's common to use the word "état" where English would use "federal government", for instance "les relations entre l'État et les citoyens" would be idiomatic French for what in English would probably be phrased as "relations between the federal government and its citizens". In other words, "l'état québécois" in most contexts would properly be translated as "the Quebec government" and would not have the meaning of "Republic of Quebec" or "State of Quebec". -- Curps 01:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Note: The user who proposed this for deletion has apparently allegedly (I haven't followed up on the details) also been on a POV-tagging binge. See the section "User:JillandJack and NPOV disputes" on the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Samaritan 22:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) (strikethrough/clarification Samaritan 23:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC). I spoke too strongly, to my discredit.)
• Keep Spinboy 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. Notable, encyclopedic, interesting and useful. --Centauri 00:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Imagine an article called State of Puerto Rico or Estado de Puerto Rico. And imagine that that article consists of nothing but POV advocacy for the use of the term "Estado de Puerto Rico" because some people find the term "commonwealth" humiliating and colonial, and because Puerto Rico might someday become a US state or independent state. Would there be any reason for such an article to exist, any reason why that information could not be incorporated into a sentence or two within Puerto Rico itself? For those of you who have no familiarity with Canadian or Quebec politics, you could simply base your vote on whether you would vote to keep an Estado de Puerto Rico article. -- Curps 01:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV political. This term is rarely used. Mention of this can be made in the main Quebec article but as it stands this doesnt warrant having an article on its own. Megan1967 01:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I took note of this some months back. The user who originally created it, Liberlogos, also undertook widespread edits to direct "Canadian province of Quebec" references to this article instead; these were reverted by Mathieugp as POV. I must note, however, that a term which originates with Jean Lesage cannot be viewed as solely a subtopic of Quebec sovereignism, as Lesage was not connected to that movement in any significant way. If a merge and redirect is deemed necessary, Quebec nationalism (which is not the same thing, as one can be simultaneously a Quebec nationalist and a federalist) is the only appropriate redirect. However, my own vote on the subject is to keep, as the term does have currency in Quebec politics whether we like it or not. Bearcat 01:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Jean Lesage was in power four decades ago. It's not a matter of liking it or not, in current use, the term does not have much currency in Quebec politics or daily speech. Note Samaritan's 800 hits are almost negligible in a government website http://www.gouv.qc.ca/ that has more than 660,000 pages. -- Curps 01:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • How long ago he was in power isn't relevant to the statement I made, which is that he wasn't connected to the political movement that some people want to redirect this to. If it's to be redirected, it has to go to Quebec nationalism or to Lesage himself; it can't go to Quebec sovereignty movement, because it doesn't come from that movement. Bearcat 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirect to Quebec nationalism instead of Quebec sovereignty movement would be fine. -- Curps 02:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, and just for the record, Samaritan's 25,000 hits for the term on Google say everything that needs to be said about its currency in Quebec. You've disputed the significance of the 800 government hits, but you haven't even touched the vastly more telling number. Bearcat 03:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I have touched on the fact that most of these cases are used in contexts where the usual English translation would be expressed idiomatically as "government of Quebec" rather than "State of Quebec". In other words, it's simply a way of referring to the government, judiciary, civil service and state apparatus as an overall institution, slightly more non-partisan than "gouvernement" since the latter could also be used to refer to a particular governing party in power, or just to the executive/legislative branch. In other words, most of these hits are not about the topic of the État québécois article. -- Curps 03:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The other problem which you have not touched on is that all these hits are in French. Unlike Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois, the term "état québécois" is simply never used in English, as shown by Google (even by political science specialists, and even in English language media in Quebec where use of untranslated French terms is not unusual). So if kept, the article would properly be moved to Quebec State. -- Curps 03:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia where a foreign-language phrase which isn't used in English, but whose literal translation would distort the article's context and encyclopedic value, are titled with the original foreign language phrase. See eg. Tiocfaidh ár lá, Céad míle fáilte, Arbeit macht frei, Jedem das Seine, Amaya o los vascos en el siglo VIII, Inglés de escalerilla, Fiesta patronal, Dicionário Aurélio, etc. This is neither unprecedented nor, in and of itself, invalid as long as the article is written in English. Bearcat 03:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-9 01:47 Z
• Delete. This designation for Quebec is part of the vision of the future put forward by Quebec nationalists. It perhaps merits a mention in that article. A separate article on the designation is either going to be no more than a couple of sentences, or more likely yet another recap of the Quebec nationalist point of view in the guise of explaining the term. (Which is what the article is now.) We don't need multiple articles in the Wikipedia that go over the same basic ground. --BM 02:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The basic points of the article are neither POV nor propagandistic -- they simply chronicle the history of an idiom which (for good or ill) is common currency in Quebec. If some parts of the article seem biased or insulting, the correct course of action is to *fix* them, not to delete the entire article. (Also note that User:JillAndJack has inserted POV tags on several articles having to do with Quebec nationalism in the last day or so. He (She? They?) seem/s to be taking issue with pages that depict Quebec nationalism in favourable terms, or cast ill aspersions on British colonial rule. It looks as though someone's grinding an axe ...) CJCurrie 02:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm with Curps. Denni☯ 04:29, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
• Merge with redirect to Politics of Quebec, or even the Quebec main article. The existence of this term and information on its origins are quite relevant—it's what the government calls itself. I note that one of the early links in the Québec government Googling above is an open letter from the Premier of Québec (Jean Charest, also a federalist), and he seems to use l'État québécois as equivalent to the English phrase 'government of Québec'. (Letter in English and French). Since Google searches of the Québec government site seem popular, I should note that the term Province du Québec garners only 39 hits [5]. I'd say that the article should be kept (and I'd be okay with that) but it would remain forever stubby unless filled out with unnecessary POV federalist and separatist ranting. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with sentiments CJCurrie expressed. ElBenevolente 07:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Who cares if it exists or not, if it's a notable term? Everyking 08:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant into relevant page about quebec nationalism and delete (and please state who those "some people" are)- Skysmith 10:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you mean my "some people", I meant the people right on this very page who proposed redirecting to "Quebec sovereignty movement". Bearcat 22:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to "some people" in the first paragaph of the article - Skysmith 10:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. As we are the English Wikipedia and we have a good English phrase in common use we should use it and include any useful material from this article in it or Quebec nationalism. If the constitutional status of Quebec changes we can review the issue then. Capitalistroadster 10:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concurring with Samaritan and CJCurrie. --Circeus 18:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, The expression La province de Québec has indeed fallen out of fashion some 45 years ago. In all Quebec official documents, Quebec is Le Québec, the province is L'État québécois (and yes, a province is indeed a state attached to some other) and the government is the Governement du Québec. This can be easily verified online at www.gouv.qc.ca. Nevertheless, this article has no use and I suggested its deletion to its author a while ago because I felft this was bad exemple of "everythingism". In other words, there is not enough matter to cover here and I don't think the use of a term that is only used in French anyways deserves a full article inside Wikipedia. -- Mathieugp 13:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VanityGeni 18:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, local social organisations are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 19:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's been said and also the article would have needed extensive cleanup. Inter 20:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, local vanity. Megan1967 01:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto, ditto, ditto. --BM 03:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a term that has a number of possible definitions, and the one listed isn't even the most common. Deb 18:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef fragment. Wyss 19:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Dicdef. Inter 20:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 01:41, 9 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) 21:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page for a non-notable drummer from Ontario. Carrp | Talk 18:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete He's tough to Google, sharing a name with both a baseball player and the bassist from Brundlefly. Since the anonymous user who wrote this article has a long history of vandalism, including replacing whole articles with curse words and telling wikipedia to go F*** itself, it would seem to follow that this is likely vandalism too, or at least not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, aside from the PoV, article provides no evidence of the encyclopedic claims made. Wyss 19:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone (i) can verify that he's played with at least one notable band, and (ii) deletes the nonsense on the current page and replaces it with real information. CJCurrie 22:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a candidate for speedy deletion. Spinboy 22:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have speedy deleted it, since it's a recreation, except nothing in this version is the same as the last version except for their both being Canadian. RickK 00:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible artist vanity. Megan1967 01:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable + every other edit made by the user who created this article was vandalism. I've speedied. Bearcat 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 03:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an empty list that was created in September. After nearly 5 months, there is not a single wrestler's name on it. If this article isn't expanded soon, it should be deleted. slambo 19:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with slambo. This page could be encyclopedic, but it's essentially an empty page right now. There's been plenty of time to expand this article. Delete. Carrp | Talk 19:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Had plenty of time to expand. --Woohookitty 19:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• ok, ok... sorry i forgot about it after i created it and all the other title histories, I concentrated more on the current titles... i will get info and update in the next week. Dont Delete Paulley 19:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, If you wish to expand it, recreate it when you have the time. Inter 20:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I will take Paulley at their word that they will expand article within VfD period. Note to admins: If article remains empty at time of VfD tally, feel free to ignore my vote or count it as delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto Starblinds vote Kappa 04:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded written. Wikipedia:Requested articles is there for a reason. —Korath (Talk) 20:20, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. —Korath (Talk) 07:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another trivial unhelpful list, hardly anything in this article as is. Megan1967 01:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The original maker of the page wants to add more(see above) - but don't leave empty again max rspct 22:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, potential for expansion. —RaD Man (talk) 09:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP... lol sorry for leaving empty for so long. Info has been added so no need for deletion Paulley 15:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP good save! I withdraw my delete nomination. slambo 20:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Paulley. Comprehensive list Capitalistroadster
• Keep. Thats ok, its what im here for. Paulley 15:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, but seems to be posted by someone other than the subject. -- Curps 20:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity JimmyShelter 20:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Inter 21:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity. --Spinboy 23:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely a BJAODN classic in the making. Suspect patent nonsense, but putting it here instead of speedying. -- Curps 20:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense JimmyShelter 20:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Looks like original research to me, but I'm not an expert in sexuology. – Kpalion (talk) 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like someone disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fart fetishism. —Korath (Talk) 21:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fart fetishism. Megan1967 01:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A staggering 296 Google hits (many containing accompanying text such as "You are blinded by the dolphin worshippers" and "Well, I have this peanut butter pickle fetish...JUST KIDDING lol") says this ain't so, Joe. BUT WAIT!! Could it be inherently notable? Nah, I don't think so. Denni☯ 04:44, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
• Delete although it brings a whole new meaning to the term "jerkin' the gherkin". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Or "tickle the pickle."  :^) This is just nonsense. Delete as complete nonsense. BJAODN is just feeding the troll. - Lucky 6.9 02:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Vote Depends on outcome of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fart fetishism if fart is Kept, then we should Keep pickle, if fart is Deleted then we should delete pickle; they both belong in the same waste bin. So the outcome of the vote will decide if Wikipedia becomes that wastebin. Abrahams 13:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both articles are rubbish ... the outcome of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fart fetishism should be clear in a couple of days and will show us what wikipedia is ... I agree with Abrahams about the wastebin remark. It is up to the editors to change that. Omar Filini 14:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this request for deletion wasn't properly completed. The original text of the request was:

