Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bicontinental country

[edit]

Original research. RickK 00:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks thorough, but what does it mean? Delete JFW | T@lk 01:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, NOT delete, will someone state his objections, please? This article compiles the information about these border-cases gathered from the main wikipedia articles about the continents and states involved. I think that instead of continius fighting about what country to include where - this article clears the things out and everyone should be happy with the compromise - also this article acts as some sort of a mover of the unresolvable debate about continent borders from the main pages to a separate 'borderline cases'-page. Also this article reflects the geographical reality. Anyway, even if some information is wrong, why not correct it instead of delete the whole article??? Unsigned by User:62.204.151.1
    • As you say, it duplicates information. How about turning it into a list, instead of rehashing stuff from other articles? JFW | T@lk 01:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Is it not currently like a list? There are some explanations given, but it could not be plain list... it should be noted WHAT is listed... that's why there are explanations. I think that the information about that subject is much better synthesied here - in one common place, where eveyone can look into (or change if needed) when some debate about states on the continent borders arises... User:62.204.151.1
        • It isn't a list because its title isn't "List of bicontinental countries". Ben Standeven 05:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see. If I create a list, but don't call it a list, it isn't a list. RickK 05:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, appears to be secondary research, not original, with the CIA World Factbook as the primary source. Spain is missing though. Kappa 01:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 01:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but transwiki; This is a very unique original research project. Maybe it could go to an atlas book in wikibooks? Tygar 01:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's trivia, but *useful* trivia, probably deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the author can provide a source for his drawing of the borders, especially the Europe/Asia border and where is he getting the maps from. ?Cantus…☎ 03:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Europe/Asia border is drawn along the Caucaus watershed-Caspian Sea-Ural river-Ural montain-Arctic Ocean. This is the most recognized path. The other - KumaManychRivers-Caspian Sea-Emba river-Ural mountain variant is much rarely used, but we can add it too for completecy.Alinor 07:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Americas and Asia/Africa border is drawn along the Isthmus/Canal of Suez/Panama - as stated in many Wikipedia articles. The Oceania/Asia islands are choosed according to the oceania's Melanesia Wikipedia page. Alinor 08:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See the article discussion page Talk:Bicontinental_country#some things to add
    • Note that the exact definition of continents is disputed - see Continent. Radiant! 19:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; looks interesting and could be expanded in lots of ways. For example, Turkey's bid to join the EU is based on its partial European geography, whereas objections from other European countries are based on its predominantly Asian culture. Other countries have similar political and cultural ambiguities. Psychonaut 04:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; the Europe/Asia border is as I've always seen it drawn, along the Urals and the Caucasus. The North/South America border is harder to argue, since I've never seen it drawn there, so I'd rather see sources for that. But it's interesting nonetheless. Alfvaen 04:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No context, no discussion, no explanation, no ramifications, no significance. It's a list article disguised as a discursive article. What are the effects of going over a continental border? Is there anything historical about this? Do the locals know they're crossing borders? What is there to say about this? If it's a list article, then, well, the battle against lists has been lost, but it's clearly not an explanatory article. Geogre 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See the rant at the discussion page for some explanation of 'why is it written/should be keeped'
    • That are only geographical borders, not political state borders, so locals don't have to know when crossing them. This is like knowing/not knowing the apple falls becouse of gravity. 62.204.151.1 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is not original research, so nomination is unfounded. --Centauri 06:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is quite an interesting article and I think it's encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep there's useful information here, it's a topic which could easily be encyclopedic and the solution to problems with the article is to edit it. Mozzerati 08:34, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rl 11:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry, I can tell someone did a lot of work on this, but this topic is simply not encyclopedic. There's nothing unifying about these countries as a class that justifies an article just about them. --Angr 12:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep have you ever seen what is going on when somebody edits articles about those countries, trying to claim that they are in one of the two continents? Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
    • Well, if there is no consensus on whether a country is in one continent, or the other, or both, then you cannot force a consensus simply by creating a list like this. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like someone is trying to claim every country in Europe is bicontinental. — JIP | Talk 13:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, which is rather a pity, as we could really do with an article on the topic (see the edit wars over templates declaring which countries are or aren't in the continent of Europe). James F. (talk) 18:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
again this originality...this is just a compilation from another sources (I have mentioned them multiple times on multiple places around here), I don't see original, creative parts, what do you consider 'original research'?62.204.151.1 18:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the problem is this: if the listed countries have nothing in particular in common other than the fact that they are considered to be on two continents, then the list is as arbitrary as List of countries with an R in their name - ergo, not encyclopedic. If the listed countries are alleged to have something else in common, then the article would be original research. Either way, delete. As a side point, inclusion on this list is arbitrary depending on from what POV you define 'continent' - see Continent for details. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
The common thing is that they are bicontinental and this is quite enough reason to make such a list - look at the edit wars, witch errup everytime one such country is put on 'the other' continent. This article is a good place to present the subject from a neutral point of view (if you object something in this article - let's discuss and change, not delete) and to release the other articles of these edit wars. (rant).
Look at the Europe and Template:Europe discussions to see the 'popularity' of these edit wars. They are practiced by MANY PEOPLE. So it looks that there IS NEED for the information on bicontinental countries to be compiled (and improved) at one single place (not individualy on each country - one time for Russia, next time for Cyprus, again for Turkey, etc.) - I suggest this place to be here.62.204.151.1 19:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there are edit wars about this subject, creating a new article that explains your POV is not a very good way with dealing with them. It seems to me that the people participating in those edit wars would not agree with the contents of the Bicont page. Hence, it gives them an extra arena to fight edit wars in. Instead, you should go to WP:RFC and resolve the issue. Radiant! 22:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone thinks that something in the article is POV - just say and it will be corrected. Also, this is not "one more arena" for the continent-borders edit wars - this will be THE place for this information, debate, edit war, etc. - the pages of continents and countries will become NPOV and point to this place here, were we should also made a NPOV explanation of the subject.62.204.151.1 18:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Canaen I see no reason to delete the information. Sometimes it's good to repeat information.
  • Delete. I have to agree in large part with the points made above by Radiant!. While the information is interesting it is trivial at best, it can also be viewed as inaccurate at worst. The fact that continental boundaries themselves are disputed means the information in this article is inherently disputable as well. Either way it is too arbitrary and too trivial to be encyclopedic. Arkyan 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not too trivial, judjing by the debates about the subject, that are participated by many people (on the mentioned here pages and other places).
If some information in the article is disputed (or POV) - this can be easily corrected. 62.204.151.1 18:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is surely in need of a bit of cleanup, but this is not merely original research. All information about area is fairly well known geography if the continental boundaries are agreed upon. Sjakkalle 08:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If there's controversy about where the borders are between continents make note of it in the article. I don't see how this is original research any more than any other article that compiles multiple references. --Aranae 08:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the page, but maybe as a list. In the least, it needs to be cleaned up and the overlapping information should be linked to on the other pages. At any rate, I see no reason to delete it entirely. Uris 03:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is definitely encyclopedic. --Tv 00:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After all this discussion, still have to echo User:Jfdwolff. It's detailed, but seemingly purposeless. Delete. Lacrimosus 07:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with angr, Geogre and Radiant! above. The article does not show a meaningful connection between, say, the Asia/Europe countries and the Asia/Oceania countries. It might be useful to have a page specifically about the Europe/Asia controversy. In fact, it looks like that was the point of this page, and the other bicontinental countries were added to make it look more general.FreplySpang 16:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. but needs to be cleaned up, and some context given (i.e., significance?)--Briangotts 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant and impossible to get interesting or relevant. Borders between continents are too arbitrarily drawn — in Eurasia, the Americas and in the sea — to make it possible for this to become anything else than an weak shaddow of pseudo-science. How and why should it matter for a country if it is bicontinental or not? The answer is, it doesn't, although Wikipedia with this article try to give the impression it does. /Tuomas 16:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The relevance of this sort of seemingly trivial information may require several steps of inference. For example, I could see relevance to this sort of information when dealing with the politics of conservation. Indonesia's conservation strategy should take Wallace's Line into account and potentially treat things very differently on either side. Turkey may have a similar concern across the strait of Bosporus. Panama and Egypt are both in an unual situation with the existence of the Panama and Suez canals. These have isolated once contiguous biological ranges and have led to geographic reproductive isolation among populations on either side. I suspect there's plenty of relevance to this sort of discussion outside of biology as well. Admittedly, borders of continents are somewhat arbitrary, but I think this information is still potentially of some value. --Aranae 01:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's much better to have this than it is to ignore the issue by deleting the article at this point. --Joy [shallot] 00:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 04:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:54, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

  • 03:12, 2005 Mar 11 Fuzheado deleted Nick Amacher (content was: 'Born on November the 11, of 1994, Nicholas Allen Amacher was a failed actor. He turned into a Gay Activist and jointed the United Faggot Party of Amer...')
  • 06:50, 2005 Mar 7 Dysprosia deleted Nick Amacher (basically more vandalism from 24.20.190.212 - speedy.)

Nick Amacher

[edit]

Unnotable gay fiancee of gay rapper Michael Bolton?? Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Um patent nonsense? Born 1994... Kappa 01:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. Reads like a personal attack page. Delete. Bearcat 03:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: libel page, no question about worthiness or inclusion. Geogre 04:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; offensive, libelous nonsense. Antandrus 05:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. While it's certainly possible that Michael Bolton has switched to rap and that he's living with and engaged to a 10-year-old transsexual, the article provides no corroboratory evidence. --Angr 12:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Angr's arguement. --Jacobw 18:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Jonathunder 23:35, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • DeleteTjc 09:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: if it wasn't obvious before, look at this [1], left by the same anon who created the article. I think this should be speedied. Antandrus 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy. Same user created other vandalism. Dysprosia 06:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theory of tomorrow

[edit]

Some rocking teenagers hungry for fame. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Tygar 01:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. BTfromLA 07:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Jacobw 19:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hobie B. James

[edit]

Orphaned vfd, tagged on the 5th by User:Jfdwolff. Non-notable, unpublished, possibly fictional author. No google hits. Delete. Gamaliel 16:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Altogether too much mystery for an encyclopedia article, methinks. Delete. Lacrimosus 07:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First Test Match

[edit]

Cricket box score. No chance to become encyclopedic. Longstanding listing at WP:CP without resolution. Delete. DanKeshet 01:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • If it was not a copyvio, it would have been Wikisource. Delete. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let me get this straight - we have an article about the score in one particular test match played between two specific countries in 2004? A copyvio at that? From the first website that cricket fans check for live scores? Seriously, why? -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 04:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only the existence of a sequel suggests this isn't a test page. Since the author is in earnest, VfD is the right place, and deletion ought to be its fate. Geogre 04:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Arguably not a copyvio, but delete anyway - Wikipedia is not cricinfo.com. sjorford →•← 08:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Already marked copyvio - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second Test Match

[edit]

Same as First Test Match (no chance for encyclopedic article, longstanding listing at WP:CP) Delete. DanKeshet 01:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let me get this straight - we have an article about the score in one particular test match played between two specific countries in 2004? A copyvio at that? From the first website that cricket fans check for live scores? Seriously, why? -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 04:15, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete: Copyvio, and there are several "second test match"es. I'd have thought this was a test page and therefore a CSD. (shrug) Geogre 04:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Arguably not a copyvio, but delete anyway - Wikipedia is not cricinfo.com. sjorford →•← 08:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Already marked copyvio - David Gerard 10:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article cannot be deleted at this time due to block-compression errors. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism in Phoenix

[edit]

