Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 10

April 10

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jargon Database

Alexa rank well into 7 figures, "what links here" shows only one entry, Creative Plumbing, already on VfD as spam. Strongly suspect this page is also vanity spam. Chris 00:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete only 1200 entries isn't enough for notability. DDerby 01:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I'll admit it doesn't seem to be too notable at the moment but I do feel that it is something worth keeping and encyclopaedic. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, advertising. RickK 05:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with redirect to Jargon file. Radiant_* 10:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• It is located at http://www.jargondatabase.com and first appeared in December 2004. It is a for-profit endeavor, and seeks to generate revenue via advertising, although revenue has been fairly low as of 2005.

Delete Advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Support a redirect to Jargon file as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, subject not sufficiently notable. But I don't think this name should redirect to Jargon file; although that might be a better (and non-commercial and unencumbered) resource for what a user might probably be looking for, the two aren't equivalent. Plus there's a (miniscule) chance that jargondatabase-dot-com will eventually become sufficiently noteworthy in the future, just as we once would have deleted Google but wouldn't now. Barno 18:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Essentially Different to Jargon file. Treat this as weak. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, promo. -- 8^D ^gab 15:48, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

• Redirect, no merge, to Jargon file - this would be a reasonable name for that entry. Per Barno's suggestion, redirects can always be replaced later if by some weird chance this becomes a notable topic. CDC (talk) 15:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jargon File. See above. --Carnildo 23:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Xezbeth 19:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Intel 80486DX

Has some incorrect technical information, superseded by the full Intel 80486 entry. Should be deleted and the entry name redirected to Intel 80486 entry.

MSTCrow 00:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• merge anything useful, if it exists (note warning of incorrect info) and redirect. DDerby 01:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Intel 80486 and add redirect. Megan1967 06:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep alone, notable processor. Grue 18:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cpucruft. ComCat 06:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, it may be a notable processor but we already have Intel 80486 CAPS LOCK 00:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, this is the Intel 40486 base model... Musser 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, There's also Intel 80486SX, Intel 80486SL etc. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as Per reason above --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all Intel 80486 variations (this one, the SX, the SL, and any others) into one article. Keeping simple variations of a thing together avoids needless repetition and makes it easier for readers to get an immediate sense of the scope of a topic. -- 8^D ^gab 15:54, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Merge as per User:BD2412. --cesarb 17:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee Willickers!

Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Feco 00:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Already moved to sub-entry under Gee in Wiktionary. delete. Also, could someone instruct me as to proper transwikification? I can't understand meta:transwiki. thanks. DDerby 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not terribly complicated, just labour-intensive.
    • The transwikied article's talk page must include the original article's edit history (for preference, properly marked up).
    • The transwiki logs at both the source and destination projects must record the move.
  • But I note that you haven't actually transwikied anything. You've just made a redlink in Wiktionary:gee. I'm half sure that that's enough. There's pretty much nothing to salvage from this article — no etymology, no usage notes, no citations — that makes transwikification worth doing. Let the redlink at Wiktionary turn blue naturally. Similarly, the only thing to merge into List of euphemisms is the article's actual title, which appears to be a (common) mis-spelling in any case. Redirect, at most. Uncle G 17:02, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 01:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of euphemisms, I guess. — RJH 03:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of euphemisms as RJH suggested above. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, if not already done, with List of euphemisms.--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Just delete. This page was created as a joke: http://essentiallyunremarkable.blogspot.com/2005/04/to-understand-recursion-you-must-first.html

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cyndia Crawford

Yu-Gi-Ohcruft. DS 00:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete figured it might be notable, but Google gives only 51 hits. DDerby 01:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• did not realize the importance to the card game, or the relative coverage of the card game on this site. Merge and redirect, probably not significant enough to keep.DDerby 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing to merge. --InShaneee 02:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with Yu-Gi-Oh. Though this character might not be very notable, if it should be here, put it in an article that is not fancruft. Oklonia 02:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, she is quite key to the story, being the whole motivation for the main villain. Kappa 03:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect page to Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters, where it is redundant with Pegasus entry. — RJH 03:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters. Also, the page didn't have a vfd notice, so I added it.
  • Oops, forgot to sign. Dave the Red (talk) 18:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, animecruft. Megan1967 06:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep important character from a very famous/popular cartoon & game(s) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect CAPS LOCK
• Keep - While not "important", certainly notable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters. --Theo (Talk) 13:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9:18

Seems like self-promotion to me? Google does not turn up anything… :( Twthmoses 00:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Formed in '03, myspace webpage: delete unless author proves notability DDerby 01:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for improper use of the word "there" and vanity Dsmdgold 02:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pure vanity, failed the google test. Satanicbowlerhat02:25, 10, Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself even says that it's not very famous, and it's clearly a vanity page. Oklonia 02:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If noones [sic] every [sic] heard of them, there [sic] not encyclopedic. --Angr/_comhrá 16:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN & vanity. --Randy 21:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Alert I'd like to delete the morons who voted to delete this page from the face of the earth- by the way, nice use of punctuation Twthmoses- do you always put a '?' at the end of your comments or just the most stupid ones?

Vanity- who are any of you losers to claim such a thing? (notice the correct use the question mark)

Personal attacks above by anon 159.169.57.3 VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, Delete vanity, fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unknown nobodies shouting the odds.. Get rid --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! Brendan62442 18:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elin Oxenhielm

Ms Oxenhielm almost became notable when she announced a few years ago that she had solved one of David Hilbert's unsolved problems, but then it turned out she was wrong. As is, I don't think we need an entry for her. DS 00:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hilbert's sixteenth problem. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, tentative. I would be inclined to vote keep - borderline notable with 800 Google hits and newspaper articles on her "discovery". Megan1967 06:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Merge and Redirect at least until she does somthing more notable. BrokenSegue 19:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable mathematics student. Klonimus 02:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• M&R as above may be appropriate, but since her claim to fame is spurious at best I don't see what's so notable about her. Radiant_* 07:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Make a mention in Hilbert's sixteenth problem and delete - Skysmith 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Su

This is vanity. I see no evidence of a notable Jack Su, and statements like "one of the most talent software engineers in the world" are not only bad grammar, bu obvious self-promotion.--Dmcdevit 00:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to Jack Soo, but we don't have an article on him. RickK 05:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • you could always create that as a redirect as well - make both point to Barney Miller... Grutness|^hello?
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant vanity. Does not belong on Wikipedia. - Sango123 20:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to "Barney Miller." Jack Soo was the main reason I watched that show! - Lucky 6.9 05:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete XstreamQuotes seems popular enough (95000 hits on google)- but who cares about a stock trading system. Andypasto 08:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsensical Gibberish --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 21:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11th millennium

I'm not convinced of the need for this one. No scope for expansion for, oh, 7995 years or so. Grutness|^hello? 01:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dsmdgold 02:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but list on Wikipedia:Requested_articles with a note to recreate and expand in 7995 years. Barno 03:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a definition at best. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and Redirect to Future. That's what they did for 11th millennium AD and 12th millennium AD. Dave the Red (talk) 05:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, concur with Dave the Red. --bainer 05:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect although the most useful topic an encyclopedia could cover is the future. Klonimus 02:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I guess that means I have to ditch my plans to write the entry about the upcoming 10,404 US Presidential Election. Arkyan 10:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You do know that the US is slated to be destroyed by UFO invasion in 4912, right? Oh and btw, delete. Radiant_* 09:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there has SOME useful info which can be added (example offhand, though not relevant to this entry directly: Doctor Who reference from episode 2 "The End of the World" - the New Roman Empire in 12005). It is however reasonable that we should only keep millennial pages when there are references which can be added. --ThomasWinwood 14:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. There is no content to merge not already contained in Kerala Backwaters, however. I've instead redirected to Backwater, and will add a pointer to Kerala Backwaters from there. CDC (talk) 04:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Backwaters

Incoherent. Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Cleanup and move to Kerala Backwaters Google search of Backwaters + Kerala gets more thn 140,000 hits. Seems to be a significant tourust destination. Dsmdgold 02:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Kerala. If the section is expanded enough then move back out into its own article. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean and Rename as per dsmdgold. Dave the Red (talk) 05:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to Kerala Backwaters as suggested above. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge existing article to Kerala, and add redirect to Backwater. Megan1967 06:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge with Kerala Backwaters. Hadlock

Created article on Kerala Backwaters; shall we change Backwaters to a redirect page? Tom Radulovich 04:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Kerala Backwaters, the article which has been created by Tom Radulovich. These "lagoons" of Kerala are called and well known by the term "Kerala Backwaters".--Bhadani 15:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• M&R to Kerala Backwaters --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The_Simpsons_family_tree

Hyper-trivial, misinformative, and un-encyclopedic.

Reasons why this page should be deleted:

1. This is extremely trivial -- even to fans of the show. The information given is so obscure, given its source, that most Simpsons fan sites don't provide this sort of thing (though there are a few that do)
2. The vast majority of characters on the list have never been mentioned on the television show itself. The source for this information is a long out-of-print tie-in book that was put out in 1991, which an extremely small minority of the show's famously obsessed devotees have ever read, and which most of the present staff that writes and produces the show have never even heard of. This family tree also has been contradicted by the show in the 14 years since it came out; for example, Homer and Marge's mothers have different names on the series than they do on this chart, and even though the article notes this contradiciton, it still underlines the fact that the book cannot be taken seriously as continuity. Put simply, its irrelevance (not simply its obscurity) makes it a poor reference source.
3. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Something like a list of characters does because it's integral to understanding the show. This family tree is just ephemera that adds nothing useful.