• Delete - no such thing as Polish mythology and the entry lacks any source backup. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:55, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Just completing the VFD nomination that Halibutt started. The article was started in 2003 and hasn't been significantly expanded since then. If it isn't expanded soon, it should be deleted. slambo 20:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly good, factual, notable, encyclopedic stub. Polish mythology redirects to Slavic mythology, and lo and behold, spore (mythology) can be found there.--Centauri 21:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 160 Google hits (Polish mythology + spore) with those being a majority of mirrored articles. Megan1967 01:49, 9 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 06:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A current student isn't very notable. Seems like vanity to me. JimmyShelter 20:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep i'm not a pianist but i heard him on youtube and became a fan, where he has a pretty big fan base with some hundreds of thousands of views, possibly even half a million, to date. i bet a lot of people like me look him up on here after they hear his recordings. his beethoven recordings on there really need to be listened to by anyone who thinks he doesn't pass the noteworthy test as a musician. it seems like some of these people crusading to have him deleted are resorting to really mudslinging tactics -- like it matters that he's gay? or has a company? so what. half the music world is gay and lots of musicians do other things besides music. i don't mind if his article gets cleaned up, some of the sources and statements seem odd and the article is weirdly written, but i don't think that's grounds for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.170.34 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable - 60 Google hits (Sean Bennett + pianist), possible artist vanity. Megan1967 01:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree, this guy is one of the most downloaded classical artists on the internet whether a student or not. My google of him revealed a lot more hits and showed that he is currently #1 in several categories on the Vitaminic download site. -- A fan
  • This comment/vote is from User:67.37.178.134 --BM 16:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm a musician and have heard of this guy and have downloaded his recordings. He has a fan club [6], was the youngest to record the famed Rach 3, and a quick check shows that the article is factually accurate (although I'm not sure about the bits about his ideology, so might change these). --Urbanguy1 22:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • User signed up after this VfD was opened. --BM 15:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I wrote this article originally because I heard Mr Bennett on his concert tour of Universities in England this last summer and was blown away. The concert I went to was packed and the audience reaction was really, really amazing (8 curtain calls!). He had only announced the concert with a week notice as this is the way he seems to operate. After interviewing him I realized how incredible it was for him to write down those Horowitz transcriptions from the recording. Ruth Laredo and John Bell Young have called him a world-class pianist and the Chicago Tribune said "Sean Bennett commands the piano." --Evolving2 22:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Author of the article. --BM 15:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Should note that this author's contriubtions to Wikipedia seem to be entirely related to Sean Bennett so far. Knowing who the past chairs of the Gates Scholars council are seems something unlikely for someone who simply heard Bennett on a concert tour. --Grouse 16:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Was all in Bennett's standard bio given with concert programs and on download.com/seanbennett....'"Keep'"
      • This comment is from User:66.205.229.58. Please sign your comments. The OTHER previous chairs of the Gates Scholars ("Jennifer Gibson, and Moncef Tanfour") were listed in Bennett's standard bio. That really stretches credulity. --Grouse 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Do not delete other users' comments, User:66.205.229.58! --Grouse 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • As a Cambridge Student, I have followed the emergence of the Gates Council. I never claimed that *everything* came from the bio. --Evolving2 03:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Additionally, a search of the Chicago Tribune archives from 1985 on cannot find any instances of the phrase "Sean Bennett commands" so I think all the above claims need further evidence --Grouse 16:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In Chicago Tribune Dec 16, 1995 in Lake County Section, Sean Bennett commands... in photo caption: '"Keep'"
      • This comment is from User:66.205.229.58. Claiming that a photo caption (which is still not verified) establishes notability is laughable. And not mentioning that it was only a photo caption, not a review, in the first place, is disingenuous, and only casts doubts on the other claims made. --Grouse 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The article under the photo was a positive review of a performance of Bennett's in a concert with Jazz Artist Ramsey Lewis for the Steinway Society, the quote was merely drawn from the photo caption as an example. It is in no way ingenuous, check the records if you disagree.
• Keep Did googles "Sean Bennett + piano" = 200 pages, "Sean Bennett + music" = 1850 pages, almost all him. I have listened to his download.com recordings before and they sound professional and notable to me. Interesting, I found what amounts to a war over the merits of his playing where 40 people chime in [7]. This shows that even if controversial he is still pretty discussed/known...--JonKSchmidt 22:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Users only edit. --BM 15:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comments, I've made some corrections to his article - according to his website [www.seanbennett.net] he shouldn't be a student anymore, added some of the press reviews I found for him, and updated based on his CV that he has taught extensively at Cambridge University in both psychology and music. I took out the bit about "important" psychological findings as I don't know that they warrant this label, as I couldn't find much discussion about him as a psychologist (although a google search did turn up many hits). --Urbanguy1 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I downloaded some of his MP3s a couple years ago, including the Samuel Barber sonata (which I can still "hear" in my head), and didn't know he had a Wikipedia entry. Didn't know he was a child prodigy, either, but it doesn't surprise me at all. Maybe his page needs to be revised to make it look less like an advertisement. He's notable, and a promising talent. Please don't delete.
  • This vote is from User:Sandover. --BM 15:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite its length and detail, this biography comes down to: he was a child prodigy as a pianist, won youth competitions (including a "secret" one), and gave concerts; it is claimed he is the youngest person to perform the notoriously difficult Rach 3; he went to Harvard College, and graduated with high honors (note, not highest honors, which wouldn't be notable either); he won a fellowship for a year at Cambridge, and now he is a graduate student at Harvard, where he has won an award for teaching based on student feedback forms; as a graduate student, he did some research, just like all graduate students; he's released a lot of his piano performances on mp3.com. However, being a child prodigy on the piano is not especially notable; going to Harvard and graduating with high honors isn't either; winning a fellowship is more of a distinction, but is still not notable; and releasing your piano performances through mp3.com isn't notable. This guy obviously has extraordinary potential, and deserves the honors that he has received so far. However, youth and student honors don't add up to notability. I'd give odds that he'll be notable enough for the Wikipedia one day. But he isn't now. --BM 15:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What about the download record? This I think is the main measure of notability in this instance...
  • Also, Bennett was already visiting teaching faculty at Harvard (notable?), not a PhD student...
• Seems promising, but as of now has not cleared the notability bar. No CDs available, as far as I can tell. Maybe in a couple years. Delete. -R. fiend 21:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Purely vanity. Much of the content seems to be copied from a bio on Sean's personal web page, so the original author either (a) is Sean, (b) is cooperating with Sean to produce this article, or (c) is a copyvio. In any of these cases, the article should be deleted. --Grouse 15:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Contacted Sean by email to ask permission to use his bio online. He consented. I also asked some of his other fans to chime in, hence the few post VfD users... --Evolving2