Not a notable enough subject to rate a Wikipedia article. Phoenix, Arizona is the only city with an article on anarchist activities in the city. Article is entirely about "black bloc" groups in Phoenix today who have no notability nor influence, neither within anarchism nor within mainstream politics, thus it looks like a possible vanity article. Delete Kaibabsquirrel 01:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a follow-up comment: I could see city by city articles on anarchism justified only for those cities where it is notable. Say, Chicago or Seattle. Even there, the Chicago article might as well just redirect to Haymarket Riot and the Seattle article to WTO Meeting of 1999. A separate article for Phoenix seems way out of place any way you look at it. Kaibabsquirrel 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's true that we don't have city-by-city articles on anarchists, but it's not obvious to me that we shouldn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Other than the mention of an unremarkable (and unverified) "Anarchist Library", this article is a recap of a few minor news events from the summer of 2000. I don't see a real encyclopedia article here. Delete (or maybe transwiki to WikiNews?). Rossami (talk) 02:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I know of no reason to think that Phoenix anarchism has had any particularly influence or notability, unlike, say, anarchism in Eugene, Oregon or even conservatism in Orange County. RadicalSubversiv E 02:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete without third party verification that anyone cares. This is anarchist vanity. (And then there's that template ...) - David Gerard 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though this article lacks a lot of information, it can and will be improved upon. Anarchism in Phoenix is in fact notable for many different reasons which will hopefully be written within this article. I would suggest keeping it up for a little with the hopes of someone updating it. The Phoenix Anarchist Coalition does have notability within Phoenix and espescially Tempe which is a part of Phoenix. Just a note I am not the author of this article. And the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition nor any of the other groups mentioned within this article have anything to do with the blac bloc. And even moreso the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition has been very influential within the national anarchist movement with special emphasis on the southwest
  • Keep. Other websites, such as Infoshop, a notable source, have placed focus on Phoenix. Phoenix has a much more functional anarchist community than som others and the article is not poorly written or irrelevant although it needs some additions.
  • Strong keep—general articles on politics in major cities are great. Everyking 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 21:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don Ezequiel Solana de Ramirez

[edit]

¿Delete. Both not noteworthy and this material is all at Javier Solana already. --SqueakBox 02:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • If the material was already at Javier Solana, why not be bold and redirect? Rossami (talk) 02:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If all the material is there, just redirect. If not, merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Freak on a Leash

[edit]

It's a KoЯn single. There's nothing here that isn't in KoЯn or Follow the Leader (Korn) already, except the lyrics, which should go anyway. --Plek 04:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the rewrite: changing vote to keep. --Plek 22:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: We're not at the point, I hope, where folks are going to vote in favor of an article for every single song ever recorded. It's just a song. It's not "Satisfaction" or "Hound Dog." It's not even "Girl You Know It's True." Geogre 04:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What makes "Satisfaction" encyclopedic, and "Freak on a leash" not. Surely you don't think the merits of a song can be objectively decided? Not enough people have hummed along to it yet? Throw me a bone here... nsh 05:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
You have made it abundantly clear on the mailing list that you view the VfD process with scorn. Please quit making personal attacks on people who disagree with you about the encyclopedicality of articles, and just vote up and down on the subjects. RickK 21:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Rick... What is your defition of personal attack? If it includes questioning the rationale of decisions made on wikipedia, then I would recommend a revision. My opinions (or anyone else's, for that matter) play no role in deciding what questions are "askable" should such a concept even be considered. Discourse is not an activity that lends itself well to emotional involvement, and the worst emotion in this respect is anger. Peace, nsh 08:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no reason why individual song titles merit their own Wikipedia entries. Kaibabsquirrel 04:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any more reason why individual battles, or individual mathematical theorums, deserve such articles? Where is the distinguishing principle employed here? (Honest curiosity) nsh 05:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's possible that while the song itself doesn't merit a wikipedia entry, it's video might as it was co-directed by Todd McFarlane (Spawn artist) and won a Grammy (as well as numerous other awards) Djbrianuk 05:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Stressed Comment / Query - When did there suddenly become a criterion that everyone who votes on VfD needs to know about/appreciate an article before it can be started on wikipedia? How many people here know of the Russian Constitution of 1906? Can we at least give articles that have objective and verifiable content that chance to become great. How many of you would have allowed Pet skunk when it was started? nsh 05:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign comment)
  • Delete: article just some lyrics. 0% insight. yawn. (and I rarely vote to delete.) WpZurp 05:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
  • Delete. The bulk of the article is the song lyrics...which would be a copyvio, would it not? The only original content is: "A song by the band [KoЯn]. On the album Follow the Leader (track 14) and the remix version is featured on the bands newest album Greatest Hits Volume 1 (track 13)". I'll revisit my vote if someone puts something encyclopedic here—but there's lots of room in the album article (Follow the Leader (Korn)) for expansion.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why not, instead of voting to delete it, remove the questionable content and perhaps replace it with something better? It would take barely more time than this does anyway. nsh 12:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
It's now somewhat better. There's enough there to merge to the album (Follow the Leader (Korn)). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep hit singles, if copyvio is removed. Kappa 07:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 07:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No articles on wikipedia would every become encyclopedic if people simply voted them for deletion instead of attempting to improve them. nsh 12:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) p.s. the article namespace _is_ editable... :-)
  • Delete. While the it's indeed a hit song, this article doesn't provide any new info apart from the copyvio lyrics. I suggest additions are made to the KoЯn and Follow the Leader (Korn) before it's broken out into its own article. Mgm|(talk) 12:16, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Someone else edited this, so probably unwisely, I did too. Kappa 13:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    As Martin Luther famously never said: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I would plant an apple tree today". So too with articles listed for deletion. 82.92.119.11 15:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable song by notable band. The video for it won a Grammy so that certainly makes it notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge--this article has just enough material to stand alone (esp. regarding the video details), but could conceivably be merged. Do not delete the content. Meelar (talk) 20:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • An obvious keep. Any single by a famous band is notable, especially if it has a famous music video like this one did. Everyking 20:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, because it was a hit single by a notable band. Anything less would be a delete. DaveTheRed 20:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge I don't see a problem with a particular track being listed and detailed in the artist's own page, but why is it necessary to have an individual entry for it? If a particular track has had enormous cultural impact - if it has entered the national/international consciousness, then yes. 'Rhapsody in Blue' springs to mind, but I'm sure there are more modern examples. This might be a hit single (I have never heard of it - sorry), but is Wikipedia going to list people's favourite tracks by their favourite bands now? That is more the field of allmusic.com and the like. Keep the details of the track - but under the artist's name - not as an individual entry. Jez
  • Keep. Notable hit single by band that started entire genre of music. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge individual tracks with the article on the album. Radiant! 11:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. proper song article. bbx 01:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current article is absolutely fine and interesting even for a non-fan. Jgm 22:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know the first thing about KoЯn, but the song won awards, including a Grammy, and was a hit. If we delete this single, I hope we are consistant and delete all singles and categories of singles such as the "Number One singles" category, the "1999 singles" category and all of the other years, in addition to all singles like Candle in the Wind. I see no problem with leaving articles about notable singles (i.e. ones that have won awards, were big hits, started musical movements/genres, or were otherwise notable). Srcastic 07:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was a hit. Although nothing would be lost by merging the content into the album article and making this a redirect - David Gerard 10:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Completely agree with Jez. Not enough to be said about it to merit an independent article. Jonathunder 06:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Stong keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was a major hit for the band, and the article discusses possible meanings. There is no more reason to delete this than an article on a popular book from an author. Besides, disk space is cheap.--El-Spectre 05:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

  • 19:44, 2005 Mar 6 Jni deleted Shivan patel (patent nonsense)
  • 06:39, 2005 Mar 6 Curps deleted Shivan patel (patent nonsense; content was: 'AKA The Real Saul Smith, is the most real gangster as stated, His crew, Armnfoshaganoff, Pat Dizzle, and Big D are known to be the 'realest killaz' ...')

Shivan patel

[edit]

Not notable, vanity, possibly personal attack disguised as rap lyrics. Vote to delete. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 04:29, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

  • Delete: Speedy candidate for inappropriate content and a blatant hoax/libel. Geogre 04:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The {{subst:vfd}} message in the article was deleted by 4.46.106.78. I have added it back. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 04:52, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense, libel, or violating Wikipedia's "no lyrics" rule. Take your pick. 23skidoo 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment - someone with an apparent vested interest in this article is vandalising userpages of people like me who have voted to delete it. Not only should it be deleted, but the anon should be banned. Unfortunately the guy seems to have a changing ISP; so far I have logged 4.46.106.78 and 66.214.7.244 as vandals. Adding childish comments like "I am gay yee-hee" to a person's user page is not a way to help your cause. 23skidoo 08:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have speedy deleted it once more. Repeated vandalism. jni 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Devonshire Cat

[edit]

Non-notable pub. Almost vanity JeremyA 05:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article is POV, not enclycopedia material. Tygar 07:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, advertising as currently written, even if independently Mozzerati 17:16, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Anything useful could be merged into Kelham Island Brewery. Otherwise delete. — RJH 18:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. There's no reason to consider this pub notable. --Jacobw 18:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • borderline delete - if it had any reason to keep, it would need a location in the name, by the way - David Gerard 10:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A personal review, not an article, and no evidence of notability for the subject. -- Infrogmation 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Longden

[edit]

Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club is not notable. The last paragraph reads like an attack, too. RickK 06:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: the last libelous paragraph (which I removed) was added by a different IP than the original article creator. -- Curps 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. In a similar vein Jack Jones (LGBT Rep. of Lincoln College, Oxford, 2004-2005)? -- Curps 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, not notable. Jack Jones has also been listed for deletion--nixie 07:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Jacobw 19:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, post may need editing, but he is a ward campaign mananger, chair of Oxford University Labour Club and a member of the Labour Party 'Block of Seven'163.1.168.96 20:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't get an article by virtue of my campus Labor club position, so neither does he. Lacrimosus 22:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and consider blocking original contributor for making an implied death threat (Trotsky and icepick as "see alsos"). RadicalSubversiv E 02:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CV - David Gerard 10:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

James Longstreet (security)

[edit]

Personal page - not encyclopedic doles 06:29, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Tygar 08:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, straight-up vanity. —Korath (Talk) 09:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • All that I know about this person is that in December 2004 he and a number of others made a big splash at BugTraq [2], Slashdot, and the news services ([3], [4], and the wire services), as the discoverer of a number of security flaws in Unix [5]. Given that we keep politicians' wives that make the news for reckless driving (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eli Hagen) and local politicians that make the news for writing electronic mail (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Paul Jenkins)) do we keep graduate students who make the news for making discoveries? Weak Keep. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - he made a small amount of actual news in the actual world for an actual reason - David Gerard 10:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actual Keep per above. Kappa 22:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jesse ball

[edit]

Non-notable poet, no matter how splendid or swell he is. Hard to find him using Google, but he doesn't come up in association with the names of any of his works. RickK 06:45, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


Check out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802141226/qid=1110091650/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2227507-7588010?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

To be a poet published by Grove Press at the age of 26 already makes one notable.

Also, check out the review in the Boston Review, a superbly notable literary magazine: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/harrison.html

Furthermore, try these google searches: "jesse ball" "march book" "jesse ball" poet

He is clearly an up and coming poet. Try emailing the distinguished pulitzer prize winner Richard Howard to find out if Mr. Ball is notable. You can find Mr. Howard's email address by going to this page and searching for Richard Howard:

http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?col=cuweb&rq=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&qt=richard+howard&formaction=lookup&x=7&y=13

Please give me another day to have this page cleaned up and more complete biographical information added. I wanted to get a template up and then I will have this edited so it is more complete. Etschreiber 06:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Etschreiber - to reduce the risk of VfD's, work on an article in, for example User:Etschreiber/sandbox until it is reasonably complete. Then copy it to the main namespace. -- RHaworth 07:43, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Rick. Not notable. Megan1967 07:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep poets published by recognized companies, like musicians released by major labels. Kappa 08:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being young and in a niche profession doesn't make him non-notable. I wouldn't expect Google to know much about contemporary poetry. Rl 11:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article is informative, and Jesse Ball is clearly a notable person. It is monumentally difficult to publish a book of poetry at all -- doing so with a big-press at such a young age is an incredible accomplishment. Look on the web for March Book, you'll find it. Bf1213 1:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If he's been published in New Republic he easily meets the "published in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" guideline for inclusion.
    • Vote above is mine. Sorry, --Jacobw 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable young American poet. Capitalistroadster 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "Clearly"? How do you determine that if he doesn't show up in Google? RickK 21:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • He does google, the first hit for "jesse ball" "march book" [6] is the Amazon.com page above. Kappa 22:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried a Google search for "Jesse Ball" poet. It came up with the Amazon article, the Boston Review review and that the New Republic had published one of his poems. This was enough to convince me that he was notable enough for Wikipedia. I hope that my use of the word clearly was not interpreted as a criticism of the momination. It was certainly not my intention and I apologise if such an impression was conveyed. In my view, people nominate articles for deletion because they do not consider that the subjects should be covered. Discussion should not reflect on the motives of those people who vote and people should put forward good arguments for retention, deletion or other options. Capitalistroadster 08:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (and wikify). Agree with Capitalistroadster --Neigel von Teighen 22:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep &emdash; non-vanity-published authors are notable as a class. &emdash;Demi 18:59, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepTjc 09:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; defenses of vfd-targeted articles don't come much better or more complete than Et's above. As others have recently pointed out, Google hits (and by extension the web) don't adjucate everything, and poetry is probably a corner of the world that tends not to be highly webified. Jgm 04:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 10:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; He may be fairly obscure, but what the hell is the point of Wikipedia if not to profile notable people who don't appear in the World Book? New Republic + Grove Press + very young = wiki. montyque