Andrew Levine 01:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it is of relevant interest to the show, and shows how things in shows can be contradicted from their beginnings and onward. While inaccurate, it still gives some accurate references like the connection between Homer and Herb Powell. It is also interesting to note the ancestory of the families, as well it is interesting to see that Homer and Mr. Burns are distantly related. Note, this particular book was also referenced in the Bart Simpson article for his birth date. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge (though with this much material, probably better to keep). Question: since this only appeared in the book, does it raise copyright issues? Meelar (talk) 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It might raise copyright concerns, especially if that book is the only source. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As summarized and paraphrased text, this is highly unlikely to be copyvio. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • On looking at it a second time, it does not yet appear to be copyvio since it is only paraphrasing and summarizing only a portion of the family trees. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the topic might be worthy of an article, but as it stands, this is simply a reproduction of material from a book acknowledged to be out of date. The article should reflect all current knowledge about the family tree. --bainer 02:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to The Simpsons. I don't think the article is too long to do this yet. Most of the length is due to the size of the family tree pictures. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the information is wrong. Marge's mother's name is Jackie Bouvier. None of the people above Abe Simpson have ever been mentioned. You can't merge and redirect an image, and other than the image, there is no unique data here. RickK 05:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Incorrect fancruft? Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Rick. Megan1967 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Though not canon, it does come from an official source (the book mentioned). I think that contradiction could be interesting to some fans, but I'd prefer it merged for easier accessibility. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a single-use joke copied directly from a book, with no significance to the show itself. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress. sjorford →•← 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep though I admit this was a bit of a difficult decision for me. On one hand, this is both fairly trivial and also bordering on copyvio. I know real family trees can't be copyrighted, but a fictional family tree that appeared in a book... I'm not sure. On the other hand, I consider the book an official source (it was me who changed the birthdate in the Bart Simpson article a few months ago) and this is genuinely interesting information that can't easily be found elsewhere. Plus, with the two images and all, it looks like a good bit of work was put into this, so I'd prefer not to delete without good reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would we want to keep false information? RickK 21:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, as I said, I consider the book to be an official source (as would most Simpsons fans, I'd imagine). The official-ness of the book is without question, as series creator Matt Groening is the book's author. It's true that some of the family tree was later contradicted in the series... but then things within the series were later contradicted by the series as well. For instance, Smithers was a black person in the first season. Any time a fictional work grows past a certain size, continuity problems are bound to slip in, and such continuity problems are of great interest to fans. In any case, the parts of the family tree that conflict with the show are specified and discussed in the article, so readers aren't likely to be confused unless they merely glance at it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, thank you for acknowledging the hard work I put into those images. I would not mind a merge of some sort if it meant keeping thos images :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic and whatever else can be thrown at it --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial and unencyclopaedic information --Bucephalus 17:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Do you know a lot of the information on an encyclopedia is trivial information such as pop culture-related items which is why most of the answers of Trivial Pursuit questions can be found in Wikipedia, Encarta, etc., Bucephalus? :-P However, this is fancruft and this is coming from a Simpsons fan. --Anonymous Cow 18:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Undecided --Spinboy 03:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good overview of the Simpsons family which is a major TV-series. Sjakkalle 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How is it a "good overview"? If you read the reasons that the article is listed here you will see that the vast majority of the family tree's characters have never been mentioned on the show and the source is badly out of date. Andrew Levine 00:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, really interesting. I never knew there were so many of them. Grue 18:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There aren't! Flipping heck. It was made up for a tie-in book, it's never been used again, it has no significance to the TV show The Simpsons. None. Whatsoever. AT ALL. Grr. Still delete. sjorford →•← 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This would be a tough call notability wise if it wasn't for the fact that this seems extrememly dated. --InShaneee 19:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Objections based on contradiction are irrelevant. This is interesting and useful information, and the fact that it was later contradicted in a work of fiction spanning 15 years doesn't lessen its importance. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 20:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting is up to you, but useful? How is this useful? The vast majority of these people don't appear outside this single work. --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess it's useful _because_ the people don't appear anywhere else... the information is not easily found elsewhere &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 02:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I found it interesting. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete From the book only, already merged into The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album Commander 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• At best it could be considered outside non-canonical material, along the lines of "The Daria Diaries" and the series Daria. It's like saying Cletus Del Ray is Homer's cousin because it's been stated in the Simpsons comic book, while the show has made no mention of this. Though it could explain quite a bit--that darn Simpsons stupidity gene, you know. Iconoclast 02:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Mr. Burns is a distant relative. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which means Larry Burns is too, being the son of Monty Burns. So it begs the question: should we incorporate alternative continuities--comic books, official/nonofficial tie-in publications (e.g. Little Golden Books), promotional publications--into the show guide proper, or link them to seperate wikis? I mean, it's noted in here that Comic Book Guy's real name is officially "Jeff Albertson", though Matt Groening said in some obscure interview it was "Louis Lane". Why the name change, anyway? Did Groening or some other writer forget that comment? Or was he just bullshitting the interviewer, not thinking it'd get printed? Iconoclast 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Since it is already merged to the book The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album I vote to redirect there. -- Lochaber 10:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, same article started by the same user one day after the VfD here... fishy. -Jonamerica 21:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm gonna hve to say keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Those Simpson relatives have almost no Google results. Brendan62442 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 23:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The book and the family tree within could be mentioned in another article and die hard fans that really want to look up false info can run to the library. -Jonamerica 20:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Staples

Clear case of vanity, no encyclopedicity, delete.--Dmcdevit 01:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. jni 13:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanitycruft. ComCat 06:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isv Kraan

The name of one of two spacecraft that crash in a video game called "Unreal". (The other is Vortex Rikers.) Trivia that's of no interest to non-players of Unreal. WP is not loo paper. Delete. -- Hoary 02:37, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) ...... edited to include arguably plausible reason for deletion Hoary 04:50, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Merge with Unreal — RJH 03:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no plausible reasons given for deletion. Kappa 03:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Unreal. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Unreal. Megan1967 06:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge detail and redirect or preferably delete. Gazpacho 11:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no where near notable enough --Bucephalus 17:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable fictional battleship. Klonimus 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (WP:FICT) Radiant_* 07:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Key to the game, but not deserving of its own article with so little info. Chris talk back 16:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Unreal, game trivia, per WP:FICT. No potential to become encyclopedic on its own merits, even if we start seeing Monday Night Unreal Tourneys on TV. Barno 18:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note possible miscapitalization error in article title: Is "Isv" really "ISV" for something like "International Space Vessel"? Barno 18:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter. Once it's in the Unreal article, anyone will be able to fix it if it's wrong. Chris talk back 23:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imaginarius

Band vanity. 'Imaginarius "Orange County"' gets two google hits. You know the drill. --InShaneee 02:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The two members look notable. I think its a case of hoax because one is a programmer and the other is a film director. Delete. Hedley 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN or hoax. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity and/or hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vortex Rikers

The other spacecraft that crashes in some game called Unreal. (The other is Isv Kraan.) Under the limbo bar of notability (unless, of course, you're unreally keen on Unreal). Delete. -- Hoary 02:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Merge or keep, no need to apply notability to fancruft. Kappa 03:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, Kappa, are you saying that any fancruft, no matter how trivial, is noteworthy? -- Hoary 03:24, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
    • We should merge or keep any not-completely-trivial fancruft, this is obviously non-trivial to fans of the game. Kappa 03:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's my impression that virtually nothing about a given video game is trivial to its own devotees. Of course, the same thing could be said about, say, church architecture; but while the non-architecturally minded might want to check what a clerestory was (and, having found the article, stand a chance of then wanting to read more than the fact that they'd wanted to check), elements of particular video games typically are of no interest whatever to those who don't play them. -- Hoary 04:07, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
        • My impression is that fans have a reasonable limit to what they want to include, given that Wikipedia is not paper. Elements of video games are also useful for people trying to understand the speech and culture of people who play it.
        • Kappa, make up your mind. Do you want to keep the article, or merge it into somewhere else? You seem to be forgetting again that we are discussing articles not subjects. Chris talk back 16:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • This is votes for deletion, not votes for keeption or mergion. I'd rather leave that decision to someone who's interested in the topic. Kappa 08:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Unreal. — RJH 03:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Unreal as with Isv Kraan. It might be fancruft but it is relevant to Unreal, and Unreal is notable enough for an article, which includes information such as this. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Of no interest to anyone but fans of the game. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge pr common sense. --Asriel86 18:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge detail and delete. Gazpacho 00:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable fictional starship. Klonimus 02:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Key to the game, but not enough info for a breakout article. Chris talk back 16:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As in the case of Isv Kraan above, merge to Unreal, game trivia, per WP:FICT. Barno 18:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, in the sense of adding a sentence to Unreal that goes "The first game opened with the player character, a convict on the crashed Vortex Rikers, finding himself alone on an alien world", or something like that. Awful name for a spaceship, not itself notable in any way.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pico (Newgrounds.com)

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given. The talk pages says "hey give it a chance meanies >_<", so I'm bringing it here. I note that newgrounds links to Pico. No vote. Kappa 03:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Feco 03:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that the creator blanked the page (incl. VfD notice) and left a few choice words. I replaced the VfD. Feco 17:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It gets a few google hits but only for links to play the game. Doesn't seem notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. It's not notable and doesn't deserve it's own page. --Randy 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesnt deserve its own page, and already enough info on the newgrounds page. --Satanicbowlerhat 15:23, 10 Apr, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks at the moment the creator doesn't want it there either, having removed all content from the page Jackliddle 17:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: it's just a spazzy flash game that gets too much attention at NewGrounds (in my opinion), and only does so because of its trademark school/twitchy kid who hates his parents/immature violence which trumps its near-deficiency of gameplay. I restored the article to when it was first VfD'd, as I don't think "fuck you" is a useful revision. --Asriel86 18:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I cleaned this page up to remove some of the immature leet speak. Hence, I recuse myself from voting. Andrew pmk 01:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If this is all we can say (and I strongly doubt that there's more), delete. Not worthy of mention on newgrounds. Chris talk back 16:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• PLEASE CONSIDER THIS ISSUE Newgrounds.com is one of the most popular destinations for the young American male. Pico is the well known mascot. I believe this voting demographic is perhaps mismatched. Please keep an open mind. KEEPLotsofissues 09:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No it's not, per Google and Alexa. Popular destinations include Google, Yahoo and Playboy. Delete this. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Newgrounds has an Alexa ranking of 712 - quite more impressive than Wikipedia until recently. The adult content and extreme violent irreverence (e.g. Suicide bomber blow up civilians game) is I'm guessing consumed primarily by young males. It is indeed a very popular destination for the American young male. Check out the front page now [1] I see pico in front advertising the cash contest. Lotsofissues 12:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn picocruft. ComCat 06:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Laforet

A department store in Tokyo, no claim to notability. Tokyo has probably lots of them. JoaoRicardo 03:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Tokyo does. However, though it's pretty clumsily expressed in the article, Laforet is fairly well-known as part of youth-culture fashion. See some of the 5,030 hits it gets on Google ("Laforet+Tokyo-Hotel"). Keep and clean up. --Calton 03:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

they also have an art gallery event space where many artist all over the world come to http://www.lapnet.jp/event_info/lm/index.html

• Keep Everyking 09:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Tokyo and Harajuku landmark which does have claims to notability. Exploding Boy 15:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems notable but needs to be expanded. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Japanese department stores are every bit as notable as american ones. Dave the Red (talk) 05:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Having lived in Tokyo, I know this to be a signifigant part of the culture. --Halidecyphon 07:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Other articles link to this article. Capitalistroadster 11:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a valid reason to keep (if people can say "not a valid reason to delete", I can do the same :-). However, "could be worthy of inclusion, keep if expanded" is. Chris talk back 16:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Japanese Store. Klonimus 02:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable department store. Mike H 03:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lambessow

195.10.5.6 marked this vfd on March 9, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's link spam -- someone's hoping to sell more books. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Urk. I overlooked the external link entirely, despite having them in a different color'n'everything. It's gone now. —Korath (Talk) 07:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless I can keep 10 Downing Street, Llanelli. Chris talk back 16:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leadervalues

Delete. Not encyclopediac, IMHO, and appears to be shilling for some web page. --Wtshymanski 05:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. jni 13:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And I say that as the person mentioned in the article - not my post mickyates 17:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while I draft a proposal for making this crap speedy. Chris talk back 16:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Christian politicians

This is pointless. You might as well add every politician from every Western country. Christianity is the predominant religion of almost all of the Western world and such a small list doesn't even come close to covering every Christian poltician (probably not even 1% of 1% of 1% of them), and such a list would be impossible and pointless. 65.123.220.255 05:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might as well have a list of Tall politicians. Religious affiliation isn't categorical enough to make easy lists. Do the politicians have to be self-declared, or does the wiki community decide who fits the bill? What about Catholics? Mormons? Etc. Feco 04:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scope too broad. I like how the list implies that the politicians listed are only notable because they are christian. Dave the Red (talk) 05:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: agreed w/ Megan1967. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: impossible and pointless list is right. Jonathunder 06:19, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Delete: yeah, impossible and pointless. Nominator overstates the case by saying that all Western politicians are Christian, though. FreplySpang (talk) 13:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what would be the definition of the "real christian", for one? Potential POV pusher magnet - Skysmith
  • Well, see, natural christians are a subset of real christians, which are a subset of complex christians together with imaginary ones. Never mind, delete. Radiant_* 14:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incompletable trivia. Chris talk back 16:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we do have List of Jewish superheroes after all. Grue 18:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible list - probably would about the same unmanageable size as a list of all male politicians, or all politicians in Asia. -- 8^D ^gab 16:41, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Drag Queens

There is also a list of drag queens on the Drag queen article, which is virtually identical to this one. This list is not a particularly lengthy one, not so long that its inclusion on the Drag queen article would create length problems. Or should this article just be turned into a redirect to Drag queen? Does that require a vote? PatGallacher 13:24, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the few extra entries that aren't listed at Drag queen to that article and Redirect.