• Delete. A lot of time for him to gain notability and then be re-included here. The entry as it stands isn't especially interesting. Mandel 10:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten. I rewrote to highlight better why Bennett is notable. This included more clearly noting his Download records, and the unique contributions he has made to piano performance and the science of music, and making the entry less "ad like." I removed the psychological theory aspect as I agree at this point that this is not at the same level of notability as the music contributions. I still think that one of the most downloaded classical artists on the Internet with this kind of story deserves an entry in the encyclopedia of the Internet. He's changing the landscape of how classical music is heard. I reiterate: *Strong Keep! --Evolving2 19:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• There are still claims in the "rewritten" article that I know are inflated, such as the teaching stuff, and that leads me to doubt all the other claims of notability. For example, the author (and are you Sean, or Sean's friend? It might be time to come clean on that...) claims that he has taught at the University of Cambridge, although he is not listed in any recent list of the members of the university faculties or lecture-lists. [8] The award for teaching at Harvard (which would be called doing a teaching assistantship at any other U.S. university) which was supposedly notable appears to have been won by the teaching assistants of a mere 453 other classes [9]. Also, I don't think you get extra points for trying to vote multiple times, or for making your vote "strong." --Grouse 19:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Grouse: you should be more careful of your accusations before you make them. This is not the first time you have made incorrect accusations. Mr. Bennett was a lecturer of Keyboard at Cambridge for the Music Faculty in 2003-2004, and from 2002-2004 was Supervisor in the same department for the following subject areas: IA Analysis and Set work, IB Analysis and Repertoire, IB Advanced Keyboard, II Performance (essay and piano coaching), Dissertation (IB and II, piano literature/composers/performers, performance practice, psychology/neurobiology of music, popular music 1955-present, history of American music 19th century-present). Also listed as available supervisor for Music and Science. He taught for three summers at Cambridge through the Oxbridge Academics Program as the Psychology Professor (2002-2004). Contact the administrators for the department of music at Cambridge if you'd like further verification of his teaching experience or qualifications (available at mus.cam.ac.uk). Additionally, the article does not claim anything about his teaching award at Harvard that was not true: Mr. Bennett was a "Senior Teaching Fellow" at Harvard during the said period, and was a Non-Resident Tutor of Psychology at Pforzheimer House (all in his CV), and won the Bok Award for the said period. He was not a teaching assistant, as he was not a graduate student. The rewritten article does not highlight this award as one of the most notable of Mr. Bennett's achievements, merely provides it as ancillary information to give a more complete picture of the individual (but to further drive the point, using your logic, is a Grammy winner non-notable because hundreds of others have won Grammys before?). As said before, I am a fan of Mr. Bennett and have followed him and his career since hearing him in concert last summer and believe that he is notable. I'm sorry you don't believe so, but kindly request that you check more carefully before making further comments that falsly undermine the article I've spent a lot of energy writing. Perhaps the highlight of Mr. Bennett in the Chronicle of Higher Education as "one of the future world leaders" will establish his notability for you: [10] -Evolving2 04:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see how I have made any incorrect claims. Mr. Bennett is still not on the published lecture-list or list of faculty for Cambridge at that time, which he would be if he were notable. Being a supervisor in this context, meaning a graduate teaching assistant, is not notable. Calling someone who teaches high school students in a summer program a "Professor" is just plain silly. You are welcome to describe how the role of a "Senior Teaching Fellow" differs from a teaching assistant, but it is definitely not a member of the faculty (which would not automatically be notable). If someone won a Grammy Award but it were only for a local area, and there were about 900 other awards given annually in that local area, then yes, I would think it non-notable. And if they then tried to compare that to winning a national Grammy, then I would think it inflation of their accomplishments. As usual the Chronicle article does not even say what you claim it does. And if you are not someone who is close to Sean, have you verified the information he has provided on his CV? How? --Grouse 13:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Cambridge routinely hires its Keyboard Lecturers late in the annual cycle because the number depends on the number of undergraduates who chose to enroll in the Music Tripos. That is why M. Ennis (Faculty Board Chair) is listed, and the others are not (but again, this doesn't mean they weren't there, teaching, under the title). Anyone who knows or understands Cambridge realizes that the bureaucracy there precludes them from making timely updates, particularly in University documents. Professors as well as advanced graduate students are referred to as "Supervisors" at Cambridge so again you have erred (and they are also paid in accordance with the approximate per-hour pay schedule of listed Lecturers). Mr. Bennett was given the title Senior Teaching Fellow at Harvard because of his experience as an instructor at Cambridge, and its not exactly as if his award teaching was non-notable: most would agree that Harvard is one of the top universities in the world so where are teaching accolades more meaningful? He nor I picked the title "Professor" for his involvement with the Oxbridge program. Excuse me for my slight error: if I move the quote two words forward, then indeed the Chronicle Article does indeed refer to Mr Bennnett as a "Future World Leader" (see title).