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ferro Milone Cesare

[edit]

Unverified, bordering on nonsense--nixie 07:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. A little googling turns up the fact that he has a piazza named after him in Italy (you'll have to scroll down the page a bit to find it, or do a find for "Milone.") That, combined with the fact that at least one wikipedia user considers him memorable some 70 years after his death, provides a little bit of evidence that he's notable-- very weak evidence, admittedly, but I'd rather err on the side of including information, and giving this article a chance to grow. I've revised the entry to make it coherent English. Note, however, that the name of the piazza (and the inconsistency within the article) suggest that his name might be "Cesare Ferro Milone" rather than "Ferro Milone Cesare".
    • Sorry, that vote above was me. One day, I will remember to sign my votes on the first time. --Jacobw 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 10:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Episcopal High School

[edit]

Non-notable high school. I suggest delete --Holdek 07:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Possible school vanity - User:128.189.194.161's only contribution. Megan1967 08:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, claims to be the first high school in Virginia, which would seem notable. Anyway necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 08:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borderline-notable, famous alumni. Not that I doubt it, but I'd like to see some verifiable evidence that it is really "known throughout the South as 'The High School'" (mention in a newspaper story or a novel or something like that). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve. --BaronLarf 17:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't believe that most high schools belong in WP, but this article establishes enough notability for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 17:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Carrp. --Jacobw 19:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, if all it's claims to fame are true. Sources would be nice. DaveTheRed 21:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Wincoote 02:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but I'd like to see better evidence of both its claims and its notability. Jayjg (talk) 05:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not nonsense, original research or vanity, therefore the nomination is invalid deletioncruft. Keep.--Centauri 09:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's not. If Bill Gates wrote an article about himself, would it be grounds for deletion? What if I did? What's the difference? Notability. End of story. --Holdek 09:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
The notion that nominations could be invalid because they don't strictly adhere to policy, is not in itself policy - and is currently under heavy attack on VfD talk. Radiant! 11:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into Alexandria, Virginia and delete - Skysmith 10:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Radiant! 11:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Agree with Centauri that this nomination does borderline on being invalid. --GRider\talk 23:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep as long as the claims made in the article can be verified. I'm usually of the thought that Wikipedia is not a repository of Random High School Facts ® but the prominent alumni seem to establish some notoriety. If verifiable, then clean up the article. Arkyan 02:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just like all other school articles.--Gene_poole 02:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless claim is verified. ComCat 04:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the claims are verified. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information is verified at the school website. Senator John McCain] one of the prominent alumni spoke at the school. This bio confirms that he attended. [7] Capitalistroadster 06:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Tipping my hat off to Capitalistroadster, I give this an extreme {{subst:User:Dr Zen/keepschools}} VfD is the cancer of this great project. (RIP, Dr Zen!) —RaD Man (talk) 15:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless claim is independently verified. Gamaliel 19:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've added independent sources to the article for three of the four notable alumni listed. The Washington Post, for instance, mentions that McCain graduated from this high school. [8] --BaronLarf 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to the claim that it was the oldest high school in Virginia, which would be of minor notability. I have no doubt McCain attended, but that doesn't make it notable enough for me. Gamaliel 20:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If John McCain was an alumni, then it passes the BEEFSTEW barely. Keep. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would this picture be suitable to put into this article, if we improve it? [9] -- Riffsyphon1024 20:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • What if he was an alumnus? Last I checked there is only one of him...
  • Keep, looks like encyclopedic topic, but definitely needs work. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:52, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep only because the claims to fame aren't verified. This could be a real keeper once it's polished. - Lucky 6.9 08:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article establishes enough notability for inclusion. Great Scott 18:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears notable. RadicalSubversiv E 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - location should be in article name, though - David Gerard 10:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yuppers, it does seem notable. --Andylkl 19:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable doc13mets
  • Keep This is a fairly well-known and notable high school, like Woodberry Forest or Groton. Ridethefire3211 18:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 03:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bpcs

[edit]

Software, notability not demonstrated--nixie 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Not obvious whether it is notable or not. Seems harmless, could be notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Needs more detail - David Gerard 10:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jack Jones (LGBT Rep. of Lincoln College, Oxford, 2004-2005)

[edit]

A student representative of a non-notable organisation--nixie 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I suspect being the current president of the Oxford Union would be borderline, this is just trivial. Average Earthman 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but, umm, whut? What "non-notable organisation"? Do you mean Lincoln College, Oxford? If you do, I worry. James F. (talk) 18:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Average Earthman.
    • Sorry, the vote above is mine. I keep forgetting to sign these things. --Jacobw 19:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Curps 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the photograph, this has the appearance of a student prank. The facts in the article are thus highly suspect. The title is extreme, too. If they want to publish this sort of prank, they can do it in their college newspaper, not here. Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like a prank to me: student politicians like this are actually a feature of campus life in the UK and Australia. Nevertheless, there are hundereds of them, and only a tiny fraction notable. Delete. Lacrimosus 01:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete - David Gerard 10:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think it's a prank per se, but it certainly isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. 163.1.159.21 15:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 03:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blue Chairs

[edit]

Non-notable piece of fiction--nixie 07:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 41 unique google hits. Not notable. DaveTheRed 21:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ifcomp winners might squeak in, but the genre's too marginalized these days for #2 to. —Korath (Talk)
  • Delete without independent verifiability - David Gerard 10:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a notable work of Interactive fiction, it didn't won by a small margin and got the most of 10 votes. It is also likely to win the most of XYZZY Awards, an IF equivalent of Academy Awards this year. Grue 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Blue Chairs is not only the second-place winner in the Comp, but also brought home 3 of the more notable Xyzzies (Best Story, Best Writing, Best Game). By such a reasonable metric, Blue Chairs is probably the most significant IF work of 2004. Yes, IF is a small community, but I don't think that's cause to exclude significant works from Wiki. --Jake 23:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Prize winner. Very well-regarded within community. Distinctive as a game.--Fangz 23:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. A little work will definitely make this a keeper. --Kwi | Talk 23:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It won three XYZZY awards, which is nothing to be sneezed at. Kairos 08:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Breadfish

[edit]

Unencyclopedic, web-animation cruft--nixie 08:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Marginal Keep. The weebl website is notable; this is a reasonably notable aspect of it. Notability isn't necessarily transitive, but on the balance, I'd keep this.
    • Above vote by Jacobw.
    • Yes, sorry, it's my vote. I seem to suffer from a chronic inability to sign my votes. --Jacobw 12:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, near BJAODN. Google gives 2000 mostly unrelated hits, so it's not a notable web phenomenon. Radiant! 11:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jonti Picking, the author, to discourage recreation - David Gerard 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Formacion del doble arcoiris

[edit]
  • Spanish-language title is useless here. I'm also not at all sure what it says is accurate. On the other hand, I'd expect us to have an article on "double rainbow", and we don't, just a passing mention in rainbow that doesn't even use that term. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. I've redirected double rainbow to rainbow, since the latter article already contains a couple of good diagrams of how rainbows (and double rainbows) form and a picture of a double rainbow. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (no merge, no redirect). Spanish language title doesn't belong in English Wikipedia, and the described mechanism of double rainbow formation is flat-out wrong. There is already better and more complete information in rainbow. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. concurr with Ten. DaveTheRed 21:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there already exists a far more accurate and complete version at Rainbow. Megan1967 04:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect not useful. -- Cleduc 05:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to rainbow to discourage recreation - David Gerard 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blue gum lodge

[edit]

School camp ground of no consequence--nixie 08:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Individual camping lodges are not inherrantly notable. DaveTheRed 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't think of anything that would render it notable. Weak delete. Lacrimosus 07:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, needs more refs and a better title - David Gerard 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Anywhere But Home. ugen64 03:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Breathe No More

[edit]

Nothing makes this Evanescence worthy of its own article--nixie 08:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The links could be merged into the Anywhere But Home, and the song author listed on that page. Otherwise it looks like a delete. — RJH 18:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ow! The POV! Merge. Snowspinner 19:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a single, in which case it might be best to merge, but I'd also be fine with keeping it as an individual article. Everyking 20:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a notable song. The Anywhere But Home article already mentions the song, and the article is too POV to merge. DaveTheRed 19:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • either Keep or merge and redirect to Anywhere But Home. Megan1967 04:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to album. Note complete lack of content in this article - David Gerard 10:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, don't think it deserves its own article- merge it. Shihaisha

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

Brow Bones

[edit]

Hoax, the entry is largely an ad for the website www.elchupacabra.com--nixie 08:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems to be a hoax, and smells to me like a personal attack.--Jacobw 19:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. cf Jcobw. -- Infrogmation 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, veiled personal attack. Megan1967 04:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as personal attack page - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bruckheimerize

[edit]

Neoligism--nixie 08:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism, but may be a BJAODN candidate. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wipedia is not UrbanDictionary.com.-- Infrogmation 20:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. I laughed. DaveTheRed 21:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', neologism. Megan1967 04:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Kaboooom and send to BJAODN. Lacrimosus 07:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bucketworks

[edit]

Nothing notable about this "creative playspace"--nixie 08:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Vanity? Delete. Tygar 08:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability somehow demonstrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to bricolage. ugen64 03:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bricoleur

[edit]

dic. def. for a word with no english equivalent--nixie 08:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Orphan poor dicdef attempt. -- Infrogmation 20:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It actually could be an encyclopedic topic if anyone wants to work on it. It was evidently coined in the early 1960s from a common French word, bricolage, to describe a certain type of individual in society: "The bricoleur is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with "whatever is at hand", that is to say with a set of tools and materials which is always finite and is also heterogeneous, because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all the occasions there have been to renew or enrich the stock or to maintain it with the remains of previous constructions of destructions." —Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. 1966 (Paperback edition; University of Chicago Press, 1968 ISBN 0226474844 ). DialUp 04:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to bricolage. -Sean Curtin 04:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per evidence provided by Dialup, or merge/ redirect to bricolage. Kappa 09:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Integrate DialUp's remarks into bricolage; Bricoleur should become a redirect to bricolage. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to bricolage (which also has a strong flavor of dictionary-definitions but is more likely to be expandable). Rossami (talk) 02:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to bricolage unless and until someone writes a real article here - David Gerard 10:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jingo (boat)

[edit]

Not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 08:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unless someone can explain why this boat is notable. At the moment, this sounds like a huge number of other boats out there. Average Earthman 15:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Orphan article, no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without independent evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 10:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anomaly (US band)

[edit]

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Band has produced only one self-financed EP. Allmusic.com entry refers to an Australian techno EP. Anomaly's website indicates the band is no longer functioning. Note Google shows up a number of bands from various countries called Anomaly, mostly metal bands from Denmark and Holland, not Utah. JamesBurns 08:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Jdcooper 14:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic band vanity. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without evidence of activity other than rehearsal and Wikipedia entries - David Gerard 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanity. Leanne 07:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Encona Coarse

[edit]

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Article claims they released two EP's but does not name them. There is no entry on Allmusic.com for either the crew or MC Telltale. 19 Google hits for "Encona Coarse" and zero Google hits for "MC Telltale", see [10] and [11] respectively. The claim they were the first is unverifiable on Google, "Get a Booty Wit Dat Drink" scores Zero Google hits which leads me to believe sections of that article are possibly bogus. JamesBurns 10:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. My google results resemble the nominator's. Kappa 21:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Allmusic.com is not a suitable measure of non-US acts. That said, keep only if verifiability added; weak delete otherwise - David Gerard 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanity + hoax. Leanne 07:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encona Coarse was one of the first "UK" Rap crews. The EP's Rhyme Grenade & Via Coarseville are mentioned in the following places [12] & [13]. The Name MC Tell Tale can be seen on shots of the Rhyme Grenade EP cover as said previously Allmusic.com is not a suitable measure of non-US acts
  • Comment anonymous votes aren't counted. JamesBurns 05:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Total Funk