This was evidently added by User:DaveTheRed

• Merge and Redirect. Jonathunder 06:11, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, I support the opposite: I think the list should be merged out of the main article into this one. It would eventually outgrow the main article anyway, so the seperate list will eventually be needed, it's just a matter of how soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Starblind that this list should be kept and the list on the main article removed. --NormanEinstein 01:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with NormanEinstein that this list should be kept and the list on the main article removed. Klonimus 02:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, queencruft. ComCat 06:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with proposal to merge list out of Drag queen. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and de-merge list from main article. -- Lochaber 10:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of characters from American Dad

This article contains no information that's not already in American Dad. - Brian Kendig 00:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Edit: It's actually a subset of the information in its parent article; it started life as a copy-and-paste from its parent, but since then the list in the parent article has grown.

• Merge with American Dad article; no need for separate list. —tregoweth 02:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I would support keeping once the list got too long to include in the main article (a la List of Simpsons characters). Merge and redirect until then. Meelar (talk) 02:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that this list is pointless at the moment, seeing as there is very little that can be said about the character as the show has not yet started airing. This should be kept in the main article for now.
• Delete it. There's no reason to have a separate page for a whole five characters. Maybe if and when the show takes off. --Ntg 22:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• One episode of the show has aired. Delete. —tregoweth 04:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork, not notable. Megan1967 05:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed w/ Tregoweth. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing to merge, so delete. Radiant_* 10:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect untill there is enough content to require a fork. Jeltz talk 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --Bucephalus 17:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Since parent article contains a more complete version, delete this list per WP:FICT. Barno 19:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now, however I would support the re-creation of the article should the parent article grow longer when the series proper starts (as per WP:FICT). -- Lochaber 10:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have a feeling American Dad will get cancelled soon. Brendan62442 19:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with List of solo cello pieces. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of solo cello pieces by composer: J

This vote for deletion is for the entire series. I don't understand why they couldn't be represented (much cleaner) as a category. Masterhomer 08:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, turning this into a category would turn it into Category:Solo cello composers, which is not the same thing. Kappa 03:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, lists and categories serve different purposes. RickK 05:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone explain the difference and significance of the lists and categories? It would seem to me that categories would only list those composes who are significant enough for their own page while a list could have everyone, notable or not, entered within it. This then begs the question of why would we want to have a list of composers with those not significant enough to have their own page? No vote at this time. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. The idea behind categories is to deprecate (non-annotated) lists. The reality is that both lists and cats have some functionality that the other doesn't, so in practice many topics are covered in both a list and a cat. This seems undesirable, and is due for some serious revision, but that would require an upgrade to the server software first. Radiant_* 10:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The whole point of (annotated) lists is to organize and merge things that are inherently short, or extremely interrelated. For instance Orc (Middle-earth) as an (annotated) list is more comprehensive than short articles on each individual orc.
  • Of course such lists require (some) watching, because if I write my own cello piece then that does not warrant me listing myself there.
  • Oh yes, and I'd like this list kept, but given the size of each lists, merge the lot of them into a single article rather than 26 of them. Radiant_* 10:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks for the clarification. In that case I think I vote keep but merge them into one long list. If the list becomes too long it can be split back into parts again. --Fuzzball! (talk) 00:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Lists can include links to articles that haven't been written yet. And they can additional info to entries which cats can't. Keep per RickK. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge those lists into one, given the small number of entries. Martg76 12:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless list. There's already a (poorly named) Category:List of solo cello pieces, which is quite sufficient. The other letters in this series need to be deleted too, of course. --Angr/_comhrá 16:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep > as Martg76 says merge lists into one. - max rspct 19:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the content, but I think merging them together is the best idea. Ultimately it could be a fairly long list, [2] for example providing the 20th-21st century repertoire of one performer (which notably excludes the Crumb and Hindemith, so that list is quite incomplete). Lists and categories are different animals, as others have already pointed out; lists are worth their trouble for the value of redlinks alone. Antandrus 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's ridiculous that List of solo cello pieces is a redirect to Category:List of solo cello pieces. An article should never be a redirect to a category. The redirect should be changed into a summary article of all the alphabetic letters combined. A list is proper here rather than a category because it should contain many pieces without individual pages. So Merge into List of solo cello pieces, eliminate redirect on the latter, no redirect on the existing alphabetic lists, and CFD the category. Finally, add pieces by Brahms and other major composers. —Wahoofive | Talk 23:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. The point of this list is that the pieces are listed by composer, which is information that can't be practically preserved in a category. Raven42 09:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of solo cello pieces by composer. --Idont Havaname 15:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liulin

Jonharman marked this vfd on March 24, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Just an one-liner with numerous spelling errors. jni 13:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Housebling

Delete as neologism. Feco 03:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, <100 google hits, neologism. Wmahan. 22:01, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lorna Nogueira

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in this page's history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OurColony.net

Not encyclopedic style. Also nothing more than an advertisement for this particular gaming service. In its initial form, it was nonsense. I tagged it as speedy several times and there are a phalanx of anon editors who kept removing it too fast for an admin to see it. Then they expanded it to more than nonsense, but it still shouldn't be kept. So I put it up for VFD. Katefan0 04:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks

• Hmmm..... tempting, but no. Above by 172.140.124.211 who has been editing the article and also contributed? below. Katefan0 22:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is the latest microsoft viral marketing scheme...
much like the ilovebees.com and the spam remarks all call true.
211.26.126.91

This would be a great place to organize our thoughts, as we are having difficulty on the actual site's forums. It worked surprisingly well for ilovebees.com and I don't see it as spam or advertising. It is simply a game, which we can explain and dissect here. -Stiver 129.100.200.44 04:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You can use your user pages, though, to communicate and post whatever you like. DDerby 05:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't think we want to encourage people to use their user pages as dicussion forums for purposes unrelated to the development of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, if I recall correctly. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless completely rewritten and notability established. Right now the articles seems to be a cut and paste job from the website with some other confusing info stuck at the bottom. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete no longer worth of speedy, but it is a blatant advertisement. DDerby 05:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever this is, it's not an encyclopedic article. -- Curps 05:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Save It! We're not discussing, we're explaining. Every time there is a fact, it is added. I agree it needs to be cleaned up a little, but it is informative, not an ad. "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically" We are making a reference. This page is very similar to the Google wiki page. Simply an explaination. Google is a website, owned by a huge company, however instead of being a game it is a search engine. You coud argue that you are advertising for Google, but you aren't. You are explaining. What happens when someone wants to know what this game is all about, where will they turn for a reference??? Wiki. -Stiver 129.100.200.44 06:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm working on making this more informative, although this is my first wiki entry. Give it time to grow and be more informative. Jonamerica 06:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It does not read like an encyclopedia article. At all. That's the main problem. A secondary problem may be that the topic is not notable enough, but it's almost impossible to tell, given the current state of the article. -- Curps 06:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing a little clean-up can't fix. -Stiver 129.100.200.44 06:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• """Keep"""

The article has been severly cleaned up and improved 211.26.126.91

• Gve them a little while to clean up this wiki. It has just been up a little while. They need time to get things in order.
  • Remark by User:172.130.148.143
  • Agreed
    • Remark by User:129.100.200.44
• Delete. The article seems almost nonsensical enough for a speedy, but not quite. The state that this VfD has been left in alone is enough to make me want to see the article go, and I can't even figure out what's going on here. Sock puppets? Overzealous article authors who don't know how to sign their vote? Either way, it needs to go. Arkyan 10:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kill the socks! Delete as nonsense. Radiant_* 10:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Gaaah, delete. Go start a blog. FreplySpang (talk) 13:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's an article on the Haunted Apiary, so why not keep this ARG as well? Needs a lot of clean up though.--Matteh (talk) 14:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete there is another article, ourcolony that is better organized. Let's delete this one and we can continue to grow the better. jonamerica 09:37 10 Apr 2005 (CDT)
  • Recreating the same article under a different name -- good heavens, aren't we clever. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was not recreated to avoide deletion Jonamerica 11, April 2005 04:27 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a Redirect to Ourcolony. Dave the Red (talk) 18:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider. The Ourcolony article has been created for the purpose of evading deletion of OurColony.net. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have redirected Ourcolony to OurColony.net, as an attempt to evade the VfD. Delete both, not notable. RickK 03:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, since the redirect option is no longer viable, just delete it as not-notable. As a side note, I think Haunted Apiary could be deleted on the same grounds. Dave the Red (talk) 03:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Evidence to consider If I'm reading the histories of the two pages correctly, Ourcolony and OurColony.net, The Ourcolony page was created Apr 8th by User:Uvulabob27, while this deletion request was started Apr 10th, the same date as OurColony.net anonymously was started. How could Ourcolony have been created to "evade deletion of OurColony.net" two days before the deletion request began? I have worked on both, they could easily be merged. Personally I think Ourcolony is better organized. User:Jonamerica
  • p.s. I'm new to wikipedia, OurColony.net's history does not have the same "(started article)" as Ourcolony, so I may be wrong on the start date, or this might be because the page was started anonymously, I'm not sure.
• Comment I strongly object to the redirect of Ourcolony to OurColony.net. Jonamerica's notes above are correct. I can see why one would like to have both articles deleted, but making such decisions based on false claims sets a very bad example, last but not least for the affected newbie. Rl 09:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have looked back through the history and while it is true that the Ourcolony article was started prior to OurColony.net, it was but a stub until Jonamerica began adding to it -- which was AFTER this VfD vote began to look bad for OurColony.net. If he wants to improve the article, that's fine and even encouraged by Wikipedia policies, but improving an article on the same subject that's not being considered for VfD is just a way of circumventing the process. Improve the one under consideration now, not the one you know isn't under the gun. It's a bad faith move, in my personal opinion, though perhaps some leeway can be given for inexperience. · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It just hit my soft spot because it's such a pleasant surprise if the principal author of a VfD article tries to improve his work rather than acting his rage out through vandalism. Rl 13:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In all honesty the only reason I moved from working on OurColony.net to Ourcolony was because it was a cleaner slate with which to work. I voted early on to keep this article and only once I found the second did I reverse my decision on that voted and post the information here. It may have been a mistake to work on Ourcolony while OurColony.net was under review, or it may have been a mistake to report the existance of Ourcolony here; I thought I was doing the right thing by reporting it, as there is no need for two articles. At the time OurColony.net was poorly formatted, and a cut and paste job from the ourcolony.net website, while Ourcolony had a good start, thanks to Uvulabob27, who created the article. All I'm asking is that the two articles be judged seperately. I'd be happier with the redirect removed and Ourcolony under it's own VfD. Jonamerica 13:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 16:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I started the OurColony.net entry without knowledge of the other one. I created beause I knew and visited the Haunted Apiary entry and saw how much publicity it got. I know I'm not very good at wiki, seeing as it was my first entry ever, but I believe that with sufficient clean-up, and given time to gather more facts, this entry will be worth it. This is an event in history, I mean how many people know what the first Emperor of China's name was, now how many people know what an Xbox is? I suggest keeping one of the articles and/or merging them. Not deletion. -Stiver 129.100.200.44 22:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • All user's edits are to this article and VfD.
• Keep, there's already a group a people willing to make the article conform to Wiki standards. Lets atleast give them a chance. --Kross 01:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Despite what people think I believe that this page has (in only a few hours) become much better and is not spam but rather an encyclopedic resource.--213.75.12.26 10:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has a dozen edits only.
• Keep, Very interesting Xbox 360 marketing, as I Love Bees. --Mateusc 01:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it.. If wikipedia has a IloveBees entry, why not a ourcolony.net entry aswell? Good place to keep track of what's going on.
  • Above edit by User:200.208.143.201 who has two edits — one to this VfD vote and one to OurColony.net. As to the specifics of your argument, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; respectfully, Wikipedia is not here to help people "keep track of what's going on." And for the record, I think I Love Bees should probably be put up for VfD as well. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• We need to keep this wiki. It's a great way to log the progress and happenings of the game. Anyone looking to start playing can easily catch up on the breakthroughs made and puzzles solved. Huge viral campaigns like that of ILB and OurColony make an impact on society and culture and are important to be recorded and remembered.
  • Above by User:65.120.80.8. Again, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Instead, why not start a blog? · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is not a forum, why you alltime try justify? Katefan0, seems that you repented to have indicated, knows it made for pure vanity and arrogance... --Mateusc 17:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what point you're trying to make, so I don't really have a response. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Get a job and stop to nominate stupid VfD's. --Mateusc 23:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. ARGs aren't exactly common. Xezbeth 14:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean it up, or if all else fails Merge with Xbox 2 or whatever it is. Yes. I started Ilovebees. I also abandoned it once it had a regular group of people editing it, since I lost interest rather quickly. This is not ilovebees, this is something else that frankly I haven't even heard of until I received an email about it. Additionally, using it to log what happens next isn't really against the Wikipedia charter, but wouldn't ARGN setup a MediaWiki for each ARG? Maybe content should be cut and moved there. Now if you don't mind, I am going to look into this. Ghost Freeman 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd really like to know why ARGN or the community hasn't even made the slightest attempt to setup a MediaWiki or another forum to coordinate efforts on this ARG. It seems commonplace, considering there was one for Ilovebees. Ghost Freeman 16:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ARGN does have a forum, they also have an IRC channel for ourcolony running on irc.chat-solutions.org. -Jonamerica 17:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Notability ARGs are growing, Haunted_Apiary was just nominated for a webby award in the Games-Related catagory. -Jonamerica 17:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - WikiNazi go home
  • Above edit by User:216.175.65.227, whose first and (currently) only edit is to this VfD. May I also remind everyone about Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks? I am entitled to my opinions, just like everyone else. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Look, if ilovebees stays...ourcolony stays. To keep one without the other would seem very unfair. This won't hurt you a bit to let us keep it. Katefan, if you are so against it...there are PLENTY of other wikis you could read. Let us have our space and go back to doing whatever you were doing before this witchhunt. 1st off from your summary as to why it needs to be deleted you were misinformed (a.k.a. made wrongful assumptions). As a result of those wrongful assumptions you attempted to delete something on false pretenses. This ARG deserves to be in wikipedia. It is informational and historic amongst others uses. Realize that you were mistaken about it's purpose and leave us be. Otherwise ilovebees shouldn't be allowed to exist either. This is not meant as a personal attack anymore than your attempt to delete our communitie's wiki is a personal attack. Find another witch to hunt..leave us alone. Do you have ANY idea how many people are a part of this? One person...YOU....is starting the effort to stop it? Leave us be. Give this a chance. We can edit it. You have no idea the talent that the 1000's and 10's of 1000's of us can bring to this place. Let us exercise our right to us this wikipedia. It's NOT GOING TO HURT YOU. Just leave us alone. Give this a chance! ----tcpvtec
• Edited by tcpvtec...A 1st time editor but long term wikipedia user. Not much of a contributor to the wikipedia (yet). Don't use that against me. I haven't found anything yet that I wanted to contribute to...except this. Make sense? This one wiki could bring 1000's to wikipedia. I fell in love with wikipedia the 1st time I found it. Let others find it. Leave us be! ---- tcpvtec
  • Just for the record -- all these new folks attacking me and leaving personal screeds against me in various places seem to think that somehow I am pulling the strings on this VfD vote, like if only they could either persuade or bully me to pull it down all would be well. I have no control over the vote once it's started, just for the record. I can't stop it and I can't delete it, even if I were inclined to do so (which I am not). I'm just a user like anyone else and the VfD will run its course no matter what. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• OK. Ourcolony.net seems to be a pioneer in ARGs, and there seem to be a lot of people who feel passionately about keeping this. Whearas I'm only mildly inclinded to delete it. So I change my vote to Abstain. Dave the Red (talk) 01:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Hello, this is of course something historic, just as much as having information about government war bonds from the 40's has relevance. It's kind of ridiculous to go around deleting things because you don't like it.