I'm sorry you continue to be loosy-goosy with your pot-shots against Mr Bennett, but your insistent attempts to nit-pick at ancillary points (and to continue to do so incorrectly, not to mention your grills regarding my comments in this forum, which are not fundamentally at issue) are weakening your fundamental argument against Mr. Bennett: that you claim he is not notable. If anything, you are merely exposing that Mr. Bennett is a lot more notable than I originally portrayed in the article or its rewrite. I'm not sure what level of verification you want from me short of seizing copies of Mr. Bennett's bank deposit slips and diary entries. As far as I'm concerned, his recordings, freely available on the web, are reason enough to make Mr. Bennett a pianist of note and worthy of his entry in wikipedia. Everything else about him just adds to his collective notability, and I've been careful to include things that I am sure are true. --Evolving2 17:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As a graduate student at the University of Cambridge, I am well qualified to know what a supervisor is. Indeed I have a supervisor who is a senior researcher, and I have friends who are first-year graduate students who are supervisors. It is a word that means nothing without context, and as I said, in this context he was a graduate teaching assistant. Even when pressed you have not indicated that there is any difference between the duties of a Senior Teaching Fellow and a teaching assistant, and I am still waiting for evidence to the contrary. Claiming that The Chronicle of Higher Education called Sean a "future world leader" because the title of the article refers to other organizations are trying to pick future world leaders, is as spurious as your claims that The Chicago Tribune said he "commands the piano" in what turned out to be a photo caption. It is the context that is what is missing from these claims, and that is what I am providing.
• If you are a graduate student at Cambridge (and I'm assuming that this latest reply was an unsigned one from grouse), wouldn't that give you jealousy as a motive for trying to discredit Mr. Bennett, who recently was a graduate student at Cambridge also? And why did you not know the difference between a supervisor and a graduate teaching assistant in the first instance (or again, as I've mentioned many times, are you not being accurate?)? And why, when Mr Bennett was a Lecturer of Keyboard (which are hired in their own right, not through the normal supervisory process), do you continue to discredit him as a "graduate teaching assistant"? Furthermore, you never asked about the *duties* of a Senior Teaching Fellow at Harvard: in fact, as far as I understand, they have more of a say in the manner in which the course is conducted and grades are assigned in a course than a regular teaching fellow or teaching assistant (and are additionally compensated to reflect this increased duty). I'm sorry, but the comments regarding Mr Bennett from the Chicago Tribune and Chronicle are accurate, and any reasonable person would agree that I have portrayed these accurately. The Chronicle article was about picking future world leaders, and Mr. Bennett was profiled, along with a handful of others who I'd also claim were profiled as "future world leaders." The Chicago Tribune did say that Mr Bennett "commands the piano" in the context of an even more glowing article/review. What is your real problem here? Is it that you are uncomfortable with your present accomplishments as a graduate student at Cambridge and the fact that they may not be wikipedia worthy? Is it that you might be threatened by the fact that I too am a graduate student at Cambridge who now knows of Mr Bennett and supports his work and that somehow offends you? If this is a personal beef with me or Mr. Bennett, as I'm beginning to think it might be, I suggest you take it off this forum. You are wasting my time and that of the others who have taken the time to chime into this debate about Mr. Bennett. Your attempts to anger me just continue to allow me to expose the depth of Mr. Bennett and thus, his notability for inclusion in wikipedia. --Evolving2 03:24, 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 06:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't appear to clearly match any of the criteria. It's obviously vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Personal page/vanity JimmyShelter 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 23:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly vanity. --67.37.178.134 00:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. --Urbanguy1 04:08, 10 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 DELETED. jni 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Looks like patent nonsense, and was proposed for speedy delete, but is it possible that this thing really exists and the "smuckerata" (reference to Smucker's Grape Jelly) is merely due to a scientist with a sense of humor? No google hits, but that's not surprising for an obscure species. Someone is going to have to dig deep and research this. Note there were edits to Jellyfish linking to here, which I reverted... the first edit seemed legit though.