[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encona Coarse. Claimed EP by MC Telltale does not show up either on Allmusic.com or Google, see [14]. JamesBurns 11:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not verifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn hoax. Leanne 07:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Marcia Gay Harden. – ABCD 00:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Harden

[edit]

Obituary. Xezbeth 11:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge anything useful into Marcia Gay Harden and delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obituary of an unfortunate but nonnotable child. According to IMDb's biography of MGH, her nephew died in the fire, too; does he have an article now too? --Angr 13:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Marcia Gay Harden. Megan1967 09:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect without evidence that anyone cares - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Valied

[edit]

Pretty obvious vanity article. If they're just starting out they're hardly notable. Also includes a personal insult. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable band. Article is unencyclopedic. jni 15:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 04:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pimpwar

[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t 13:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. jni 19:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete - I think it's an Outwar derivative, one of the more famous ones, but the page is unencyclopedic and reeks of vanity. I don't think it's possible to salvage this one without a total rewrite. User:68.81.72.127
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat 04:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, i actually played this game for a very short period. bbx 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 27,500 google hits. Kappa 22:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pecan pie

[edit]

Recipe. Yum. Nothing here that wouldn't be out of place in a Cookbook, so this should be moved there. —Korath (Talk) 13:37, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. —Korath (Talk) 04:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Stick a {{recipe}} on it, then. Uncle G 18:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • Well, I thought it conceivable (though unlikely) that someone might want to save it, as has happened. —Korath (Talk) 04:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Which can happen equally as well when one sticks {{recipe}} {{move to Wikibooks Cookbook}} on an article. See the second sentence of the notice. Uncle G 00:10, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Keep, Clean up and Expand. Wikipedia has articles on Apple pie and Pumpkin pie and many other pies. DaveTheRed 21:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I removed the recipe-like sentences of the article to make it look more like our other pie articles. DaveTheRed 21:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Pecan pie is just as delicious and notable as pumpkin pie. Kappa 22:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pecan pie is culturally important. It is emblematic of Southern cuisine much as Apple pie is emblematic of American home cooking as a whole. Pecan pie is interesting as an example of a food that is complex and luxurious, yet also considered to be a homey "comfort food" like grits or rice pudding. When I can find some quotations illustrating this I'll add them to the article. This is not a cookbook recipe, it is a short article about a characteristic American food. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DaveTheRed and Dpbsmith has done a good job. Its now a good little article. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems keep-worthy now, but what's with the quotes on there? Radiant! 11:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Illustrative of culture importance and status as a special-occasion/holiday dish. A little out of balance with the rest of the article, hope rest of article will be expanded, but a start for now. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valid article, not a recipe at all. And now I'm craving pecan pie. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - delete this? Like its subject, it's a tasty and beautiful thing, nearly feature-worthy. Jgm 04:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmusawir

[edit]

Originally tagged by YannisKollias, but not correctly posed to VFD. -Rholton 13:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, autobio, unimportant. YannisKollias 15:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible family vanity. Megan1967 04:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete completely unimportant. whoknew?

Above user has nine edits, all to VfD pages. Rhobite 02:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was use a {{wi}} tag. ugen64 04:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sped

[edit]

An orphaned disambiguation page, which would be ok, except that it should never be linked to for the first meaning (a dictdef; speed, when used as a verb, shouldn't be linked to), and the second is a neologism that doesn't seem to be in widespread use. —Korath (Talk) 14:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • A classic dictionary entry that would be a prime candidate for Wiktionary ... if it weren't for the fact that Wiktionary has had sped for one and a half years, now. The "Look for Sped in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project" line on the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" notice was right there to be clicked upon. Delete. Uncle G 19:32, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Redirect to speed. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Speed. Megan1967 04:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or preferably put a {{wi}} tag there, since the speed article would be of no help to anyone looking up "sped". Kappa 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mosley

[edit]

Genealogy. Certainly this isn't needed as a disambig at least until there's more than one entry. —Korath (Talk) 14:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I have added links to two members of the family who already have biographies. Oswald Mosley is a pretty notorious figure in 20th-century British politics, simple links to "Mosley" in other articles should provide some sort of link to him. This isn't just genealogy, his father, also Sir Oswald Mosley, was a minor political figure in his own right, he may also get a biography eventually. PatGallacher 18:09, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Moseley is both a family name, with notable people who have that as their family name, and a place name for several places. (There's a Moseley in Birmingham I believe. "What links here" tells me that there's also an "East Mosley" somewhere.) Keep as our usual name disambiguation. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 04:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, like they said. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The page as it is know is useful disambiguation. slambo 18:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Military slang. – ABCD 00:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aganauten

[edit]

Tagged, but not posted, by Hoheit. -Rholton 14:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of different facetious names for recruits in every army. Google finds ondly 78 "argonauts". It is just a joke and not a common expression. --Hoheit 17:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Knowledgeplanet

[edit]
  • Vanity, advertising JeremyA 15:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. vanity -- Aleph4 15:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam, copyvio, not notable, vanity, ... jni 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Updated. Neutral Definition, no copyvio ... JBI 16:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not remove the VfD tag. Write the replacement in /Temp, not in top of the article. jni 17:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. JBI 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one of thousands of training companies, is not notably different or more deserving of an article than any one of them--nixie 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete wikipedia is supposed to be complete, all of them ideally should end up with entries--JBI 05:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete. Perhaps not to you, cockroaches aren't notable to me but they have an entry and I'm not complaining. JBI 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style and their subject is relevant enough to merit an article. External links to commercial organisations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. JBI 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 18:02, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

Elsewhere:Richard G./ex-premies

[edit]

Some odd ex-premies artifact. Not identical to ones already deleted, but close. Delete as idiosyncratic non-topic. jni 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How many g--d--- times are we going to have to delete this thing before it dies? Delete article; Delete content; Bar re-creation of this article as a subversion of VfD. The response to a consensus to delete is not "hide it away in a made-up namespace so that consensus doesn't know it's there and can't say anything about it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, unworkable name. Jonathunder 23:32, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatantly POV non-article under gibberish title. We already have a real article on this under Criticism of Prem Rawat. I'm a little leery of "criticism of" breakouts, but that isn't at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied this recreation - David Gerard 10:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ClubHeadBangBang

[edit]

Article that mostly says what ClubHeadBangBang is not. Delete unless meaningful context can be found. jni 15:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable (4 hits on Google) vanity. JeremyA 15:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ClubHeadBangBang is a copyright violation of [15] and an advertisement for a music venue. ClubHeadBangBand is not an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 19:05, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisment--nixie 05:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ? i just created a stub for the organisation, it is a group of people tring to get a platform for audio/visual art forms in the capital of kerry. only resently on the web hence the lack ok google hits.

can ye tell me where the copyright voilation is, please note the club in club in clubheadbangbang means a group of people that meet weekly rather than a night club at the moment working with other oranisations: http://www.samhlaiocht.com/music.htm http://www.samhlaiocht.com/film.htm and tralee IT www.ittralee.ie

  • Delete, spamvio. ComCat 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - needs evidence any third party cares - David Gerard 10:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frorange

[edit]

Yet another dicdef. for made up word. Delete. jni 15:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This looks like an attempt to get a recently involved neologism into actual use. Now spreading neologisms is all well and good, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. — JIP | Talk 16:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How many people are going to have the "I know! I'll make up a word that rhymes with orange and put it in the dictionary!" idea without reading orange first and realizing that it has been done to death? And without realizing the difference between the encyclopaedia and the dictionary? Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, they were original and made up a word that rhymed with chimney, pint, or purple? My vote is the same as it was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Borange. Uncle G 19:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete orphan silly junk -- Infrogmation 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, admitted neologism, silly, even less likely than Quorange to ever even merit a dictdef. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the record, this article has been deleted twice before already according to the Deletion log. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 03:48, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
    • True, but those were speedy deletes. It's not uncommon for an article to be VfD'ed after it's speedied and re-created; that way the result is decided by consensus and if it's still to delete, the article submitter can be warned that further re-creations will lead to a block or ban. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yasser khan

[edit]

Bio stub about a web designer. Possibly vanity. Not notable. Delete. --BM 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. What is a "Confuse Dominator" anyway? jni 16:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Confused article. Not notable. Jonathunder 23:31, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:56, 7 Mar 2005
  • Delete ad - David Gerard 10:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dane Jensen

[edit]

nn. d. jni 15:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Having trouble with an airline is far from notable. --Allen3 17:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Tygar 18:34, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, not notable. Megan1967 09:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I once threw up on a Southwest flight where they'd neglected to restock the barf bags...do I get an article? — Gwalla | Talk 03:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete why is that there

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was pending deletion. ugen64 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early Days & Latter Days: The Best of Led Zeppelin Volumes One and Two

[edit]

Advert for a boxed set containing Early Days: Best of Led Zeppelin Volume One and Latter Days: Best of Led Zeppelin Volume Two albums. Marketing decisions to bundle products together does not make the aggregate notable. Delete as unnecessary duplication. jni 16:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, duplication, promo. Megan1967 04:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Duplication. I am the one that added the merge notice, but yeah definately delete. Jaberwocky6669 20:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have this set. Great stuff...but delete as duplication of existing info. - Lucky 6.9 08:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge ... somewhere. Horrible, horrible titles - David Gerard 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 04:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

False flag

[edit]

Personal essay. If the personal essay were removed, it would be at best a dicdef. While an encyclopedia article could conceivably be written on this topic, this isn't it, and it is probably better to delete it and let someone else start over from scratch one day.