• Keep The article is looking fairly encyclopedic; significant ARGs represent very enthusiastic communities, and are more significant (imo) than non-collaborative games with similarly-sized audiences. +sj +, who still has vivid recollections of The Beast

  PS - according to the terminology in the article itself, it should be moved to OurColony, not OurColony.net. I've moved the article back there (VfD and all); clearly there should be only one article. +sj + 07:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Can I remove the VfD? I will remove in 2 days, anyone disagree? --Mateusc 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, you can't. An admin will decide when the vote should be closed and what should be done with the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:46, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As others have pointed out, it would seem incongruous to allow ilovebees.com to remain but to delete this. Also, I daresay that consensus has more-or-less been achieved and admins should consider closing the vote. VoiceOfReason

• Keep I also think that this article should be kept. Atrophied
  • Above user has two edits, one to OurColony and one to this VfD. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Seniority does not change the validity of one's vote. If a user with 2000 edits can vote without explaining the reasoning behind it, a user with 2 edits should be permitted to as well. If you suspect sockpuppetry, say so, that would alter the validity of the vote. Sockatume 17:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Anon votes or votes by people with very low edit counts are still votes, but they can be discounted at an admin's discretion when the vote is closed, as per Wikipedia's policies. It is common practice, therefore, to point these things out when they occur, and has nothing to do with suggesting sockpuppetry. It's nothing to get offended about. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Didn't mean to come across as offended there, I'm not, just thinking around the interesting situation we have on the Wikipedia with regards to newcomers voting and the lack of a requirement to justify votes. Sockatume 18:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it should stay. JyThanatos
  • Above user's only edit is to this VfD. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Katefan, can you explain why this page deserves deletion and ilovebees.com does not? Or do you think ilovebees.com should be deleted too? (Note that I have a handful of diverse edits.) VoiceOfReason
      • See my comments above. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies, I missed your earlier comment regarding ilovebees.

          I think there should definitely be a bias against deletion of articles. As long as it's not nonsensical, what is the harm in keeping? It has, as others have said, drawn new readers (and contributors) to Wikipedia, and it's information. It may not be of terribly wide interest, but I'm sure the reign of Henry_the_Lion isn't of terribly wide interest either. Five years from now, somebody will say to himself, "Hey, remember that OurColony thing? I wonder how it turned out." Is there any reason why he shouldn't be able to come here and find out?

          Regarding your earlier objection, it should be clear by now that this article is in no way a "discussion forum", but an encyclopedic description of the game and a list of challenges. VoiceOfReason

          • I agree that it's vastly improved over what it was before, and I did consider whether I should change my vote... but ultimately, the article is about what amounts to a gigantic advertisement for Xbox and its parent company. I'm against Wikipedia articles that function as corporate press releases, and it doesn't change my opinion that this one is presented in the form of a game or challenge. I do appreciate your enthusiasm though and can see how someone could get drawn in. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • As Jonamerica points out, Wikipedia has pages on The Noid and "Where's the beef?". Much pop culture originates as marketing campaigns. The article itself isn't an advertisement; it's an article about an advertisement. Providing factual information about the advertisement should be kosher. (In the nature of full disclosure, I should add that the aforementioned parent company happens to be my employer. I am not, however, in any way affiliated with Ourcolony. I don't even play it.) VoiceOfReason
• Delete. Marketing campaigns, almost by definition, will be forgotten in a few years. Nothing of lasting interest. Isomorphic 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Apple's 1984 Commercial. New Coke. "Pepsi Challenge" of the 1980s. Coke's 1971 "Hilltop" ad. Toyota's "Oh What a Feeling." The Noid. Where's the beef?. I remember plenty of useless junk, but for those that don't there's wikipedia. But seriously, this ad hasn't run it's course yet, and who knows how big it'll become once it nears the end. It may be forgotten or it may be talked about in university marketing classes for years. Right now we have the opportunity to document it fully, as it progresses, before it becomes a faded memory. -Jonamerica 04:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia no doubt already has, or soon will have, an article on Alternate Reality Games. They're an increasingly commonplace marketing tool. It'd be useful to have a couple of articles on them around as examples of the form. Sockatume 17:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do you not see the ammount of people this is bringing here? I am now currently looking through and planing to contribute to this site now that I have found it. JyThanatos
• Keep- As a centralized place for information, even if it is a marketing campaign, it is a website that people would like information about. I for one used wikipedia to glean information on the ilovebees.com campaign. This was mentioned on CNN, and NPR.
  • Above by 139.76.128.71 · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep- The Ourcolony game/event/marketing campaign is a notable subject with not only immediate relevance, but probably historical interest as well. It is unsurprising that the people contributing to the article are fans and participators. I have no doubt that the people contributing to the Harry Potter article, for example, are also fans and participators in Harry Potter activities. On top of that, the article's existence is a positive influence on the Wikipedia community -- drawing new members who would otherwise be unaware of the encyclopedia. Personally, I feel the mere fact that the article is up for VfD sends the wrong message to all these new eyeballs: It suggests that this is an insular and snobbish place, rather than the open and communal environment I believe it to be.--07:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)~ Justin Bacon

tcpvtec I already voted to Keep. So when does this end?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Addict

This page should be deleted as it is nonsense. ~K 04:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete PN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of Bridge railing styles in the United States. – ABCD 16:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

United States bridge designs

Appears to be captions for photos, minus the photos, and thus not making very much sense. Also appears to be heavily based on [3] and [4], which are included as external links. See also Bridge railing styles in the United States and its VfD page. —tregoweth 04:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless pictures are added, then merge and redirect with United States. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for same reasons I put forth when I voted onBridge railing styles in the United States may I remind that railing is a red link? --Halidecyphon 07:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copied content, not encyclopedic and not really informative at all. --Randy 21:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

California bridge designs

Appears to be captions for photos, minus the photos, and thus not making very much sense. Also appears to be heavily based on [5] and [6], which are included as external links. See also Bridge railing styles in the United States and its VfD page. —tregoweth 04:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless photos can be added to make sense of the entries. If photos are added, it should be merged and redirected to California. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unencyclopedic, etc. --Coolcaesar 19:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turnabout and Lindsay Lane

Online series, a part of the Sims universe. Not notable. RickK 05:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though with reservations. I have no idea what's going on in the Sims universe, so for all I know this might be a huge thing there. Google is unhelpful, except for establishing the fact that it can't be that notable. Rl 17:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN. One of 18,691 user-created stories on the Sims2 website [7]. Search for 'Turnabout' and you get three records. How's that for research? Non-notable. SteveW | Talk 23:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

America vs. Ancient Rome

Article is original research, and title may be inherently POV. DDerby 05:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, it's not encyclopedic. Sholtar 05:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Sigh. RickK 05:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete. POV, not enyclopedic, etc. Moncrief 05:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, must be original research. But it does raise an exciting paradox: "History has taught us that history repeats itself" (think about it...LOL). --Dmcdevit 05:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Would it be better if I changed the title, or if I just put in mu user page?

OPen to suggestions.