Even if it's real (a big if), is it notable at all?

I will slap a {{CiteSources}} on it for now. -- Curps 21:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take a chance and speedy delete this. I just don't believe it. I don't think "vinae" is good Latin for anything, sounds too much like the word for "wine" in Romance languages, I don't think "smuckerata" is the proper Latinate form (binomens are often not real Latin but they're supposed to have proper Latin endings that follow Latin rules of grammar). I'm no maven on systematic Latin but I think a genus name would be a singular noun and I don't think singular nouns end in -ae. I think it's odd that I can't get any Google hits on "vinae cnidaria" or "vinae ctenophora" or "vinae coelenterata." "Most deadly jellyfish in the world" is so notable that you'd think I'd have vaguely heard of it and you'd certainly think the scientific name for it would Google.

The jellyfish usually cited as the most deadly are the sea wasps or Cubomedusae, found on the Australian Great Barrier Reef, and if again there were a "vinae" species again you'd think "vinae cubomedusae" would Google.

And the description sounds wrong. I've never heard of a (true) jellyfish without tentacles. There are jellyfish without tentacles that do look rather like grapes, but they are the comb jellies or Ctenophora, also called sea gooseberries, which do not have nematocysts and are not venomous. I know someone who ate one to prove it. He said it basically tasted like seawater-flavored Jello. Oh, and I don't think the surface membrane of a jellyfish is ever called "epidermis."

Finally, systematists do make jokes, a worm Golfingia (found by its discoverer while golfing) being one of the knee-slappers; another named a bunch of species all after his wife Caroline by using anagrams (Cerolina, etc.) But I've never heard of a brand name being used.

And the chances that someone who can't spell "prey" or "leisure" knows about some really obscure species that is obscure despite being world-class deadly seems unlikely.

So out it goes. If someone finds a proper reference I'll apologize humbly. Text of deleted article is given below. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Vinae Smuckerata, also known as the Grape Jellyfish, due to its small size and purple color, is one of the most deadly jellyfish in the world. While it has no tentacles, its epidermis is covered in powerful nematocysts. On contact these kill and adhere to it's pray, allowing the jelly to digest it at its lesure.

P. S. Re the supposed Science News citation in the history. If Science News had published such an article in 1996, the factoid would be amusing enough that I can't believe it wouldn't have found its way onto the Web by now. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That citation was added by a vandal User:Zedfez, who created a patent nonsense article elsewhere shortly thereafter ("Mike scotto, king of lame-istan, mayor of sucktopia"). If someone wants to check it out, the cite was Science News, May 4, 1996 (Vol. 149, No. 18). -- Curps 02:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P. P. S. This cubomedusa species list doesn't have any "Vinae." Nothing here either. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Good call by dpbsmith. So now, D, if it turns out this was real, there will be someone else with whom you can share your embarassment. --BM 02:02, 9 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 06:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion, but not really a speedy candidate. Looks like vanity for a Polish band (which is actually called "Mind Gate") too new to be really notable yet. (The Polish Wikipedia has no article.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits (Mindgate/Mind Gate + variations), band vanity. Megan1967 01:54, 9 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 Transwikied. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:38, 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 06:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity page. — Brim 21:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible vanity/promo. Megan1967 01:56, 9 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 06:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vanity. Inter 21:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Either vanity or attack. In either case, Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity or prank. Megan1967 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, obvious vanity, probably also a prank. --Bart133 (t) 22:56, 12 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: Redirect 1 (to cocaine), Transwiki 1, Delete 1. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Slang term for cocaine. Basically a dict.def. Should move to Wiktionary. — Brim 22:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikify, grammaticalize, transwiki all useful content to Wiktionary (minding that the term is also commonly spelt "yayo") and delete. — Ливай | ☺ 23:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen it spelt by gringos as 'yeyo' and 'yayo' equally, but the correct spanish spelling is 'llello'.
  • On second thought, perhaps this could service as a redirect to cocaine, the same way that cheeba redirects to cannabis and shrooms redirects to magic mushrooms. — Ливай | ☺ 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:59, 9 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) 05:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