  • Delete. --BM 16:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is an important topic. It should remain as a starting point. It's a lazy stunt to simply quickly read it and vote for its rejection. What you should do instead is to improve it. That would be the responsible thing to do. If you don't want Wikipedia to contain explanations of substantive issues, then say so. If you are willing to spend any of your time improving on the explanation of false flag then do that. At least point out the factual errors, or provide a logical refutation of the statements I made. - Bill Cannon
  • User's second edit; first was to create the article. Jayjg (talk) 13:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Should be re-writen and added a covert operations
  • Keep, has obvious potential for expansion. I should point out to Bill Cannon that it's not wikipedia's job to refute things, it's your job to prove someone else said them, otherwise they count as original research Kappa 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I went ahead and cleaned it up, somewhat undermining my own nomination. Look in the history for the original personal essay. It is now basically just a dicdef, and still should be deleted. --BM 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Espand. I have expanded this so that it is a stub. I have added the Lavon Affair as an example of a false flag operation and added the derivation from the militay False colors. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect False colors here. The countries that drafted the Geneva conventions thought false flag operations important enough to include a provision allowing them. Gazpacho 11:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the content with that of false colors, under one title or the other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Don't Merge With regard to keep; in our era there are governments with governments with secret budgets of $billions annually. There is absolutely no way a person can grasp the truth of events in our era without an acknowledgement and understanding of the role played by false flag events. False Flag is the only coathook in the closet upon which we can hang the strange, almost mystical coat that, until now, nobody admits to owning or wearing. With regard to Don't Merge; False Colors is an operation that only a military unit can execute but False Flag is an operation that any group of people can carry out. Mark Hardy
  • Keep. False Flag is an extraordinarily relevant concept in modern political, military and economic reality. I see no justification entered thus far for deleting the explanation of this concept within Wikipedia. GeneMosher
  • Keep Certainly notable in principle; bad idea, and indeed rather un-wiki, to delete on the basis of current content. (Which yes, could certainly do with being expanded.) Alai 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I want references to the term being in use - David Gerard 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand Mark Hardy is absolutely correct. An understanding of the real functioning of the 'National Security State' is only possible if the workings of the intelligence services are brought to light. The term 'False Flag' has gained new currency following the september 11 attacks and has recently been employed in several public addresses regarding the War on Terror's enabling event. See Ralph Schoenman's testimony to the 9/11 Inquiry Conference: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/103863.shtml A good, if somewhat slanted, overview of these kinds of operations can be found here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/ User:Maiasta 0:43, 12 Mar 2005
  • Delete. Dicdef, and even then not being used correctly, based on recent insertions. Clearly a vehicle for political agendists, no more; sockpuppet support confirms this. Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have watched you, Jayjg, in various topics, using your position as administrator, intervening in various topics all over the place with what looks very much like censorship to me. I can see that many people have attempted to refine, expand and clarify the information in Wikipedia about topics such as apartheid, racism, even the USS Liberty incident, etc., and here, false flags but that you are always there to ensure that no negative references to anyone Jewish or anything Israeli is ever allowed to stay. At least here in the area where we are free to discuss the validity of the phenomenon of false flags you have no justification for removing what I have to say about you. I say again, that the phenomenon of false flag operations is utterly relevant to understanding events in the contemporary world, and an explanation of it, with examples, is essential here in Wikipedia, in spite of your effort here to quash the discussion by declaring as invalid the very inclusion of the topic in Wikipedia itself. I do not appreciate what you are doing here, clear as it is to me, and disgusting as it is to me. I don't like censorship and I don't like how you achieve it here in Wikipedia in your own small way. The strength of the arguments made here in support of not deleting this page is evidence enough for keeping this page ini Wikipedia. You are the one who has a political agenda here, not me. Shame on you. And I will document your behavior, to reveal you as the de facto censor that you are. If it looks like I'm a sockpuppet because I forgot to log on for one of my comments then shame on you again for jumping on that and adding an interpretation to that which you know darn well is NOT an intentional effort to introduce the sockpuppet effect here. Bill Cannon 14:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I've watched you "Bill", and the various other sockpuppets you are using here (the ones you call "many other people"), and seen your absurdly POV "contributions" to Wikipedia. In any event, that's not relevant to this Vote for Deletion, which was not initiated by me. Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should be upset, and you should be concerned, because I will deliver, and I will expose your tactics and your intent. You clearly don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia except by censoring, for you surely don't add facts or material that can inform others in all your visits here, but instead use your position to demean others, to attempt to muffle their contributions when it threatens your work to keep Wikipedia from being a source of knowledge that actually explains things as they are. The importance of a thorough explanation of the false flag phenomenon in today's world is clear from the way that it threatens the role you have settled into here and no amount of "lable throwing" or "name calling" at my on your part adds any rational support to any argument supporting deletion of this topic. Instead, it provides evidence that this topic IS important, and that its deletion will weaken Wikipedia as an uncensored source of facts and information about the world we live in. I expected an ad hominem attack; it reveals the bankruptcy of your position and your fearful desperation that someone would see through it so readily. Your ad hominem attack is as irrelevant here to the discussion as any specious comments can be and I reject its appropriateness. I challenge you to lay out any argument for deletion rationally, if you can. Challenge the ideas, not the people who present them. That's the standard here for Wikipedia and its "administrators" if Wikikpedia and its "administrators" are what they pretend to be.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 04:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yoko Yamauchi

[edit]

Biographical article about the daughter of the former president of Nintendo, and wife of the former president of Nintendo USA. Does not seem to have any independent notability. Delete. --BM 16:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep "spousecruft". Kappa 19:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable as herself. Megan1967 05:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to her husband or father--nixie 05:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect ... somewhere - David Gerard 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom Harlin

[edit]

Bio stub about the manager of public relations at Nintendo USA. Mid-level manager and not encyclopedically notable. Possible vanity. Might be the person who is adding articles about more senior Nintendo figures, and he decided to throw one in a bout himself (but that is just speculation.) Delete. --BM 16:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, PR managers aren't inheriently notable--nixie 05:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence provided that it passes a "so what?" test - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor executives are not notable. Gamaliel 02:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beth Llewelyn

[edit]

Bio stub about a mid-level manager at Nintendo America. Not encyclopedically notable. Delete. --BM 16:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep senior directors of public relations in large countries. Kappa 19:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor executives are not notable or encyclopedic. Gamaliel 16:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle management is not inherently notable. Even VPs are pushing it. — Gwalla | Talk 03:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence provided that it passes a "so what?" test - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

KurdishMedia.com

[edit]

Spam, advertisement. Google for Kurdish News if you want such organisations, page is opinion oriented and not neutral remotely as article claims. * Delete. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, according to the alexa rankings this is the most used Kurdish news service. I don't think its any different to having a page for the partisan US media like National Review Online--nixie 05:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concur with Peta. Megan1967 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all notable media organisations. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Websites have little intrinsic notability. JFW | T@lk 02:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Accept that this one is as notable as any newspaper, especially since this is one of the most important Kurdish ones. (I have understood that KurdishMedia.com is a website, not a paper newspaper). Sjakkalle 08:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andrew U. D. Straw

[edit]
  • Not notable, vanity, written in first person. Delete. jni 16:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I figured it would have been speedyed... Some mix of vanity/advertising. Bushytails 16:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. -- Cleduc 05:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Delete posthaste! Convention dictates that one has to do something noteworthy to merit encyclopedic mention (and even this isn't a sufficient condition). Does this guy think Wikipedia's a CV exchange? Not to mention the vanity... 163.1.159.21 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Now blanked. Delete anyway - David Gerard 10:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am the original author. I did not realize that there was such a thing as a user page, where content like mine would have been more appropriate. Please delete this page and I will create a user page instead. All of the critical comments above were unnecessary, IMHO. A simple explanation of how to create a user page would have been far more helpful. 12:57, 16 Mar 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pajawa

[edit]

Slang dicdef, at least. Delete. --BM 16:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism, I couldn't find any google results indicating actual use. Kappa 19:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, orphan silly junk. -- Infrogmation 22:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: this is a commonly used word amongst todays youth. keep it - This edit by User:205.244.100.206
    • Today's youth apparently also likes to blank Vfd pages and remove Vfd tags. Please disregard 205's vote. JFW | T@lk 03:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it is real, and I doubt it, it serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. --Feitclub 02:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real or neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary. JeremyA 02:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, dictionary defintion. Megan1967 05:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best a dicdef. Looks like a neologism. Borders on nonsense. Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. JFW | T@lk 03:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete - David Gerard 10:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Culture of Japan. ugen64 04:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geinokai

[edit]

Dicdef. Japanese word for the "world of entertainment". Delete. --BM 16:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand (and/or maybe merge with Culture of Japan) . Entertainment is important to the Japanese. Failing that, transwiki to wiktionary. Kappa 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sure, entertainment is important to many folks, once their basic needs are met. However, that doesn't mean that the English Wikipedia (or the English wiktionary, for that matter) needs a separate article on all the words for entertainment that exist in a couple of thousand human languages Unless there is some evidence that the word is in the process of being adopted into English. --BM 20:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The english wiktionary certainly wants all the words for entertainment in all languages. What wikipedia doesn't have is an article for Japanese entertainment although Culture of Japan is close, maybe it could be merged into that. Kappa 21:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The remit of Wiktionary is all words in all languages. Being the English Wiktionary means that the articles are written in English, not that it only covers words in the English language. Thus article titles can be in any language, and indeed as per Wiktionary policy should be in the script of the language concerned. (So the articles at Wiktionary would be Wiktionary:芸能界 and Wiktionary:芸能人, and not Wiktionary:geinokai and Wiktionary:geinojin.) In contrast, article titles in Wikipedia are in English (as per the naming conventions). However, I'd like to see evidence of widespread use of these romanizations. If they aren't terms that English speakers would actually use, then they don't justify their being articles. Uncle G 00:36, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
        • Just googling "geinokai" gets plenty of hits from English speakers using the word in English. Incidentally wikionary will be pretty useless to me if I can't use romaji to find kanji. Kappa 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not the place of dictionary definitions, and the process of having these type of articles moved to the wiktionary seems to be completely broken.--nixie 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, perhaps in another category. Frankly, I'm new to this and thought I understood the rules regarding categorization, so I'd be willing to see this put someplace more appropriate. That said, regarding BM's comment that this is just a dicdef of 'entertainment,' the Geinokai is an untranslatable concept in English, and as a social phenomenon does not map 1-to-1 with the 'world of entertainment' or 'entertainment,' etc. It goes beyond that, and is a much narrower concept, so I thought it would be useful to include an article about it, since there's articles about Japanese idols, tarento and so on. If those things, which have obviously been recognized as independent concepts worthy of articles, are included, it would make sense to keep Geinokai. Of course, the article would have to be expanded to make this clear. Reldam 21:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately while the policy says "dicdef 'with no potential for expansion", in practise people vote delete anyway, so the expansion can't happen. Maybe wikipedia isn't the best place to try and cover non-English-using cultures. Kappa 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Mabye this, and other Japanese (non-english) words would be better explained and less likely to be put up for vfd if they were included in some kind of article or list, like List of Japanese words related to entertainment- with the individual words are redirects to the list. I guess it would be like a glossary.--nixie 02:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with these comments. Japanese popular culture has taken on a life of its own among non-Japanese-speaking peoples (the US and France coming foremost to mind), and as evidenced by other articles specifically defining Japanese words in common use among such fans, there is clearly a niche. Maybe a category called "Japanese popular culture" could be created, under which everything from manga to tarento could be included. As I said before, however, I'm new to this, so I don't know how one would go about doing this. Reldam 18:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless someone can make a credible argument that Japanese entertainment is significantly different from everyone else's entertainment (and enough different that it deserves a breakout from Culture of Japan), I have to vote to Transwiki to Wiktionary. Reldam hints that there might be differences but didn't provide evidence. If the article is expanded before the discussion period ends, I'll reconsider my vote. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course Japanese entertainment is different from everyone else's. Practically every country's entertainment is significantly different from every other's. Kappa 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought you couldn't expand articles that were being voted on. Basically, there are so many articles specific to Japanese culture (Japanese idol, manga, mangaka (what other culture has its own list of comicbook writers? - and in so many languages?), tarento, etc.) that Geinokai would be an umbrella for them all. If there's no room for Geinokai, then would we delete or transwiki all the other Japan-specific articles? An expanded Geinokai article would discuss the production company system, how scouting works, the Yakuza connection, and more. My argument is that there are so many Japanese pop culture-specific articles (and not just in the English Wikipedia) because Japanese pop culture is unique in the world today, and is beginning to have an influence (although in a different way) like US and British culture had in the 60s. Reldam 07:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You certainly can improve articles during Vfd, although you may have to nag some people to reconsider their votes. An expanded Geinokai article would be a useful way to link the other J-culture items together, but they would still deserve their own articles. Another possibility would be to write about the geinokai in Culture of Japan, then break it out when its a decent size Kappa 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll do that, then. That seems like a more appropriate method. Reldam 19:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless significantly expanded, merge and redirect to Culture of Japan, with potential for spinning it back out in the future. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds great. I'll look up how to do that, and do it. Incidentally, who's monitoring this and will make the final decision? Reldam 07:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Several people are monitoring in various degrees. I'm not sure exactly which admin or admins work out what the consensus is about each page, but they seem to be pretty good at it. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Culture of Japan, which already has a significant section on Japanese pop culture. — Gwalla | Talk 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Great! So should I just cut and paste, or is there a particular procedure for doing this, or what? I don't know what will happen to the actual entry, so I'll just paste what I've got so far into the Culture of Japan article, and let the powers that be do what needs to be done with the Geinokai page. Reldam 18:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2027 (number)

[edit]

Delete This is not encyclopedic, there is nothing special about this number, do we have an entry for all numbers up to some arbitrary limit? PatGallacher 17:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