It's not enyclopedic. Changing the title would not solve the problem. Putting it on your user page would be the solution that would allow you to keep this somewhere on Wikipedia, if that is important to you. Moncrief 06:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Show me deleting and tranferring this article to my page.
• Userfy if author wants it, otherwise delete. Megan1967 06:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Author deleted text and moved to his userpage. I think it can be speedied now, especially as it seems the author consents. --Dmcdevit 06:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAO, if you read this page, you've put this information about Rome vs. America on your User talk page. That's the place that people will communicate with you if they have questions or comments (or praise!) about your Wikipedia edits. It's best to put the information on your User page itself: i.e., User:NAO. Moncrief 06:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Un-encyclopedic.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I must note that several people have in fact thought it worthwhile to compare the Ancient Roman Empire with the Modern American one, and draw parrallels and contrasts between the two. I believe there was in fact an article in a major magazine (Time?) about this a few years back. This article doesn't do the topic justice though. --SamuelKatinsky 08:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy, original research. However, the issue may be worthy of an article, as per SamuelKatinsky's comment. No idea what to call it though. --bainer 09:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay along with duplicate When In America, Do As The Romans. NAO needs to read the NPOV policy. Gazpacho 11:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There's an obvious answer to this one: delete. --Ben davison 17:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research Dsmdgold 02:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Wmahan. 21:59, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete Binabik80 00:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, POV
• Delete --Dr Ingel 01:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV essay. Also makes no sense: "Rome’s mistake was its inability to adapt and except new ideas, and pretend like they did. To them, there was only one way, and it was theirs. Now it is no more. Will America continue to live in it’s shadow of the Roman Empire, or will it break away, and create a new superpower of people?" -- 8^D ^gab 17:07, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and original research. --Coolcaesar 19:03, 15 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.

page deleted

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phenotypic freedom

This links to nothing. It's either something from some game or movie, or it's wishful thinking, or prediction of the future. RickK 05:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Body modification. Google is not showing up anything on this. The content of the article discusses body modification so I guess a redirect there wouldnt hurt. Megan1967 06:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — transhumanist fantasy; not particularly associated with any game or concept that I can see, and no back-links. — RJH 18:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Transhumanism -- this is what I was working from when I wrote this stub. Sorry I left it unfinished, it was somewhere between very late and very early when I quit working on this. Chrontius 18:48, April 10, 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 merge. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vorador

Vorador has the distinct honor of being the first human in Nosgoth to whom the dark gift of VFD was passed. Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:FICT. Meelar (talk) 06:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Legacy of Kain. Megan1967 06:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Tolkien has a lot to answer for. Delete this trivial blather. -- Hoary 06:48, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Legacy of Kain characters per WP:FICT. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sir Reginald Myles Ansett

I tried to redirect this to Gold Airways, since this article has nothing to do with the title (and should be at Reginald Myles Ansett anyway), but since Gold Airways already exists, and this article has nothing to do with the title, and since a redirect to Gold Airways of this title would be inappropriate, I vote to delete this article. RickK 05:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - incorrect page naming convention but should be rediredcted. Ansett is a significant figure and probably warrants an entry albeit with relevant content. Andypasto 06:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Founded a major Australian airline Ansett airlines. Also founded Pioneer bus service which merged with Greyhound's bus service. Notable figure in Australian transport. I will work on fixing article. Should be known as Reg Ansett as that was the name he was commonly known as. Capitalistroadster 11:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Have created an article under the name of Reg Ansett. I would now propose that we delete this article. On reflection, I doubt that many people would search for Ansett under this term. Capitalistroadster 12:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to either Reginald Ansett or Reg Ansett, agree with Capitalistroadster. I've never heard of him referred to by three names before. --bainer 13:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move what? the article says nothing about him and all about the airline. RickK 21:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm assuming this nomination is either a joke, or someone trying (badly) to prove a point. Reg Ansett was one of Australia's best-known business magnates. Oh and he also founded one of the largest companies in the country. Keep. --Gene_poole 04:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Think you've missed the point - the content of this article has nothing to do with Ansett. Andypasto 11:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you even read the article? There is nothing in it about Reg Ansett. RickK 00:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I always read articles nominated for deletion. Bad content is not a valid deletion criterion and never has been. --Gene_poole 02:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So you would vote keep on any nonsense article with a plausible title? RickK 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is an good article on the same topic at Reg Ansett thanks to Capitalroadster--nixie 04:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Then let's make this a redirect to that. RickK 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE for reasons stated above.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gold Airways

Not notable - company is yet to obtain an air operators certificate let alone any aircraft. Self promotion - Delete Andypasto 05:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It has 27 Google Hits of which a good third or so are are Wikipedia & mirrors. I would support keeping if it ever gets off the ground. Get it? Off the ground! Oh, I am amusing! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm still laughing at the "get off the ground". --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all pages. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Planned Towers

• Pegasus Broadcasting Tower
• CBC Real Estate Tower Auburn
• Cumulus Tower Stowell
• Beasley Tower
• SpectraSite Tower Raymond
• William M Smith Tower
• New Wavo Tower
• Pappas Telecasting Tower Superior
• Central Missouri State University Tower Syracuse
• Pappas Telecasting Tower Ravenna
• Mann Media Tower Randallmann
• KTBS Tower Shreveport
• South Texas Broadcasting Tower Bold Springs
• Young Broadcasting Tower Branch
• Richland Towers Cusseta
• Centex Television Tower Moody
• Communication Site Managment Tower Farmington
• Pappas Telecasting Tower Astico
• Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Haynesville

All of these are planned towers listed at List of masts. Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If any of these towers have been built already despite being listed here as planned, then we should keep, or maybe redirect them. Dave the Red (talk) 06:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The only information on these pages comes directly from wireless2.fcc.gov, and if we add this link to external links on List of masts, there is no need for these articles, which should not be here according to the crystal ball policy. --Halidecyphon 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant_* 10:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. I'm not even sure that they should get articles when they're built. Not too much different than articles about, say, individual telephone poles, or satellite dishes. I guess they have their hobbyists/fans (hence the articles) but this being a general-interest encyclopedia rather than a communication structure guide, an annotated list should be enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. Repeat information and not useful or encyclopedic. --Randy 21:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. Except under the most unusual circumstances, radio masts just don't need their own articles. A table or annotated list in one article should suffice—after these masts have been constructed. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete even if the things get built. Most radio towers are not notable. Could perhaps be a list in unified article. Dsmdgold 02:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There are a whole slew of stubby articles on non-notable towers at List of masts. Someone with more time than I have should merge those articles into one article. Dave the Red (talk) 03:13, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Perhaps a redirect if and when built, but not really necessary. Usually, broadcasting towers are of little interest. Sjakkalle 06:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) delete. (Heavy revision required votes not included) - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dake-bonoism

Nonsense. "fundagelical"? There are 106 Google hits, but they all seem like some sort of hoax. RickK 06:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dake-Bonoism is real. Though the articles original author included some misleading information, or at the very least incomplete information. I intend to edit the original article within the next few days. If you give me the opportunity to clarify some items I think you will reconsider your position --Bezbaq 07:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I highly doubt it. RickK 07:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Heavy revision required. Dake-Bonoism is an internet in-joke[8], made to spoof fundamentalism. This article is being used to propagate said joke/hoax. Article should be revised to indicate the "religion" as such a hoax, or alternatively, deleted if it turns out the whole thing isn't wide-spread enough to warrant wikification. --Asriel86 18:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Heavy Revision Required as I mentioned before there are some inaccuracies in the present article. The original author has left out some critical information regarding the origin and development of Dake-bonoism. There are a number of theories with regard to how the idea came about but it is not an "internet spoof religion" per-se. At least not in it's original form. It did in fact originate in the 1980's before the internet became the one ubiquitous presence it is today. I did not author the original document, though did offer some revision on the commentary page. Dake-Bonoism has developed into a "pseudo-religion" of sorts, especially as the term has spread over the internet. Nonetheless the concept of Dake-bonoism is grounded in real historic events.--Bezbaq 18:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand. I've known about this group for some years, and its existence does indeed predate the popularity of the Internet. --A.S. Damick 19:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Internet in-joke with 106 google hits? Strong delete as invalid meme. Radiant_* 07:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable based on number of google hits. Thue | talk 12:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I do not think this article is in need of the heavy revision some apparently desire. This article isn’t so much inaccurate as it is incomplete. Keep the article, but revise and expand as necessary. As I have already noted in the Dake-Bonoism discussion page, the article places an overemphasis on organized Dake-Bonoist groups (some of which are now defunct). The historic-critical approach of the current article doesn’t really do the subject justice. Taking into consideration the way Dake-Bonoism has evolved in common usage over the past few decades, I think a more phenomenological treatment would be appropriate. The current information could be included for historical reference while elaboration is provided with regard to Dake-Bonoism in contemporary usage and understanding.--Stevejohnsenson 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to the VfD page and the article's Talk page. RickK 01:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopeid and unverifiable--nixie 04:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 23:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Bias

Inherently POV, original research, self-referential. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. RickK 07:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete. Majestiq does not refrence itself. Furthermore, maybe one would want to wait to read the content because deciding to delete it. Perhaps the speed at which this article has been chosen for deletion show that indeed an Israeli bias exists and therefore this article is important.
  • Maybe one read the header and understands the purpose, which is to write a POV screed. RickK 09:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Radiant_* 10:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for self reference. Jeltz talk 12:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is no way this could ever be NPOV --Bucephalus 17:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherrently POV, self-referential. Dave the Red (talk) 17:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever you were going to write, put it into an essay and post it at a blog. Better yet, make comments on the articles you feel have a bias and see if others agree. --Asriel86 18:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV, belongs on a blog GabrielF 23:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Firebug 09:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an original research project. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 01:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. To get up on my soapbox for a moment, I am saddend that instead of using Wikipedia as a forum for healing and understanding BOTH sides in the Israeli-Palestinian (or Palestinian-Israeli if you prefer) conflict continually use this resource to propagate the intolerance, misunderstanding, and even outright hate that continues to fuel the violence in Israel/Palestine/insert own name for region here. Indrian 06:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, original research, self-referential. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While the phenomenon described certainly exists, making an article on it clearly constitutes original research. - Mustafaa 07:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect I'm not sure where to though. There should be a page of the Bias' of Media towards the middle East. The US media is generally percieved as being Biased towards Israel, whereas the UK and most EU nations (And, according to Jayjg myself as well) are seen to have an Anti-Israeli bias. There should be an article detailing the varying percieved bias' and this should re-direct to it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pov biascruft. ComCat 06:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discussing article bias is what article talk pages are for. Your failure to get consensus from other editors does not grant you this kind of remedy. Postdlf 00:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ridgewood Maroons

Not a high school article, but an article about the athletic teams at a high school we don't have an article on. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. RickK 07:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, team vanity. Megan1967 07:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unlikely to be known outside of their own village. Oliver Keenan 10:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sports teams at the high school (and below) level should warrant a brief mention in the school article at best, and NEVER their own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article --Bucephalus 17:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until team becomes subject of a based-on-a-true-story movie about a heroic handicapped student who dared to dream the dream of Basketball. --Asriel86 18:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I won't go as far as Starblind (it's barely conceivable that a particular HS sports team might someday be notable), but 'delete this. Meelar (talk) 18:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I could possibly see an article on the De La Salle High School football teams, but not on this team. RickK 21:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not independently notable. -- 8^D ^gab 17:22, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Star Trek. —Xezbeth 19:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Enterprise Crew

• Delete. Notability not established, and the author has a pretty bad track record for creating articles like this. -- Egil 07:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with redirect to Star Trek. Radiant_* 14:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This has nothing to do with Star Trek, really, so a redirect there would be misleading. -- Egil 15:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but people who type this in will probably be looking for Star Trek. Meelar (talk) 16:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to establish notability and makes no sense, to boot. No redirect needed - it's unlikely anyone will type in "Enterprise crew". They'll either type in Star Trek or a crewmember's name. 23skidoo 16:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Star Trek. Dave the Red (talk) 17:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: article was contributed by Gaupepasser who feels compelled to flood the wikipedia with obscure Norway-related articles. Delete this, and perhaps give Gaupepasser a talking to. --Asriel86 18:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the article concludes with "Their influence on Norwegian demoscene subculture was small at best" - that's pretty much an admission of non-notability right there. I think a Redirect to Star Trek might not be a bad idea - if someone is typing in The Enterprise Crew into the search box, that's probably what they're looking for, not some obscure coding group. Firebug 18:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Star Trek. Megan1967 06:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. If someone is typing in The Enterprise Crew into the search box, they're at the wrong website (Wikipedia is not a Star Trek directory even if some people think so)), or they think the Norwegian coders were more significant than we do. Barno 19:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep or redirect to demoscene. —RaD Man (talk) 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Star Trek. --Spinboy 19:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Laiv