His article already exists. Carlos Gutierrez. I am merging as I type. (Well, nearly) Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Since you are merging, I recommend redirect instead of delete. 1) Redirect does not require a VfD vote. You can be bold. 2) Redirect will keep some future contributor from making the same mistake. 3) Redirect will point the anonymous contributor to the correct place so he/she can learn from the mistake. 4) Redirect is easier than copy-pasting the edit history over to the main article (keeping attribution history is a requirement of GFDL). 5) Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates existing article, no redirect - who is going to type in "Gutierrez, Carlos M." when Carlos Gutierrez in a search will get you there anyway? Megan1967 02:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Plenty of people, esp. those who grew up reading paper encyclopedias. Redir. Meelar (talk) 02:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Rossami and Meelar Kappa 04:11, 9 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 7 delete, 5 keep, 1 merge to another article - therefore keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This schoolcruft is getting out of hand. Not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 22:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Sorry but this is more than just the usual "schoolcruft" - it gives a good example of an English debating society. Please don't delete this page - it's far more encyclopedic than many pages on wiki! David.

• Delete - It may be an example of an english debating society, but a good one ? Really ? But if so why not have a School debating society article instead ? Nothing much else links here and , honestly, it isn't encyclopaedic. Velela 22:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. I agree that schoolcruft is becoming an issue. Carrp | Talk 22:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I guess. Perhaps start a wikijunior for such content? — RJH 22:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Seems notable and factual enough. Keep. --Centauri 00:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Resolved: School debating societies are notable. I'll take the negative side. --BM 01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability does not extend to an elementary school debating club, no matter how many British prime ministers have sprung from its loins. Denni☯ 05:07, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
• Delete. — Brim 10:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge useful content into Adams' Grammar School - Drw25 14:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Adams' Grammar School. Create a section called 'Student Activities' or 'Clubs' or somesuch. Contains too much detail (we don't need to know about the duties of the club Secretary, or that they usually meet in the school library), and duplicates information covered in debate. Few debating societies warrant their own articles—see for example the Oxford Union, which actually has a smaller entry. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge to Adams' Grammar School. It is the oldest club/society in the school and it deserves a mention. LukeSurl
• Keep, or Merge as above, preferably the latter. Think it might be one of the oldest school clubs in the world, 349 years old and counting. --Andylkl 20:17, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that it is the school that is 349 years old. There is no information in the article about the age of the club. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it is factual, NPOV and encyclopedic. Ronline 11:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Are we running out of paper? Are high schools unimportant? Zantastik 07:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't a high school, it's a unexceptional club at a non-notable school. Gamaliel 16:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adams Grammar School isn't a high school because it's not in the USA. It is a secondary grammar and sixth form though, which I would suggest is equivilent to a so-called "high school". And if you would look into the British education system a little more, you'd understand that there are in fact only 165 grammar schools remaining and even fewer debating societies - this one being founded in 1912! David

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was that it is already redirected. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This probably should be a category, but certainly not an article. It's also 95% unlinked. Carrp | Talk 22:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, make an appropriate category and put the existing articles in it. — Ливай | ☺ 23:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've redirected it to the identical Timeline of German history, which is the standard name for these timeline pages. - SimonP 23:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Can not be deleted to block-revision compression errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An entry for the username of someone who was apparently the "most well-known" English player during "the first year" of Final Fantasy XI Online. This does not strike me as particularly encyclopedic. Katefan0 23:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, not notable. — Brim 10:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Likewise. — Albany45 16:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above Saga City 21:50, 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 move to wiktionary. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slang term. Basically a dictionary def. Propose move to Wiktionary. — Brim 23:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, Merge and Redirect to Red Dwarf (television). Also Merge to List of sexual slurs or some-such article (looks like it's also been merged into Smeg). — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary though I'd also go for a redirect to Red Dwarf (television) since that show popularized the term in recent years. 23skidoo 05:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary with link to Red Dwarf (television). Actually I'm pretty sure that the Red Dwarf writers invented the term. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 7 keep, 16 delete (1 delete after the vote hit old) and evidence of sockpuppets trying to rig the vote. So delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable film, likely vanity. Google finds 33 unique links for "To know a Jedi" [11] (258 shown in heading, but advancing finds only 33). — Asbestos | Talk 23:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Delete)