  • Keep. Small primes are encyclopedic. I can think of people searching individual numbers from Wikipedia. jni 17:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep small(ish) twin primes. Kappa 19:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) OK no vote for the moment. Kappa 23:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The List of twin primes currently goes up to (1019, 1021). If someone wanted to expand it up to and including (2027, 2029) that would be commendable. And there's plenty of room. What is gained by having a separate article for one individual twin prime? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not particularly small, and it's not even a small twin prime, thus not interesting enough for its own article. The only incoming link is as an example excretion of the Prime Number Shitting Bear, which presumably explains its creation. sjorford →•← 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essentially a dictdef. But do not move to Wiktionary!. As noted above, if someone wanted to List of twin primes up to and including (2027, 2029) that might be a useful thing to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wish to confirm my vote for Deletion. Just look at the addition we've just had, this comes close to being pure gibberish. What on earth does it mean to say that a number is close to being a non-prime? I did vote before, I am not trying to vote twice. PatGallacher 02:20, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should be deleted but now, IMHO, it does rise to the level of BJAODN. I love the suggestion of a practical application: "If one needs to store exactly 300,000 units of a product in a storage area of narrow dimensions, and 150 units wide is not an option, one can come very close to the goal with a length of 2027 units." I certainly hope the recent additions are a mischievous joke and not serious. By the way, googling on 2027 reveals many other vacuous and silly pseudo-facts that could be added to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "In some instances 2027 comes very close to being non-prime, but does not quite make it." In some instances this article comes very close to making sense, but does quite make it. Jonathunder 05:39, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
    Note that the gibberish trivia was added after this was proposed to deletion, at the time it was a perfectly valid number stub. I have reverted the anon, feel free to move his text to BJAODN or merge some of it back to the head revision. jni 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Raving Loony 10:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Note: this is user's third edit. His first edit was to some page about lasson/Faethon and second was a (invalid) vote cast in VfU. jni 11:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ]
  • Delete as irrelevant number. We do not need articles on several thousands of individual numbers. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A number should be very remarkable to deserve its own article. Carrp | Talk 13:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable just for being a prime. No symbolic meaning. JFW | T@lk 03:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, even if it is a twin prime. DaveTheRed 08:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I found this interesting: "As a factor in multiplication, 2027 produces some notable numbers very close to large round base 10 numbers: 2027 x 37 = 74,999, 2027 x 74 = 149,998, 2027 x 148 = 299,996 and 2027 x 296 = 599,992." Delete, tho, unless someone feels we need articles on every single number. Ketsy 23:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a big deal, and other primes are better. 3001 × 2999 = 8999999. And—get this!—2999 is prime, too!
  • Keep, for people like the preteen maths nerd I once was - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care if Wikipedia is not paper. I believe is was a colleague of Ramanujan who proved that every number is "special" in some way, and this article doesn't even do a good job of explaining why 2027 is special. There are an infinite number of integers, and they can't all have articles. Even the project to do an article on every Bible verse has more merit than this, because at least it, unlike the integers, is drawn from an exhaustible source. NTK 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Our image of the Prime number shitting bear catches him in the very act of shitting—2027! In the words of the Church Lady, "Well, isn't that special?" Dpbsmith (talk) 12:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Very funny. No. NTK 14:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • BTW, I thought it was Hardy, and the story I remember is that a colleague said that 1729 was boring, and whoever it was said "Not at all. It is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this and all numbers nanaszczebrzeszyn

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Hulstrunk

[edit]

The usual sort of vanity. Not notable. Delete. jni 17:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete He was born, moved, and went to school. Yawn. -- Infrogmation 22:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Jonathunder 05:33, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to tetralogy. ugen64 04:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quadrilogy

[edit]

Dicdef, neologism. Delete. --BM 17:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Family monarchy

[edit]

Idiosyncratic non-topic. Delete. --BM 17:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not something the contributor made up, it's at least mentioned in a textbook called "A History of Western Society". [16]. Provisional merge/redirect to Napoleonic Code Kappa 22:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless as it stands. I'd reconsider if someone actually wants to write an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nasrullah Warren

[edit]

Stumbled across this brief page. It appears to be factual, apart from the claim of renown. I can't find anything significant he's done, other than teach at a muslim college. — RJH 04:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible family vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Possible vanity? I doubt it - the guy was teaching in 1895! - Mustafaa 05:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails the professor test. Radiant! 11:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, I would imagine that any British convert to Islam at this period, especially a scholar, would have potential for an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Needs a hell of a lot more though - David Gerard 10:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, old enough not to be vanity, 1895 makes him interesting. Kappa 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Middlesbrough F.C. ugen64 04:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roary the Lion

[edit]

A mascot of some football team. Delete. jni 18:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe that this is the mascot of Middlesbrough F.C., an apparently notable football club. I think a merge and redirect is appropriate, unless someone can expand this article to give better detail. Meelar (talk) 20:12, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect (but don't delete) mascots of articled football clubs, unless they are as well-known as Cyril the Swan. Kappa 21:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the club is notable but the mascot isnt. Megan1967 05:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any pertinent info and redirect to the main article. Personally, I wouldn't look up the mascot before looking up the team. - Lucky 6.9 04:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the football club - David Gerard 10:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Middlesbrough FC. Grue 17:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wholeness

[edit]

This page is clearly a non-NPOV product of original research. I was willing to just slap an NPOV tag on it and leave it be, but as John Gohde points out, that's only a temporary measure. In terms of permanent measures that can fix the problems with this page, the only thing I can think of is deletion. If someone else can think of a better way to fix the page, I'll take it, but for now, I vote to remove this page. --Carl 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Snowspinner 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - A clear violation of WP:POINT. Pure sour grapes on the part of a bunch of malcontents who think that the NPOV guidelines don't apply to them. {{NPOV}} must be discussed in talk and is a temporary measure whereby the person posting the notice has time to revise the article. Clearly nothing was changed because nothing needed to be changed. This is a perfectly valid article, but even if it is not their clear violation of WP:POINT means keep the article, revised it, or otherwise, STOP whining about what somebody else has written in good faith. -- John Gohde 10:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing to delete the article to prove a point. I'm proposing to delete the article because I don't believe it can be fixed. You say that it not being changed after receiving the NPOV tag is proof that it is NPOV. I say it's suggests that no one saw this article (since it's not a topic most people would look up normally) and those who did see it couldn't think of a way to fix it. Obviously, I don't want the article deleted so quickly that we can't get any opinions on how to fix it (or even if it needs to be fixed at all, as Snowspinner and I believe and you, John, apparently don't). But in terms of permanent solutions to the problems with the article-- namely while the ideas in it are interesting, they strike me as original research-- deletion is all I can think of. If you disagree with my assertion that the article is original research, I invite you to show me a number of links to reputable and unrelated websites which use the term "Wholeness" in the same way that it's used in the article. If we can do that, it will be a good first step to making it seem less like original research. If we can't do that, then I think it would be best to delete the article because Wikipedia isn't a place for new ideas to emerge but one for old ideas to be categorized. --Carl 11:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The first step in posting a successful temporary {{NPOV}} notice is to specify in Talk what is precisely wrong with the article. Mushy feel good talk does not qualify as discussing it in talk. -- John Gohde 16:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • John is right - an NPOV tag needs a note on talk as to why the tag is there, and preferably some suggestions of what to do about it. Though IMO "this is just POV original research" would qualify if you thought that - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of how it was nominated, the article looks entirely like unverifyable original research to me. --Plek 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it stands, it is a personal essay, original research. As for whether "wholeness" as a concept is an encyclopedia topic: I doubt it; but if it is, then it is better to delete this and let someone else start from scratch some day. The nomination could have been more crisp, I'm afraid. The stuff about the NPOV tag seems to be entirely a red herring. --BM 19:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. Keep if third-party references can be found and the refs actually support it Redirection to holism seems best and will discourage recreation - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. After a bit more research, another possibility is to simply to make it a redirect to holism. I'm not sure "wholeness" is the search term that someone researching "holism" would enter, but if it isn't deleted, I'd favor the redirect. --BM 20:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. --Angr 20:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Holism. (Protect redirect if needed.) Present content should be deleted; personal essay, original research, unsourced and unreferenced and has been around for well over six months during which people have had a chance to add sources or references and have not done so. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Wholeness are holism aren't quite the same, but I think that holism sufficiently captures the relevant ideas in wholeness, and unlike wholeness is a generally recognized concept. --Carl 01:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, and by its very nature not salvageable. -- Cleduc 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay, not enyclopedic. Kosebamse 16:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to holism, which is what this article is actually referring to in its roundabout and POV way. — Gwalla | Talk 03:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:53 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. --Michael Snow 23:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khakain

[edit]

It's a forum about The Legend of Zelda series. 43 unique Google hits on "khakain.com". [17] Alexa rank 2,221,730. [18] Doesn't seem to have gained enough notability to warrant an article. Likely a vanity page. --Plek 19:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - 'A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.

    Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is to salient material and not overtly promotional.' Khakain 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE - I am the person who they (The members of that forum) are naming on that entry. Khakain is the name of my novel, Khakain the Coming of the Chosen One, I wrote it in 1994 and posted a few chapters on my literary site "Unlimited Fantasy". These members registered the domain name out of spite for me because I shut down their community from my Zelda video game site because they would harass other users on the community, myself, and such. I was hosting the image they think is "Max Fichtl" on my private server and it was hacked without my permission and paraded around thier own forum as some trophy. They have subsequently over the past few years on several occasions attempted to discover my personal identity. At one point in time they posted my phone number on their forum and made prank calls and harrassed my family as late as 3 AM at night. Recently after contacting the teenager, *deleted by said teenager*, who registered the domain and firmly asking for the entire removal of the users attempting to steal my identity, he transferred ownership that day of the domain to an Australian, Andrew Maher, to what he thinks would wash his hands of the issue. This entire entry on Wikipedia is designed to be inflamitory and harrass me. I have attempted at editing the entry 3 times already to remove personal information and harrassment, and replace the entry with the accuracy of what Khakain actually is however each time it was reverted to what it was before by members of their community who likely share the "Khakain" user account, "Castle Guard" (John M.) as well is a member of their forum classified as the "Historian." I have collected an orgy of evidence on the individuals at that forum, including the location of their colleges, and their current residencies, however this is only some of them, many have managed to remain anonymous, however they've left a digital trail online which would likely be easy to follow. Many of them pride themselves in spamming the message boards I currently am co-administrator for with Hentai Pornography and spamming bot programs. I DO NOT WANT my personal information displayed in a public location online, to have my or anyone else in my family's name slandered in that way, this is a form of online cyberstalking as defined by the FBI's computer Crimes Division, and falls under their jurisdiction because it is occuring as a conspiracy between multiple individuals from several states including countries like Canada and Australia. And if the issue is not resolved in due time, I will be pursuing whatever legal recourses are available to me up to and including litigation. I hope that the users of Wikipedia see the perspective I'm coming from and remove the entry and ban users associated with creating this filth. I want to be left alone and I want to be anonymous on the internet and go about my work in peace!
    • The above from User:65.35.73.36. —Korath (Talk) 06:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Threats of legal action are against WIkipedia policies. Recommend above editer's comments be disregarded as unsubstantiated and is likely here in ill faith. 163.153.252.70 17:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment And posting the full names of those you don't like here ISN'T some form of Cyber-Stalking? How'd you get their colleges, home addresses and what not? Hm? 208.62.7.133 18:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply It's not hard to find that out when people spam your forums and you trace their IP address and call the school's campus IT department. (That was of course before I and my co-Admin banned those people and they returned on proxy servers) As well, names and addresses are included through the registrar of the domain name. I've already consulted an attorney breifly about the issue. And to clarify, I'm not going to sue Wikimedia, however entries like this could be used as evidence should I decide to pursue a case against specific individuals, if the burden of proof is not strong enough for a criminal case, my lawyer said there was plenty enough for a winnable civil one.
      • Reply Campus IT departments do not hand over the personal information of their college students, it's an internal affair they would deal with (not to mention it would be illegal under current regulations, as you do not represent law enforcement). Not only this, but your vendetta against this community is irrelevent to the subject at hand. Your writings cannot be proven to have been before the registration of this community and this "evidence" of yours is meaningless. 24.194.18.242 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply This is part of the novel Khakain: The Coming of the Chosen One, submitted for evidence. http://internal.tbi.net/~max/mkhakain.htm, from my literary website Unlimited Fantasy: These Realms Drift Between Me at http://internal.tbi.net/~max/uf.htm
    • Reply All this boils down to is that I want to be left alone, I don't want my name or names or photographs of myself, my family or friends posted and paraded on a public forum like Wikipedia for mockery and harrassment. It is a breach of my personal privacy. If the material is removed and the people from that forum leave me alone, I wouldn't be inclined to prosecute them, it's not something I set out to do, but I will take whatever measures necessary to protect the integrity of my identity, the quality of my work, and the security of my family.
      • Reply This is Tim/Insubordinum. Take his damn picture and name off the page, and put up a disambiguation so he can have a page for his novel. This is just going to go backwards and forwards otherwise.
  • Keep - Regarding vanity pages: 'The most significant problem with vanity pages is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" pages to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit page, it should be deleted.'