• Transwiki. I wasn't aware of the existence of wiktionary. Sounds sound to transfer it there. Gaupepasser 19:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A term nobody has heard of, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway. The author of the article has had a pretty bad track record in creating unnotable articles. -- Egil 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You shouldn't be too arrogant concerning words and phenomena that you aren't aware of. Granted, I haven't been exactly substantial in everything I've written, but that doesn't give you the privilege of scoffing at facts that are outside your horizon of knowledge. Gaupepasser 19:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. I wouldn't say that nobody has heard of it, but it isn't a word used in English. This word is used in both Danish and Norwegian and is quite commonly used on the internet. Google search indictaes that "laiv" might also be used in German in the same way but I'm not sure. This is alreayd in the Norwegian (Bokmål) wikipedia: no:laiv. Jeltz talk 12:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a real term, and a similar term lajv is also used in Swedish. — JIP | Talk 12:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's already in the Norwegian wikitionary we don't need it leaking over here. --Asriel86 17:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary/Norwegian Wiktionary - which doesn't have it. Established term. Tobyox 13:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sigurd ohrem

• Delete. I agree. May I point out that I am NOT Øystein Runde, I am only one (of many) fans of his comics and believe him to be a notable Norwegian person. But Sigurd Ohrem IS a former teacher of mine, and I apologize for putting in this entry. I will delete it myself in the next few days, unless you feel it is against wikipedia policy. -- Gaupepasser 19:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Øystein Runde's teacher, presumably. Notability not established. (And he probably uses a capital O in his surname.) -- Egil 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As this is the english Wikipedia, I grow tired of all this Norway trivia. Delete the whole country. --Asriel86 17:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article on a non-notable person, but keep Norway. The country is notable, and there are 4.6 million people there, myself included, who don't want it deleted. Sjakkalle 06:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that Asriel86 was suggesting that we delete Norway, just the increasing number of articles relating to non-notable Norwegian people and events that no-one in Norway seems to have heard of either. This is one of them - Delete. SteveW | Talk 10:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rundetid

• Comment. People have different tastes, and this minimalistic strip has a lot of fans (of which I am one) in Norway. My point being, Egil, one shouldn't be too judgmental in areas outside one's own field of interest. This being an encyclopedia for all sorts of human knowledge and information. That granted, I see know that I was a bit too keen on creating smaller articles instead of expanding the one I started with. Suggesting that this article merge with Øystein Runde and that the strip be deleted. I will do this myself in the next few days if noone feels it is against wikipedia policy. Gaupepasser 19:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Comic strip created by Øystein Runde that nobody has heard of. (Based on the artistic merit of the example he uploaded, it would seem that nobody probably ever will). -- Egil 06:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Norwegian-cruft and beastiality-comics. --Asriel86 17:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Lars Øyno. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grusomhetens Teater

• Comment I have had no intention of creating silly articles, though I admit that a few were off the mark and a result of myself getting a bit carried away on my first day at Wikipedia. I agree to the merge. User:Gaupepasser 19:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notability not established, and the author has a pretty bad track record for creating articles like this. -- Egil 07:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Postscript: There were lots of silly articles created, so in investigating more, it would seem there is some notability to this one. But content really overlaps as Lars Øyno, so perhaps merge instead. --

Egil 07:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Lars Øyno and add redirect. Megan1967 06:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Margarine CDC (talk) 05:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Margarin

• Delete. Notability not established, and the author has a pretty bad track record for creating articles like this. -- Egil 07:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hard to search on google, with a name like Margarin. Found some hits that are about the comic, but I doubt enough to keep. --Satanicbowlerhat 15:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and redirect to Margarine. "Margarin" is a viable alterna-spelling of the alterna-butter, according to the dictionary. This article basically admits its own lack of notability. --Asriel86 17:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Margarine. Megan1967 06:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Margarine. Even if it isn't a viable alternative spelling, it's probably a common enough misspelling to warrant a redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to margarine. Grue 19:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hausmania

• Delete. Notability not established, and the author has a pretty bad track record for creating articles like this. Possibly a merge, but I really doubt it. -- Egil 07:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Norwegian-cruft! --Asriel86 17:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rather well-known in Oslo (lots of articles and discussions in Aftenposten). Tobyox 16:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was going to vote for deletion, but Tobyox looks like a credible enough source to establish notability. The article does need some expansion, though, and maybe a picture that transports the idea of a cultural collective better than some guy on a toy horse. Rl 18:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sh. Nadzir As Saghir and Sh.Nadzir As Saghir

Added Sh.Nadzir As Saghir which is more of the same. Rl 16:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "Sh." means, but there are no Google hits for "Nadzir As Saghir". The article itself also needs a complete rewrite if it's kept. RickK 07:21, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to a better spelling if we find out what that means, otherwise deleteDDerby 07:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Segmented English indicates authorship by a person of a foreign language, doesn't use Spanish, German, or Dutch idiom structure, so I'd guess it was written by someone of mid-east origin; perhaps Nadzir himself. Delete as non-verifiable and non-understandable, probable vanity. --Asriel86 17:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Sh. = Sheikh ? —Seselwa 02:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment I flagged this as a stub initially... Sh. almost certainly means Sheik... the creator also made a lot of valid edits to Malaysia-related pages, so I'm guessing the sheik is known in Malaysia. Feco 18:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Barry

Delete unless some evidence of notability (notable-ness?) is presented. (We're getting flooded with sub-stubs of artists; it's almost impossible to figure out which is notable. VFDing seems a good way to force the originator to include some evidence rather than leaving it to everybody else) - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This was never listed on VfD. No vote, though an article that is two words long should be speediable. Xezbeth 07:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I have speedied it. Entire content was: "conceptual art{{artist-stub}}". jni 13:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Max Debbas

Zero google hits. Unverifiable. Xezbeth 08:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN unless P.A.N.D.A.S. can be verified. --Fuzzball! (talk) 08:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The illness is certainly verifiable, I was referring to Max Debbas. Anyway, after reading the last sentence the article is clearly nonsense. Xezbeth 10:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google-hit-free. Alai 05:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 19:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Salvation in Catholicism

Proselytizing. RickK 08:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Rather than proselytizing, I would view it as a description of Catholic views. Of course, some of the language needs to be changed to be more NPOV, but that is more a matter of choosing different wording. (e.g. changing language such as "we must reject" to "Catholics reject", "heretical" to "declared to be heretical by the Catholic Church"). --SamuelKatinsky 08:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But "here can be no doubt as to the supereminence of Christ's teaching; even as man, He is an eyewitness to all He reveals; His truthfulness is God's own veracity; His authority is Divine; His words are the utterance of a Divine person; He can internally illumine and move the minds of His hearers; He is the eternal and infinite wisdom of God Incarnate Who cannot deceive and cannot be deceived." is okay? The entire article is like that! RickK 09:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but needs updating.Andycjp 10th April 2005

• Keep, but needs attention. The article salvation is the broader cross-religion discussion, this is the main article for salvation within Catholocism and deserves its place as part of a series. However, as it stands, this is a little heavy: it sounds more like a sermon than an encyclopaedic article, and could do with some toning down. --bainer 08:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up, expand. Has potential to be an interesting article. Oliver Keenan 10:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting in the extreme for those who enjoy comparative religion. Needs some cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename Roman Catholic views of salvation, clean up, and NPOV-ify. --Angr/_comhrá 16:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, Keep but rename as per above and enforce neutrality. We can't delete religions just because we don't like them. --Asriel86 17:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that really what you think I was doing? Nice that you can read minds. I object to this and would appreciate your rewording this. RickK 20:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I didn't mean it as an attack on you; I just disagree with listing the views of a belief as proselytizing. The POV is a touch propagandous, which is why I suggested neutrality be enforced. As this is a religious subject, any discussion regarding it is bound to be offensive to some, so future voters should try to keep this in mind. --Asriel86 21:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your apology. I have no problem with discussing any religious concepts in neutral terms, but there was absolutely nothing neutral in the language of this article. RickK 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a sermon, not an encyclopedia article. If someone wants to start a new stub at Roman Catholic views of salvation, that is a great idea, but there's not much in this that can be salvaged, as I see it. Jonathunder 04:15, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep. --Mateusc 18:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand and rename, as suggested by Angr above, but also incorporate some comparison/contrast. A reader of this article might come away thinking that only Catholics have these views, which are in fact shared by many Christian denominations. What I want to know after reading an article on Catholic views of something is 'how do they differ from everyone else's views'? -- 8^D ^gab 17:18, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Keep but edit. KHM03 18:47, 19 Apr 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 a deletion review). 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alan Campbell (pastor)

Article does not establish notability. RickK 09:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Article does not establish notability but a Google search does. He seems to be prominent in the British Israelism movement. Paradiso 00:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable religious kook. Klonimus 02:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. That last paragraph looks suspiciously like nonsense. Megan1967 06:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, article doesn't establish notability. Radiant_* 07:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep he sounds reasonably notable. I'm a Christian, and I guess I should be saddened at the bad name this guy gives the church, but getting the events of Revelation from the French Revolution is just funny. DDerby 02:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup He seems notable. A recent edit added the reference to not having a beard and the pork stuff. I think they should be removed and the article retained. --Randolph 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrei Irimia

Nominated for deletion, as this is not a notable scientist. The Google shows around 100 hits, most of which are from messages board, usenet article or mailman mailing list "from" fields, along with a personal website. On this basis, it has the potential to be a vanity webpage. If it was from a logged in user I would suggest to userfy, but as the users was anonymous, I suggest a delete. Oliver Keenan 10:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sholtar 10:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, his bibliography shows some articles, but I'm in no position to assess their importance. Abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 14:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• He has 9 peer-review publications since 2001, is only a research fellow at Vanderbilt University, delete --nixie 15:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless he does something really cool before Thursday. --Asriel86 17:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• He's listed as a notable biophysicist on the Biophysics page. Should that be believed? — RJH 18:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He is a biophysicist, he just hasn't done anything notable yet--nixie 21:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He just wrote his master's thesis in 2004; maybe his supervisor is a notable biophysicist. He might be worth another look when he's a tenured professor somewhere, or has a paper or two in Nature, or makes the cover of Time. For now, delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 02:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Who added his name to the biophysics page? Maybe it's an attempt to make him seem notable. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Same anon [user:68.53.173.232] that made the page subject to this vote--nixie 08:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like nn. Grue 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iriaz

Star wars trivia, too fine-grained for wikipedia IMO. If anybody care they can transwiki it to the star wars wikicity. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 15:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The iriaz are ungulates with many parts of their one horn --> Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Martg76 12:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure they can do a better job at the star wars wiki. This is bordering nonsense. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 14:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I really can't understand the whole "nonsense" allegation. A quick Google search would reveal 75 results, the first 2 relating to Star Wars. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place for nonsentient, non-notable Star Wars species. Delete, and re-create on SW-wikicities.-LtNOWIS 21:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johns, bobby

If he was truly "one of the 20th century's foremost members of the American Communist Party", you'd think there'd be at least one hit on Google. --Lee Hunter 13:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. --nixie 13:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this is a vanity or other prank (bogus) entry. --