• Keep Firstly, this is not a vanity because the people who created and have done much of the work on the page were not involved with the production of the film. Secondly, the film *is* notable because it is an example of the lengths to which some fans will go to show their enthusiam; it's a feature-length film based on Star Wars, done enitrely at cost and without any hope of direct financial compensation for their efforts. It is an example of the dedication some show to the Star Wars universe, as well as an excellent example of fan-produced fiction. — DoctorObvious 00:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons listed above by Doc, this film is neither vanity nor non-notable. Further evidence of its non-vanity nature can be found by looking at the history for the page. But as to notability, I am curious about Asbestos' use of the number of Goolge hits as an item of evidence. When did Google hits become the Wikipedia measure of notability? How many are needed to become notable? Why is it OK for Wikipedia to have articles related to obscure subjects which may generate many hits but not ones which may generate few hits? Is Wikipedia owned in whole or part by Google? Would hits on Yahoo or some other search engine be acceptable? — GunnerJ 00:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• An entry at imdb might. As for now, delete as non-notable. RickK 00:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • This standard would limit discussions of a large number of works of fan-fiction to the theoretical rather than concrete. Further, there is a big difference between "notable," meaning of note or interest, and "well-known." Unless you wish to support an argument that a film is not interesting if it doesn't have a page on imdb.GunnerJ 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You get it. Fan fiction is not encyclopedic, and rarely meets the notability level needed to be kept on Wikipedia. RickK 06:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you please state your operating definition of "notability?" I don't think the word means what you think it does. Also, why isn't fan fiction "encyclopedic?" As a cultural phenomenom, it certainly seems to have a place of note in an encyclopedia. Given that Wikipedia has a page on fan-fiction, your claim seems baseless. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems a bit like 'Troops' or 'George Lucas in Love', ceptin' that it doesn't seem as good. I believe the above post is GunnerJ's second edit, and that he joined Wikipedia four minutes before writing it. DoctorObvious, on the other hand, is the article's writer. Presumably GunnerJ is therefore the co-screenwriter, or best boy, or bassist, or something. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been participating on Wikipedia for a long time, but only joined so that my vote could be registered as coming from a reachable source. I did in fact help in the writing of the article, although it was my idea to start one in the first place. (I assume that is what you meant by "co-screenwriter." If you meant to imply that either Doc or I were involved in the making of TKAJ, please present your evidence.) Can you explain what bearing how long I've been a registered member has on either the argument I presented or the vote to delete the article? Or the relevence of the quality of the movie has in comparison to those you listed? GunnerJ 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Can you explain what bearing how long I've been a registered member has on either the argument I presented or the vote to delete the article?" - yes; the impression I received was that the article's writer was either (a) fabricating your username as a sockpuppet in order to cadge an extra vote or (b) he had recruited you from the outside world to help his case. In any case I wasn't convinced by your argument. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That you were not impressed by my arguments does not refute them. Sorry. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Taking your points in order, the answers are "more than 257", "if lots of individual people search for and/or link to them, they aren't obscure", "Wikipedia is not owned by Google", "Possibly; show us". As for your current argument, if the film was eighty-nine hours long and had taken one hundred people nine years of their free time to create then - even if it were an undiscovered masterpiece - it would nonetheless not be notable if it had not yet attracted significant attention in the wider world, or if was not in some other way highly influential and/or persistent. Frinstance, I believe that Kenneth Higney's obscure 1976 proto-punk/skronk lp 'Attic Demonstration' is a fantastic record which should have been huge, but it still doesn't deserve a place on Wikipedia because that's just my opinion. Wikipedia's notability standard does not lean heavily on folk memory. The memory has to be written down, by disinterested parties. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • In this instance, I'll be counting his vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 00:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fancruft. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I think if it was more notable it would have received at least some attention at The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards (despite its length). LizardWizard 01:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I count at least 3 submission rules that disqualifies TKAJ from the FFA: 1) Length (which you acknowledge). 2) It is not a parody, which is explicitly mentioned as being a requisite for acceptance. 3) Excessive swearing and explicit sexual content. Based on the linked requirements, it's clear that the Fan Film Awards are not meant to be all inclusive of the Star Wars fan fiction community, and that To Know A Jedi does not fall into the fairly narrow category that they constructed for their award show. DoctorObvious 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might merit a mention in a variety of articles where Star Wars fan manifestations would be in context. But as a film that has not been released (except maybe as a download on the Internet), it isn't notable. Apparently it hasn't even received attention in venues that spotlight Star Wars fan films, not that it would make much difference to my vote if it had. --BM 01:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Perhaps a mention in another Star Wars related article might be better. Carrp | Talk 01:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. kaal 01:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. There have been other independent films retained on Wikipedia before. Megan1967 02:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There have? Can you name a couple? RickK 06:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Shaun of the Dead, Bride and Prejudice, Steamboy, A Very Long Engagement, Kinsey (movie), Sideways, House of Flying Daggers, Bad Education, Enduring Love, The Machinist - all of these films are listed as independent on imdb [12]. Megan1967 07:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • For crying out loud, that's not comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing apples and machine tools, and bending the term "independent" all out of shape. I mean, Warner Brothers help finance A Very Long Engagement, just to note one example.
      • As for IMDB, while being listed there isn't a measure of notability, NOT being listed there is most certainly a measure of obscurity. Delete.--Calton 12:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Obscurity is not the same as unnotablity. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • No, they're spelled differently. This is article is a press release and its subject is a home video with pretensions, but if you boys get a DVD release or get sued by Lucasfilm, give us a yell, okay? --Calton 10:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The question isn't about its independent status, the question is about its notability. Those are all serious productions and have generated a lot of media hype. They have all played at my local movie theater. This is a college film-class work, or similar, has recieved no media attention at all, and has absolutely zero chance of playing at my movie theater. Going out with a movie camera and some of my friends doesn't grant my film "indie"-status, nor a place in Wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk 09:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see how the movie "counting" or "not counting" as an "independant film" really matters. The fact is, despite how few people have heard of it, it is an example of enthusiasm for a item of pop-culture that many people unaware of how serious many fan communities are may find interesting. That you do not find this personally interesting does not make it unnotable. GunnerJ 18:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • • It does when it's only fan work and not professional. It's no more notable than somebody's slash story becoming an article. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know if you're being disingenuous, Megan, or if you really think the movies you listed are the same thing as this. Those movies have been released in theaters and reviewed by professional critics in major newspapers. This one has none of those things. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My search of news web sites didn't return any hits. If it were truly noteworthy and worthy of encyclopedic mention, wouldn't the news wires have written a blurb on it? — Brim 10:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The first definition of the word "notable" (as an adjetive) on dictionary.com is "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable." None of the definitions say anything about news wires carrying blurbs, or google hits. I'm having a hard time thinking of many fan-produced films of the same length and representing the same level of resource investment as TKAJ. I contend that that in itself is worthy of remark, notice, or at the very least interest. I am not vouching for the quality of the movie, only the level of effort or committment put into it. GunnerJ 18:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Simply expand the article to include info about its relation to the entire community of Star Wars fandom. -- Old Right 10:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It HAS no relation to the community. Nobody knows about it except its creators, apparently. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Statement retracted) GunnerJ 18:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This does have a rather large bearing on the star wars fan community especially at Fanfilms.com and the forums attached to it. It pains me to say this but, the idea that people poured a huge amount of their spare time into one of the best examples of a fanfilm ever made, only to be trashed by people who are probably too shortsighted to see past their own nose and definatley didn't watch the movie and care only about technicalities is disgusting. If these people were in charge during world war two, this post would be written in German right now. It's a little harsh I know, but seriously folks, there is a large community that has interest in this out there. if the creators put up a whole bunch of money to put this in theaters would you stop complaining? Jeez, quit the nitpicking. Besides, isn't their an articleabout fanfilms on here too? Why aren't you complaining about that? According to SOME PEOPLE, their is no fanfilm community!!! And if there was , its a couple of guys with cameras and way too much time on their hands! SOME PEOPLE need to take a reality pill, get off their high horse and admit maybe they don't know everything! DarthLowBudget
  • User's only edit. RickK 07:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I won't be taking their vote into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DarthLowBudget, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for getting publicity and becoming notable. If the film you are describing is as important as you say, then it will become notable without any help from the Wikipedia. When it does, it will be a fit subject for an encyclopedia. Until then, it isn't. When people here say that it isn't notable, they aren't saying that the film is bad, or that it will never be notable. They are saying it isn't famous or notable enough now for an encyclopedia article. --BM 13:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Have we already managed to evoke Godwin's law just over a fan film? — Asbestos | Talk 10:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a Wikipedia entry for fan films already. This film, while significant in being one of the few to break into the "feature length" timeframe, has nothing about it -- no news coverage, no notable impact on the greater filmmaking or Star Wars communities -- that makes it worthy of its own standalone entry distinct from the entry discussing fan films in general. EDIT: Well, I THOUGHT there was a wiki entry for fan films, but I can't seem to find the bloody thing. If there isn't one, perhaps it would be appropriate to create one. DorkmanScott
  • User's only edits are to this page. RickK 04:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I made a few edits to the Star Wars entry, specifically the section regarding lightsabers and filming with them, but that was before I was registered, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a different IP to boot. Not that it should really matter. I'm a member of the fan film community and was asked to weigh in on this, since I actually have seen the film and can speak from an informed opinion. It was a good fan film, but not worth its own entry. I'll start editing around here like mad if it makes my opinion more worthwhile. DorkmanScott
      • Sounds good to me. I'll count your vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Time to get To Know A Delete. —RaD Man (talk) 09:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a rare gem of a fanfilm - it expands far beyond simply having two guys in bathrobes hitting each other with sticks in the back yard. The only reason that the film hasn't recieved a warmer welcome in the community is its language. Lusiphur79
  • User has two edits, both to this VfD. Carrp | Talk 13:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I won't take this vote into account - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Actually, Dorkman makes a good point. I retract my previous statment. delete away. DarthLowBduget
• Definately keep this - I saw it randomly on recent changes, and really liked it. It brightened up my day to see this example of Star Wars fandom - it's real information about a real film, albeit one that I wouldn't be able to read about many other places. It's these kinds of obscure gems that make Wikipedia great. 195.158.6.172 07:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to take this vote into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I saw this film almost a year ago, and have since gained alot of respect for the type of work it is. I didn't even know about the world of fanfilms until I saw this, and once I started looking into the other things that were out there, I have to say I was pretty disappointed. By and large, the other films out there seek only to create an excuse to experiment with sub-par visual effects and duel with lightsabers. This one is in a category of about 3% of those works that makes a genuine effort (and in many cases succeeds, but as DorkmannScott pointed out, does also fail) in establishing a unique, dramatic, and narratively driven piece that in my opinion, makes it exceptional. For those accusing this piece of having not been known, or seen, you're very mistaken. It's a staple amongst what I've discovered in the FanFilm world in the last year, and the fact that the Wikipedia crowd was unaware of its existence, I feel, is proof to the fact that such a film should be listed as an anchor to the FanFilm sub-category. People can argue if its "note-worthy" all they want. The fact is that if an effort like this, one well recognized in its own right, doesn't have a place in a sub-category on Wikipedia, then how the heck does the Star Wars "fat kid" deserve a listing for playing with a golf-ball retriever followed by his parents subsequently sueing the other pre-pubescents parents for posting the clip on the web? Gimme a break. If someone can successfully argue that that kid is more encyclpedic material than what I consider to be among the best in the Star Wars fanfilm category, please do. Perhaps then I'll vote a delete.--63.211.54.170 01:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Star Wars kid received news coverage in various web and print media, a section on Yahoo!, numerous websites mirroring the site, a petition to put him in Episode III, a site dedicated to raising funds to pay him back for the laughs at his expense -- in a word, massive and global recognition. To Know a Jedi is known by a small handful of people on a few obscure internet forums. This is not the place to gain something recognition, this is a place to document something that is already widely recognized as a pop culture phenomenon. The "Star Wars Kid," for better or worse, is one. "To Know a Jedi," I'm sorry, is not.
• Keep - I've just watched the fan-film and after seeing it, I'd say it definately deserves a wiki-page. It's so well done that I'm sure it will eventually become really well known amongst Star Wars fans, which earns it a lot of recognition. -- Crevaner 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep user:cooter08865
• Delete, slash fancruft. Wyss 10:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is supposed to be a good, open-content encyclopedia. With the possibility of infinite expansion via the internet, I see no reason why this article should be deleted as it is (a) informative, (b) well written, and (c) not vanity. Deleting Wikipedia articles that people make that are inappropriate or about generally stupid is acceptable and expected, however articles that contain real content and had time put in do not deserve to be deleted. --pzgamer825 00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually by IP 24.58.238.87. Username doesn't exist. IP only has edits to this page. — Asbestos | Talk 09:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote won't be taken into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps slightly more intricate fan-fiction than most, but still fan-fiction. Come back when it becomes as popular as the Star Wars Kid. -R. fiend 07:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity fan fiction. —Korath (Talk) 20:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 06:30, 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.