    As per the already-being-established edit history and the extent of the page's content, it is more than evident that the article serves the purpose of a collaborative effort to chronicle the history of the community, its members, and what products it has wrought (the growing subsite "Tim Hates People" being a prime example, among others -- but that's for the article, not for this page), both for new members and veterans alike.

    Furthermore, regarding Wikipedia's article interests: ' As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopædia, it should contain only material that some definable group of people might want to know.'

    The article already has more than enough information to be classified as a relevent information base, and obviously contains material of interest to the members of the community. In no way is it a promotional page; rather, its content more than speaks for its informational nature.
  • Delete. What's the betting one of the creators of this article is the bloke in the picture? This is an irrelevent and insignificant community on the wide scale of things it is referring to (or at least Google and Alexa certainly think so). Average Earthman 23:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Also regarding "vanity", this community has only resided at its .com address for a little over 1/5 of its life. This was long after ties were cut with its former administrator. For this to be a vanity page, it would have to refer to itself with shameless advertising (which it does not). This is a chronicle of the community's history and portrays it accurately, showing the positives and negatives, with an unbiased point of view. --66.82.9.77 00:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Admitted vanity forumvertisement. —Korath (Talk) 00:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) (superceded below)
    • Where? Khakain 01:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - At any rate, it's not an article to "spread the word," it's an article to "keep the word." It violates no deletion policies as is, and can easily be edited should problems arise. Khakain 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Speaking as a member of a community that has interacted with this one, it is nice to see the article up. I found it very informative, and it helped me write a historical overview of the war for my own webpage.--66.53.71.99 01:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not advertisement for the forum, this article actually documents many things that have been passed down by word-of-mouth until now. It's good to finally be able to refer people to a website with all the info they want to know. The article does not promote the forum, but only describes it. --Fletcher00 03:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Above is Fletcher00's only edit. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's important to have a history of the forum available to new users and others, why can't it go on the forum, rather than on some external website? The content here is GFDL licensed, so you can legally copy it to a forum posting with a note about its source. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sure seems like some combination of vanity and fancruft--vanitycruft? There are countless web forums devoted to countless topics. Most are not Wikipedia material. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry sockpuppets. God knows how many small, non notable forums there are on the internet. They don't all need articles, and neither does this. DaveTheRed 04:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But none of those other "non-notable" communities went out and got a Wikipedia entry, did they? Seriously, I don't see how this is any of your business if we want an entry. You're simply ego tripping and I have no idea why you feel it's necessary. We created an entry to document the name and its origins, and the community is fairly large (the Empire for example, roughly 3/4 of the board's population, is underground, which you cannot see unless you've been approved). So I guess in summary, why the hell do you care so much, and do you seriously believe that you can get this deleted since it clearly does not qualify for deletion? Get a life and leave us alone. 24.194.18.242 05:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh... notability does concern us and it is our business if we want to delete this. We aren't ego tripping. If half the board is underground, well: tough luck really. That's not our choice that most of the board decided to be all dark and mysterious. I advise you to read Wikipedia:No original research. HTH. HAND. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 'It's not about promoting a forum, but recording the history. And why should anyone else but us care?' 216.78.57.72 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cripes. Not notable, vanityvertisement. Socks begone. -- Cleduc 05:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because you guys haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. 134.48.194.48 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, no. If most of use haven't heard of it (and there are plenty of deletes here) then it's not notable. You guys just aren't a bash.org. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepI thought the purpose of this was to create a complete compendium of human knowledge. Complete would imply that it would hold everything, large and small. 69.141.223.154 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is far from a vanity article. It's a niche article (and granted, that niche may be smaller than some), detailing a part of the history of something fairly well known to a portion of the online gaming community. It by and far represents something more than the small message board community you'd see when visiting Khakain.com. This particular message board community may not be known well outside of a relatively small corner of the internet, but that does not make it less than noteworthy. Contrary to what you may believe, wikipedia is used by more than bored freshman english students patrolling articles for an egotrip. Who are you to be judge and jury of what something appeals to? Wikipedia's great reputation is that it's "a growing documentation of nearly everything." Do your best not to destroy that.170.215.192.239
  • Delete, and 216.78.57.72 inadvertently explains precisely why: a forum that nobody else but its few users should care about isn't worth having an encyclopedia entry on. Use your own web space. - Mustafaa 06:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My personal sock puppet level of three has been radically breached. Besides, the article is sub-trivial. RickK 06:51, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • prove your sock puppet theory, instead of hiding behind a cop-out, please. Khakain 06:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, gee, you never existed as an editor until this article did. That makes you a sockpuppet. And all of these anons are also sockpuppets, since they don't have User IDs and didn't edit prior to the creation of this article. That makes you and all of them sockpuppets. RickK 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well OBVIOUSLY they didn't exist before, they're trying to defend a project that we started and for some reason you people feel the need to all dump on. They're not familiar with wikipedia other than reading it, so I'm sorry they don't meet your ELITE standards of 'worth'. Thanks a bunch, feel real welcome here. Khakain 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • We get lots of people coming in here and trying to create articles about their pet web forums. It's nothing personal about you or your forum -- most web forums are not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. And the onrush of anonymous editors make people very edgy because vandalism is a major part of the forum participants who want to try to get us somehow to figure that if they attack the encyclopedia and its participants enough, somehow that will make us see the light and decide that, yes, by golly, that forum populated by vandals and personal attackers must be, somehow notable after all. RickK 07:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • You delete my comment calling someone a nerd and write here calling us vandals? How is this any different? Have you even BEEN to the forum? I personally don't care what you folks "get all the time," we obviously have not been here before and have no interest in your arguments about what usually goes on or how things usually work. We're here to defend our article on the basis that there is no reason for it to be deleted. It's factual, informative, and any of the thousands of users involved in the Zelda Forum scene in the past 6 years would be interested in its contents. Whether or not you personally think we're famous enough should not be the subject of a debate. 24.194.18.242 07:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • No, I deleted your comments calling another user a "pompous ass". RickK 00:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
              • Anon: wrong. If we decide you aren't notable enough, then your article gets deleted. Personally, I think this article is not neutrally written, and it is not written in an encyclopedeic (sp?) manner. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note to all first-time editors: Just adding "keep" votes from anonymous IPs or sockpuppet accounts is not going to help. Those votes are most likely going to be disregarded by the administrator who will process this entry. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If you think this article should stay, improve it, so other Wikipedians would want to keep it on its own merits. --Plek 06:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Given 65.35.73.36's comment, and a closer reading of this "article", I'm inclined to say speedy as personal-attack vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article contains no personal attacks. It is entirely factual in every way and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not that proof is something you people seem to need around here. 24.194.18.242 07:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks will be deleted. If you can't argue on the merits of the article, then you might want to find another place besides here to post. RickK 07:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and recommend that all anonymous IPs that have signed should know better and register an account. To the admin who counts the votes, may I suggest we don't count the anons? Looks pretty suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, and recommend that the above poster stop making assumptions. It would be silly for all of us to register an account if we're only going to use it to defend our own page from you people. None of your arguments make sense in the least. 163.153.252.70 17:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Defend your page from us people? If you wanted control over the article, you should have put it on your own server, not here. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - straight up web forum vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's one big unsourced attack page. --iMb~Mw 08:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's established why this message board stands out from any other. - Vague | Rant 08:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only to spite these supercilious people mewling about how it's not "worthy" enough for them, and anyone who disagrees must be a sockpuppet. What harm is it doing if it stays? Leave it alone.
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 18:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment to new editors: You won't convince us of anything by arguing with us about our own rules and policies or trying to convince experienced editors that you have a better idea of what Wikipedia is than they do. What will convince people is objective evidence of notability such as google hits, news articles, etc. Gamaliel 19:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply Ignoring the points that have been made and riding on your claim to "experience" doesn't prove much either.
  • Comment Perhaps we were mistaken with regards to the experienced editors. However, I think I speak on the behalf of the entire community when I say that, according to the posted, [and perhaps mistakenly taken to be] official deletion policies, it seems well within the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals. It's not that we believe we have a better idea of what this is, but rather that, based on the material available (some of which is quoted in the first two "keep" votes, and we would like refuted), this was a valid article providing "material that some definable group of people might want to know." In our eyes, all the reasons given to delete this article are either in direct opposition to what we thought was the policy, or can be amended with recommendations and support, which is more than available. I've already voted, but we're as stated, we're quite new to the Wiki thing. In fact, we're probably wasting your time already, but some of us want closure on the matter; we've received very little constructive criticism, and yet are told that we could have this article if certain things are done. Could someone please refute these interpretations of the various Wiki-related information pertaining to this debate? Forgive my summary rather than direct quoting:
From the vanity page definition, regarding fame, we interpreted: "Don't delete just because it's not famous."
And many of the delete reasons seem to say, either explicitly or implicitly: "It's not famous enough, therefore you're either advertising or this is too worthless to exist."
From the deletion policy regarding anonymous votes: "Don't discount anonymous votes because it violates the premise of good faith in submissions and discourages potential contributions."
The prevailing opinion of many delete voters seems to be this: "You should've known better and registered an account, sockpuppet."
We looked up the definition of sockpuppets, and this is the general idea we got from the Wiki definition; interpreting sockpuppets seems to be a case of good vs. ill faith, but does NOT seem to apply to separate entities taking one side on a matter: "Sockpuppets refer to users running multiple accounts, and while not against the rules, are generally frowned upon."
Nonetheless, this is the prevailing opinion we seem to be getting: "Even though you're obviously a full community posting and we've admitted this, this looks suspicious and these are all sockpuppets because it's their first edit. Disregard them."
Explanations appreciated; those of us who started/suggested this project bear no ill will here; this just seems a bit hypocritical. 128.61.69.109 20:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and those arguing for keeping this article must show that this subject is important enough for an encyclopedia. Not important enough to some niche group or to the people on that forum, but for a general reference work. What makes this different from and more important than any of the countless other forums on the internet? Is it frequented by anyone famous or important? Does it have specialized knowledge of a particular subject? Has it gotten significant media coverage? Objective evidence is what is required here, not a particular interpretation of our own rules. (This is what back in my D&D days we called "rules lawyering".) The best thing you can do to make a case for this article is to provide such evidence. Voting en masse will not do it, as the tallying administrator will most likely toss out your votes as they are allowed to do by policy. This policy is to prevent new users from rushing in from a blog or message board with a particular agenda who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's best interests in mind from overwheliming established Wikipeida users. Given that this policy is designed to prevent precisely what is happening here, you won't be able to argue out of this either. I'm sorry if you think this is unfair, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even in a democracy, you can't just show up from outside the society and vote the next day. Gamaliel 21:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment #2 Re. 128.61.69.109's questions (composed simultaneously with the post above): Thank you for the sincere and well-formulated questions. I'll try to provide some answers here. First of all, it would help to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to provide a wide range of articles that are both accurate, and that might be interesting and useful to the general public. It is not a general knowledge base. This means that the subject of an article has to have a certain level of notability. An example: while I could write a compelling and factually accurate article about my local greengrocer, it is doubtful that anyone outside my neighborhood would be interested in his story. Therefore, the greengrocer might warrant an article in the local newspaper but not in Wikipedia.
A similar choice has to be made about articles pertaining to websites. There are millions out there, and not every one of them is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. To gauge the notability of a site, "hard" criteria can be used, such as the number of Google hits and the Alexa rank (which aren't too impressive for your site, I'm sorry to say). Another, and maybe even more important, criterion is: would anyone not directly associated with the website in question write an article about it? In that case, someone obviously took note, which by definition is a mark of notability. On the other hand, if the article is written by people who are (in this case) members of the forum the article is about, the subject better be something unquestionably notable, or the tag "vanity" is sure to be used. That's why the line you paraphrased reads in full: "Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional." Salient means: "of notable significance". So we're back at the requiremant of notability.
Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article should be read as: let the article establish why your site is of importance to the general public (i.e. people other than its own members). What are its unique qualities? Why should someone take a look at your site? What contribution have its members made to the Zelda community at large? Is it mentioned on other sites, in reviews, in articles? Establish notability.
Regarding the sockpuppet comments: do realize that episodes like this, where someone writes an article about his on forum, the article gets listed here, and suddenly lots of anon users flood the place with "keep" votes, is almost a weekly occurance. It's like waving a big red flag and it will certainly lead to irritation. Imagine a crowd of people you've never met barging into your house, who start to question your choice of furniture and music. Would you receive them with open arms? Of course not. It's just not a polite way to make a first impression.
Finally, it might be useful to know that the VfD page is usually filled with very terse and short comments, that might seem blunt and unfriendly to a new member; however, this is just a way to keep this page working efficently. There are dozens of VfD votes each day, and keeping it concise (unlike my rambling here, sorry guys) is just one way of doing that. See: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. The thing to remember: it's about the article, not about you. Nevertheless, the VfD page is not the most cheerful place to have one's first encounter with Wikipedia. I'd invite you to start at Wikipedia:Welcome and take it from there.
I hope this clears things up a bit. --Plek 22:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reply to #2 -- Regards for the reply; I put together a rough outline for an overhaul of the article based on what constructive comments were made here, which should also help to account for the lack of prominence on Google/Alexa. Is this more in the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals, or is this still not nearly good enough? 128.61.69.109 04:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least it should be seriously edited. I'm not against Khakain having an article, but the current one is way too long and indulges in worthless trivia. Actually I still don't really know what that internet society is about. The Trends and Memes part is irrelevant to the general article, and the War section is simply ridiculous.Luis rib 21:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete," for all the good reasons already discussed above. Katefan0 23:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wish someone would explain why acid is going to rain from the sky if we allow this entry to live. Preferably without the self-justifying soundbites about Wikipedia not being a democracy.