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Secondary science 11-18 years

Not encyclopedic/NPOV, rather random title. ShardPhoenix 13:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into a UK section of Science education, then delete link on that page. — RJH 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Science education. Megan1967 06:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to pay homage to our heritage. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imagination-Island

A small forum of only 100 people as the author describes. Lotsofissues 14:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, forum vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rubbish. Robinoke 16:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just advertising for another forum. Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taco HTML Edit

This piece of software does not appear to be unique or encyclopedic , I would say merge to a list of Taco Software products, but the developer doesn't appear to be notable either (Taco Software , alexa 866 843).--nixie 15:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Like if I found this software on my computer, Delete. --Asriel86 17:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable software or developer. --Randy 21:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable stub about a non-notable thing. José San Martin 00:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 19:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Toney K. Lakufash

NN, vanity. 0 (in words: zero) Google hits for the family name of this legend. Rl 15:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this is a little sticky because many hits would likely be in Greek or Hebrew. But a family that owns lots of "properties in Europe and the Middle East" would almost certainly come up in English now and then. I also don't see a anything in ten years of financial news articles on LexisNexis for "lakufash" or "la kufash". CDC (talk) 16:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lewis Shepherd

Nominated for deletion as this is an article dedicated to an obscure pornstar. In my own humble opinion I don't believe this deserves an article in an encyclopedia. (Not Notable). Oliver Keenan 16:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, non-notable. His website according to the article, handcuff.com, has an Alexa rank of 313,561 which is not high at all especially by sex-site standards. Even if some might consider the site borderline-notable, that wouldn't necessarily make its founder notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RabbitGod

This appears to be a prank; 44 google hits for "rabbitism", none on the first page were relevant. Suspect this only exists in the imagination of the author. Meelar (talk) 17:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd have put a {{nonsense}} tag on it myself. Xezbeth 17:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like somebody read too much Watership Down and based a religion on bunnies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but regrettably. Well-written article, but seemingly fictional and in the wrong place. Possibly Userfy. - Sango123 20:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (may consider putting in a redirect to Frith, the main deity from Watership Down). Radiant_* 21:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Frith. Not a bad suggestion Radiant. Megan1967 06:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note that the article has been moved to Rabbitism. sjorford →•← 08:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this mess to clear it from the history and redirect to Frith. Outstanding suggestion! - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen "Chick" Daly

Personal attack, delete. Probably could be speedy, I'm still unsure about the line between regular vfd and speedy. Rx StrangeLove 17:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definitely an attack page, which nobody would miss if it were speedied. I've never understood why people write these things... do they really think their victim is going to coincidentally look themselves up on wikipedia for the few minutes/hours that the attack page stays up? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 18:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as attack page. Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Free iPods

delete. Advert by someone trying to get other people to support his/her own attempts to get free stuff. Nice try. FreplySpang (talk) 18:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. Wikipedia is not a place to promote scams/linkspam. — Asbestos | Talk 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy should count as linkspam. --InShaneee 19:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. I have now seen this linkspam on every single site I frequent. Xezbeth 19:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I would love to see it speedied with extreme prejudice but I don't see how it meets WP:CSD. FreplySpang (talk) 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pure vandalism for spam, perhaps? --InShaneee 19:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes clearly spam and counts as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Kappa 20:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creedmoor chassidism

• Strong delete. It's not a hoax, or vanvalism. It's a longstanding joke on the usenet group soc.culture.jewish and subsequently soc.culture.jewish.moderated. It's fiction, sophomoric humor IMHO. The scjm are taking this as "proof" of the unreliability of Wikipedia as a resource. -- micha 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Hoax created by notorious vandal. Google comes up empty, needless to say. Rl 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Not only Google comes up empty, I've verified otherwise. We should speedy this vandal's contributions. Solver 19:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creedmoorer Chassidism is a very important development in recent Jewish history and we should be honoured to have it summarised here!
  • First two contributions ever by GreatArcticBear (talk · contribs) are this vote here and a vote at the Creedmore chassidism Vfd. -- Curps 11:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Dome of the Schlock (Wal-Mart)" kind of gives it away. -- Curps 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Xezbeth 19:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Abusive vandalism Alai 23:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author of this article write obscure Jewish humor on a Jewish Usenet newsgroup. This article is literally a joke, and as such must be deleted. RK 23:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is very funny and should certainly be retained. Ariadne

Last message by 81.174.211.38 (talk · contribs)

Um, funny is not a criteria for keeping or deleting an article. RK

• This is a hoax, a very funny one, by one of the regular contributors to a newsgroup on which I participate. If satirical articles aren't permitted, then this be deleted posthaste. Garry

• Delete --Eliezer 00:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax DDerby 04:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 06:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. This article and the others are the kind of silly stuff people often write for Purim. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kay Cee

It seems like this should be a speedy to me, but User:Moonman deleted my tag and it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for this. Even so, should be a clear delete. I don't know what the plan he has for this page is, but its nowhere near an encyclopedia article. Mike C 19:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a message board. --Asriel86 20:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto. eehh, delete. Feydey 20:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as an attempt to make contact. RickK 21:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Crazy Taxi. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi series

For no reason given the information at Crazy Taxi (the table) was removed from the page and added to this page, which is an orphan. Either delete or redirect. The information has since been added back because Crazy Taxi is already page on the series. K1Bond007 19:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Crazy Taxi as all games in the series are listed there, as is a synopsis of the series concept. --Asriel86 20:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Asriel186 --nixie 07:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above (and check to see if text is still merged). Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Perfectly relevant information, just duplicated onto a new page for no reason.-LtNOWIS 15:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists

Atheist student group at the University of Minnesota. A VfD tag was added but then improperly removed the next day by another editor because a vote page wasn't created. I abstain from voting because I personally know one of the former group presidents listed in the article. Postdlf 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The U of M has about a billion student groups. This is one of them. Nothing in the article explains why it's important to the University community or to atheism/humanism at large – it's just a big puffed-up history piece with far too many redlinks. android↔talk 20:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 02:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain because I have been involved with the group, but to respond to android: the U of M has many student groups (over a thousand are listed but almost all of those are defunct, so a reliable estimate is difficult), but this is one of the oldest and best established, as well as one of the most vocal in local media. It is also one of the very few (~20) that receive direct annual funding from the University. Also, nationwide, it is one of the largest and most notable student freethought groups - in fact, it could even be counted among the most notable American local freethought groups altogether. CASH deserves an article not by a raw calculus of its size, but by a more nuanced examination of it relative position within its unique and certainly articleworthy movement (perhaps the solution to "too many redlinks" would be to create new articles, not delete them). Your suggestions for improvement belong on the article's Talk page, not a VfD. --Epistaxis 06:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN student group. Radiant_* 07:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, student group whose notability hasn't reached WP standards in my view after reading Epistaxis' reasoning. I'd have to see several citations in nationwide publications before I'd change my vote. Every campus has a number of groups whose members think they're changing the world but actually don't displace a butterfly at the edge of the quad. This vote isn't from a religious person, by the way. Barno 19:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no claim that the article subject thinks it causes world change, just the hope of some level of change. The lack of world change the article subject affects is not a valid judgement on the notability of the article. Tell me about the world change attributed to Ekans. Mikepjones
• Delete, student organisations are not inherently notable, this one soes not apper to be either.--nixie 04:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I am the creator of the article, clearly I think it belongs here. The voters for deletion cite NN as their rationale. Wikipedia:Importance lists 7 categories that include NN topics:

1. It is patent nonsense The article is sensible.
2. It is original research There are no theories involved.
3. It is unverifiable All facts listed are, in fact, on record at the University of Minnesota.
4. It is uninformative The article is full of information.
5. It is unexpandable The article is well beyond a stub and still has much potential for expansion.
6. The subject is of potential interest to only a small numebr of people (e.g. 100 people) There are 850 people on our mailing list. We are contacted by the largest student-run and written college newspaper, the Minnesota Daily, several times throughout the year. As far as can be determined, we are the oldest college freethought organization in existence. Members of our organization are leaders and even founders of national freethought organizations.
7. It does not otherwise belong in Wikipedia This is another list of reasons, none of which, I feel, apply to the article.

I challenge the voters for deletion to come up with more than suggestions for improvement (read: not reasons for deletion), and the unfounded "NN" (see above) or "student group" (not a reason for deletion). Otherwise, it seems you are guilty of mere ideological deletion fanaticism. In other words, many of these arguments for deletion are "Not Notable". Shall we delete them? Mikepjones 21:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Note: user has 25 units, by far the most of which to this article or VfD.
    • Don't bite the newbies. Also, this has changed somewhat, as I'm finding more topics of which I am knowledgable. Mikepjones 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the 850 people on your mailing list aren't necessarily all interested. I'm on a lot of mailing lists for groups I couldn't care less about, let alone want to read about in Wikipedia. —Wahoofive | Talk 00:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean, really, the 100-person standard means 100 people might want to read about the topic in an encyclopedia. Using the mailing-list level of interest, every organization, and indeed, pretty much every human being on earth meets the 100-person standard. —Wahoofive | Talk 00:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Importance is not official policy, as the bright yellow box at the top readly says. --cesarb 17:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I am simply citing precendent. If it is not useful or applicable to the conversation, as you imply, then all non-notable charges are as useless. Mikepjones 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Random student group. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a topic that is potentially of interest to ~40,000 students at this institution. Deletion would serve no useful purpose.
  • Unsigned comment by User:65.25.219.227; IP's second edit. Postdlf 23:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - notable only to people at Univ. of Minnesota, who already have websites and guides to their student groups. FreplySpang (talk) 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Organization represents grassroots group dedicated to topic of national interest. 69.170.17.193 7:48 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armion

NN, vanity, neologism, hoax. It's all there. Rl 20:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Crap. Dsmdgold 02:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Henry Navarro de Silva

it was spedied deleted but it has reappeared!
no google hits on him or his parents and the article says he is born in 1986
i think the article looks supicious --Melaen 20:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find confirmation of a previous speedy deletion. — Timwi 20:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• looks like it reappeared. The article doesn't appear as vanity at first glance, but the guy was born in 1986. It mainly talks about his family lineage. Delete. FYI- same IP addy has also posted a few copyvio articles. Feco 20:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

note that the creator appears to have erased the VfD notice. I re-posted, but I suspect it will disappear again. Feco 01:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (IP votes are not counted) - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional hangouts in television series

• Huh? This material seems to be best suited for the respective TV series' articles. — Timwi 20:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with that. Dissect then delete. Radiant_* 21:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and interesting. Kappa 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has a potential to be expanded - 69.216.232.13 22:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user's 10th edit, and author of the article.
• Delete noninformative, nonencyclopedic list. --Angr/_comhrá 04:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Rooftop"? "Restaurant"? Talk about trivial and useless. Can't imagine how this could become encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uninformative in this form. CDC (talk) 16:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 68.23.108.171 04:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user's only edit.
• Keep - 68.72.135.184 23:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user's first edit, and after wards he posted the following to Jimbo's talk page... "Hello, Jimbo. I'm going to interview you. I only have one question. - Are you a quitter?"
• Delete. Useless fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with CDC and Wile E. Heresiarch. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 69.216.232.184 00:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmanageable, unusable if populated as intended. FreplySpang (talk) 16:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 68.72.118.244 21:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as totally unmanageable, totally unencyclopedic and totally backed by support hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 05:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Info best suited to the individual shows. -- Lochaber 10:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Reardon

Someone help me use a search engine!? The article looks real and not like a hoax at all, and yet I can't find anything on this guy. Nor the soap. Nor the girlfriend. Don't they have Intarweb down under? Rl 20:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN and Vanity. --Randy 21:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find anything on the internet for a soap opera in Australia called "As The Wheel Turns". Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable/possibly not real Dsmdgold 02:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Can't find anything about either the person or the soap. Maybe it's too new to be on the net yet? Delete as unverifiable unless evidence surfaces. Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Holocaust

Issues with this page:

1. Highly POV term used as a synonym for Evacuation of East Prussia in a manner that does not allow WP users to understand the context of the puroported synonymy;
2. Very little used term, which I believe is used principally by German right-extremists as an analog of the somewhat more common German term to suggest a moral equivalence between the deaths in this ethnic cleansing and Jewish deaths in the Shoah;

I propose that this page be deleted, and it and its correctly capitalised version be blocked. Furthermore, the highly POV summary of Prussian holocaust at Holocaust (disambiguation) will need to be rewritten to accomodate its removal.