You can argue all day that the world at large isn't interested in Khakain, but honestly, so what? What's the worst that's going to happen if this entry stays here? If people aren't interested they don't have to look it up. Try it.

    • Because this isn't your website, and the concept of VfD has been running for some time (and well before I got here as well, so don't blame me). Don't expect others to just dump the way they do things for your own convenience. Average Earthman 09:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And I don't see why the world will end for some people if this article goes away, either. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons above. Oops, this entry was so long, I forgot that I had already voted. DaveTheRed 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Comment Suggest a new rule. Whenever the ratio of anon and first-timer votes to regular votes exceeds one, it's an automatic speedydelete. How bout that? Kosebamse 16:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment How about a rule where people learn to read the arguments for keeping something, instead of making up illegitimate excuses to throw them out, and repeating verbatim their own smug points which have already been answered?
    • Um, and what arguments are those? That you have a right to post whatever you want to an encyclopedia? That's not an argument, that's an assertion which those of us who have been here a while have heard before, and have rejected. Your website is not notable. If there is something that makes it more notable than the 2 million other websites which get more hits, you'll need to make that argument in the article itself, by explaining to us WHY your site is notable. You have failed to do so. RickK 20:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not a democracy... Delete, not notable... A gram is better than a damn..." unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
    • How about a rule that forces people to improve the article to address the concerns raised or find evidence to support keeping the article? How about a rule that prevents them from raising old arguments that were considered and rejected years ago? Gamaliel 17:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And you're still doing it. We're not impressed that you rejected them years ago, especially not if this is the amount of thought you put into your decisions. Show us the original discussion where they got rejected and maybe your comment will start to mean something. For the same reason, we don't care about the seniority you attribute to yourself because you've been doing this for however long. I don't care how "jaded" you want to act, these are still copouts. As for improving the article, it'll probably happen if we have some kind of sign that it's worth the effort, i.e. that the work we put into it won't get deleted regardless. unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
      • Nobody cares about impressing you. Beat this dead horse all you want, but winning this argument won't save this article. You have spent plenty of energy arguing here but spent none doing any of the things people have repeatedly suggested you could do to make your case. Gamaliel 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Such as? Unlike you I've read this entire page and can't find any. Lose the attitude and act in good faith like you're supposed to, we're willing to do what it takes to avoid deletion and you're not being helpful in that regard. 24.194.18.242 20:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, such as my edit to shorten the whole article and re-write and better explain the Themes section, and to eliminate the War section (or at least to write it from an NPOV). Are you sure you read the whole page? Luis rib 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I would urge you to read Plek's comments above, particularly the section beginning Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article.... I think Plek clearly represents the perceived shortcomings of the article as it stands, and where it might need to go to remain on Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article about a real forum.The Recycling Troll 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An insignificant forum supported by a person (maybe people) demonstrating a rather deliberate disregard for our purpose (to create an encyclopedia), our practices and our standards. (Comment: Untranscluding this very long discussion from the main page.) Rossami (talk) 02:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. This votepage is higher on the Google results for Khakain than the forum itself. — Gwalla | Talk 03:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- a lot of dribble over so little. Some people need to find a life offline and learn to leave people alone. - Longhair | Talk 19:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
HA! Oh the irony of that statement is delicious. Told to get offline by a bunch of wannabe college professors who troll deletion forms. 69.165.85.202 23:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ciaran McAleer

[edit]
  • No hits on Google for "Ciaran McAleer" "botanist". Not notable, or as is more likely, a hoax article. The photograph is also suspicious. Cyr has also created Giles Ashford, which is in much the same vein. Delete. --khaosworks 20:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if he/she were a real person, the article has no content. Bushytails 20:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this page and the photograph (under the out-of-focus criterion). --Angr 21:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can find no evidence of a Ciaran McAleer being a notable botanist, and even if they were, the photo is clearly nothing to do with this at all and is the work of a vandal. Average Earthman 23:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs more content, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a hoax, apart from the photo
  • Keep. Could the original poster comment?
Both "Keep" votes by the same user, and only contribution. Possible sockpuppet. --khaosworks 12:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to commons. ugen64 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

I created this a while ago, before the Wikimedia Commons was created. Move to Commons. Neutralitytalk 20:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move Agreed, verified, go ahead. -- Cleduc 05:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to commons - David Gerard 10:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Giles Ashford

[edit]

Delete as nonnotable and/or vanity and/or possible hoax. There is a fairly well-known photographer named Giles Ashford, but googling <"Giles Ashford" cannabis> gets zero hits. --Angr 21:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A quick google on Eastenders fan clubs doesn't find this name connected to any major fan club. Cite is required. Average Earthman 23:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I did a Google search for "Giles Ashford" and found loads and loads of hits. But they're all about a photographer or a movie actor (who may or may not be the same person). This is certainly not the same Giles Ashford. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete since no verifiability is supplied - David Gerard 10:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Candid photography

[edit]

A personal essay on candid photography. Delete. JoaoRicardo 21:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: "A personal essay on <topic>" would describe most new Wikipedia articles. Why do you feel this one stands out for deletion? --Jwanders 22:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I would vote to delete every personal essay, not just this one. It is against the NPOV policy, and the fact that some people have rewritten articles that were previously personal essays doesn't make it less so. Obviously, if someone will rewrite this into a serious article and prove candid photography is an encyclopedic topic, there is no need to delete it. As it stands, it is unencyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark for cleanup. I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. The topic is definitely encyclopedic. The writing style is too personal and breeze. But the topic is important enough that it is likely to attract knowledgeable editors who will improve and expand it. If the article's contributor reads this: the biggest problem I see is that you state a number of things on your own authority. The quickest thing you could do to improve the article would be to dig into some books and magazines and replace these statements with quotations from sources that readers will probably accept as authoritative. For example, you say "Arthur Fellig, better known as Weegee, was also one of the great and renowned 'candid' photographers." Can you find a quotation that says this instead of saying it yourself? Don't violate copyright of course, but short quotations are fair use. Be sure to include a reference to where you found it. I thought this statement was obviously correct when I read it, but actually I just tried an online search of The New York Times, a service provided by my local public library; I found several articles about Fellig/WeeGee and was surprised to find that they did not use the word "candid" at all, so now I'm not sure the statement is correct. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion but seems a legit enclyclopedia article to me. Nashikawa 22:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shows promise, already growing into a decent article. -- Cleduc 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonable article and given that a Google search for candid photography got 14,300 results, it appears that the concept is reasonably notable. [19] Capitalistroadster 09:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs some work and has some opinions, but it's a valid topic and a reasonable start. --Aranae 08:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs work, but keep - David Gerard 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the article to comply with the required encyclopediness. Even though I liked it beforehand, it was a simple feat. I believe that focussing on certain aspects of an entry, paragraph by paragraph, makes it easier for other people to understand the content, but also, it makes it easier to find mistakes, add more knowledge, and to rearrange the text. - Wolf, 13:49 (GMT+1), 12 Mar 2005.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 04:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ademilton dos Santos

[edit]

Heaviest baby born in Brazil, 2005. Wikipedia is not the Guniess Book of World Records--nixie 22:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, concur with Peta, as with my other previous votes on these. Megan1967 05:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. & Guniess ==> Guinness -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - David Gerard 10:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but would prefer it merged somewhere eventually. If the child survives I would not want there to be a complete biography of his otherwise non-notable life 30 years from now, but I would like to see the basic info about his birth (the date, his birth weight, place of birth, name, special conditions/circumstances) preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. Everyking 12:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep hoping to merge into something eventually, per above. Kappa 22:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, prefer to incorporate this into a "birth anomalies" page, and take the reference out from 2005_births category.--168.122.146.211 08:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge this into a "birth anomalies" page like 168.122.146.211 said above. Neutralitytalk 06:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Afraid to Shoot Strangers"

[edit]

Lyrics post, probably violates copyright. Is the song notable otherwise?--nixie 22:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • So far as I'm aware, it was neither a single nor especially popular. Either way, there's no content beyond the lyrics, so delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary detail, Non notable, concur with all above. Jdcooper 17:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to album or band - David Gerard 11:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fan as I am, this is unnecessary detail. Blufive 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Donica

[edit]

I originally marked this for speedy but the author removed the delete tag and changed the article content. There is, however, still not sufficient information to determine who this person is or if she even existed (a google search was not helpful. The same author vandalised China and added Hala, which is probably also a deletion candidate JeremyA 22:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 01:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Hellary

[edit]

Pilot for a defunct commercial airline, notability not established--nixie 22:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Flew for Laker airlines. Well, somebody had to. So? Average Earthman 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep chief pilots, presumably there's only one per airline. Kappa 23:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And only a few hundred airlines in the world, all with current and previous chiefs. Unless they've done something truly exceptional these people don't belong in wikipedia--nixie 04:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. -- Cleduc 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chief pilots are not notable, now or in the past (or in the future). RickK 06:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Rickk. Radiant! 11:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence anyone will look for this or care - David Gerard 10:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sidhi Gosain

[edit]

Not notable. Probably written by herself or a friend. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 23:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Was blanked by author, so I took the liberty to speedy delete it. Was a blatant vanity substub about some kid. jni 18:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Harsh Jain

[edit]

Article does not indicate he is notable. Should be deleted unless he turns out to be notable. Thue | talk 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Posted from host ganga.iitb.ac.in belonging to IIT Bombay. Subject of article is a student at IIT Bombay. --MarkSweep 23:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity -- Cleduc 05:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 12:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DJ Foursqare

[edit]

Promotional and/or vanity. Delete. 209.233.5.162 23:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, article name is incorrect. It should be DJ Foursquare. Megan1967 05:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Promo. Recover content if anyone cares, else delete (no redirect as spelling error) - David Gerard 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Paul novaro

[edit]

Article is currently blank, but contained vanity on some university student [20]. Delete. JoaoRicardo 23:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I've listed it for speedy deletion, since the original author blanked the page. --MarkSweep 23:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Level 27

[edit]

Advertising, delete. JeremyA 23:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: here's the entire current content: "Level 27....it's Billy Martin's clothing line. http://level27.com" Kappa 23:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikispam. Nofollow is turned off now, so please remove or place <nowiki></nowiki> around the external links. —Korath (Talk) 01:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 08:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Quintus

[edit]

Not-yet-notable band founded in "early 2005". Contains mostly unverifiable forward looking statements. Delete for now, can be recreated if and when they become notable. --MarkSweep 23:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable orphan, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_March_6&oldid=1081092699"