Point of order: this page was originally a redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia, which I edited to make clear was POV. Possibly this page should have been submitted to the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion page with its slightly lengthier process, however I think that the issues raised are more appropriate to a VfD process, and the page used to be an article with an active talk page.

I would like to acknowledge User:Jesusfreund for bringing my attention to this redirect. --- Charles Stewart 20:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added the formal message at the RfD page, a suggestion to discuss the issue here. Mikkalai 23:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I saw you changed back the syntax of the body of the page to redirect syntax, which, in the unlikely case the page survives this VfD, is what will happen. If it were to be a redirect, I'd prefer it to be to a page along the lines of List of political epithets. --- Charles Stewart 09:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to delete this redirect.  :) — Helpful Dave 10:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You've no issue with being a useful idiot of neo-nazis, I take it? --- Charles Stewart 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Charles Stewart said. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV forkish non encyclopedic topic. Possibly RD to Evacuation of East Prussia. Klonimus 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Holocaust as: • noun - destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. Is anyone arguing that what occured in Prussia was not destruction or slaughter on a mass scale? The Holocaust is defined as: the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II. If it was "The Holocaust" I would vote delete. But it isn't. People who are interested in this topic will likely refer to it as Prussian Holocaust. No vote as yet.--Chammy Koala 23:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you google for the exact term "P.H.", you will find that Wikipedia is on several of the first ten results; we already influence the rankings with the term.

First result offers a page where Users like Schlesier might get some of their informations from: [9] It does not appear to be a Nazi site, but an obscure royal-christian-backward-nationalist- antisemitic mixture I cannot identify easily. The writer offers literature (scroll down page 7) which should be investigated for its origins and backgrounds some time.

The "Young Prussian Landsmannschaft" (which I believe is one of Schlesiers favorites) was organizing the last big gathering of right extremists from all over Germany on February 13, 2005 in Dresden, marching and shouting with their parole "bombing Holocaust". Intention of use of "Prussian Holocaust" is the same, I think. (Greetings for Charles!) Jesusfreund 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you google the same term in German ("Preußischer Holocaust"), you find NO result at all for the exact combination. So much for the encyclopedic relevance. Jesusfreund 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my arguing, but I suggest you look at the links of "Evacuation of East Prussia": one of them is "A Terrible Revenge" which I suggested for VfD also. The author of that book is known as Revisionist in Germany. Listing his book as a main scientific source for the article is highly POV I think.

Then, if you look at the Link Nemmersdorf on "A terrible revenge", you find an external weblink Nemmersdorf: New aspects of a crime One of the dark chapters by Thorsten Hinz (in German) leads you directly to the "Junge Freiheit", which is known as right extremist German publication, being watched by state officials. Don´t rely on such POV-sources, I suggest!! I don´t know your discussions and don´t want to interfere, but giving hints is not forbidden, is it? Jesusfreund 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jesusfreund: Not only are your hints helpful, but you are a bona-fide editor of en.wikipedia.org, with a past record of providing very useful information that other editors incorporated into Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Your opinion has weight here. --- Charles Stewart 18:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete! It is more then just POV, it is terminus of (German) revisionists and Right-wing extremists to relate the Shoa by saying that Germans are victims to. See (and delete!) also Holocaust_(disambiguation): The term Prussian Holocaust refers to the killing of 2 million German civilians near the end of World War II, by invading Soviet armies and air raids, and from the cold and starvation involved in fleeing such abuses. Many refugees were killed by Soviet bombers. Nemmersdorf is particularly associated with these war crimes. and compare it with Mayakovskoye, Kaliningrad! Krtek76 10:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dont know, if I have enough edits to vote, I´m often to lazy to log myself in, but maybe counts ;-)) ]
• Delete, and move discussion of the term "prussian holocaust," and how to include it in Evacuation of East Prussia, to the talk page of that article. +sj + 07:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some alternatives

It looks like this VfD is more controversial than I anticipated. I'd like to suggest what I view to be credible alternatives:

1. What I initially proposed in this VfD;
2. A redirect to some page such as Politically tendentious terms for historical events, rather as Islamofascism is (currently) a redirect to List of political epithets;
3. An article discussing the current political controversy around this name. I doubt there is enough non-WP material at present to support a genuinely encyclopediac article along these lines, but in future there might be.

What I regard as unacceptable are either:

1. The situation before I filed this VfD, namely a redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia; or
2. The current situation, namely a link to that page with a little bit of boilerplate indicating the controversy;

Opinions welcome. Please don't vote keep until you have thought about these alternatives. A point of order: it is ambiguous which of the two unacceptable alternatives I summarised a keep vote actually prefers: if you do vote keep, please indicate which is preferable. --- Charles Stewart 18:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably keep as redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia (unacceptable choice #1), and add more information on naming controversy to the article. While the Prussian Holocaust name is infrequently used, it is used, and by acknowledging this Wikipedia does not endorse the idea that it's a good name.

If, however, there is a lot of information available about the naming controversy, then keep as article discussing controversy (option #3).

Nickptar 00:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Charles that the last two scenarios are unacceptable. +sj + 07:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the term is sometimes used is not an endorsement to an encyclopedia entry. nearly any two words may be put together side by side to mean something. Recently we deleted a very nice non-loaded "Second Family" term: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Family. No big deal. Mikkalai 03:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Charles; an inherently POV term that isn't much used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - These two words put together could mean nothing else. if you find the term itself objectionable, that is your own POV. I had a similar disagreement with Jayjg over My objections with "Cedar Revolution". This is only a re-direct, and as such, it should stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedias task is definitely not to promote POV-terms which nobody uses except Neonazis. No encyclopedic relevance whatsoever, no need to make such a big deal out of it either. Jesusfreund 07:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it keeps popping up, redirect to some page such as Politically tendentious terms for historical events. --Pjacobi 07:54, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete. What Jayjg said --Mrfixter 10:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Irishpunktom said. The following is a list of some of the "holocaust" redirects on Wikipedia. Hindu Holocaust, Black Holocaust, Aboriginal Holocaust, Native American Holocaust, Kirisutan Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, Hellenic Holocaust, Ukrainian Holocaust, Gay Holocaust, Jewish Holocaust, Chinese Holocaust and Asian Holocaust --Chammy Koala 18:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the redirect is misleading because the evacuation of prussia was no and is not called a holocaust except by Neonazis. Got it? Jesusfreund 22:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's not just called Prussian Holocaust by neonazis and you have no proof of such. It is just your POV that it is. Got it? Probably not. --Chammy Koala 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) [10]

I refer to the google links I find. There are only two (!) besides Wikipedia or Wikipedia copies itself who use the term --> encyclopedic irrelevance. One an them is a right extremist page (see above), the other one a Forum with some obvious right wing participants.--> probable propaganda term. - Both sources do not refer to the evacuation but to the expellation (which they do not differ on purpose) --> misleading. That´s not a proof, but a good hint, isn´t it? Where´s your argument? Jesusfreund 01:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • You didn't look very hard. Here are just a few I found, I could find more. I don't think anyone would argue that any of these sites are Nazi POV.
• ipedia.com: Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia, raping and killing women and killing all men. Survivors trudged in great columns through the snow at -25°C, fleeing through the blizzards and shell fire. The German population of East Prussia was systematically eliminated.
• Serebella.com: The Prussian Holocaust: None of these (from list) resulted in war crimes prosecutions.
• llpoh.org/Reviewing_the_20th_century: Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia, raping and killing women and killing all men.
• encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com: "Some have claimed that it was a case of ethnic clensing, or even genocide, and they use the term "Prussian Holocaust" to describe these events."
• informationblast.com: "Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia."

--Chammy Koala 09:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These all appear to be syndicates of Wikipedia. You're rather making the case for the delete vote. --- Charles Stewart 10:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't show that they are syndicates, particularly since the article in WP is called Evacuation of East Prussia, and the wording used in the article is not the same as the wording used in the sites I found by googling. The point is, that people do use the term, you have no real evidence to suggest the term isn't suitable, other than the fact that you feel it's a nazi term and you hate nazis. I'm Australian and I've never heard the term Aboriginal Holocaust (and we all study the history in school), but I wouldn't vote to delete that redirect which is used on WP. Book on Prussia --Chammy Koala 11:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as legitimate term and redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia. Does being a neonazi term somehow invalidate it from encyclopedic purview? Denni☯ 22:58, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Yes? Or to be handled in NPOV way like Zionist Occupied Government. --Pjacobi 23:34, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

• Zionist Occupied Government is it's own article, no-one wants this to be it's own article. Prussian Holocaust should be a redirect, as it is. --195.7.55.146 13:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Denni: If it is a propaganda term and uncommon and plain wrong in it´s worded meaning of course it´s not valid for an encyclopedia. What do you think the NPOV is meant for if not for such cases? Jesusfreund 01:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Propaganda" and "wrong" are POV reasons to delete - NPOV means Wikipedia should document all encyclopedically notable terms and views, regardless of their validity or those who use them. However, I now doubt the encyclopedic notability of this term. Changing from keep to no vote. Nickptar 14:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - political views shouldnt influence VFD decitions. If we would delete this, we would have to delete e.g. mentionings of WW2 as Great Patriotic War as it was known in Russia as it is a communist propaganda etc. This is a term used to describe thing mentioned and therefore should stay.DeirYassin 13:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Point of Order". The Great Patriotic War shows the weakness of the communists in Russia. Like the re-opening of the Orthodox Churches during WWII when the chips were down the communists appealed to Rodina not Lenin. The Great Patriotic War was named after the Patriotic War of 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the German expression for "Prussian Holocaust"? As fas as I see, the English expression is of hardly notable usage. Most google links seem from wikipedia&mirrors amd a couple of hate speeches. "Preussisch Holokaust" and "Preussisch Verhichtung" (or with "Preußisch") give zero hits. Mikkalai 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The exact term in German would be "Preußischer Holocaust"; as I pointed out earlier, there you find literally NO links at all. No serious historian uses that term, no published books either, only some right extremists. The links you find in English are indeed only Wikipedia copies, all of them: scroll down any of the sites Chammy provided and you find Wikipedia as the source; doesn´t matter if they have earlier versions, they remain to be copies. So there are no substantial reasons to keep it. Wrong comparisons don´t change that, because other terms are in use somewhere: This one isn´t. Political views shouldn´t influence VFD decisions: exactly! The term is only a redirect here because the editor had a political view on it. So vote for Keep is no political view? This is definitely against Wikipedia rules not to build up new theories. Jesusfreund 21:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or turn into a stub explaining that it's neo-Nazi nonsense. Noel (talk) 01:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The terms looks invented here for its emotional load. (Taking look on Evacuation of East Prussia - one may like to see more facts than what whose propaganda said.) Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete whenever the link is used in other Wikipedia articles it is used for neo-Nazi purposes. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tim Cartee

Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN & Vanity. --Randy 21:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Park Life

With a name like that, you'd think it to be an article about trees and birds or something. It's really a 1-sentence stub about a "Christian mission" in Stockton-on-Tees. One of millions worldwide, and only 47 hits for "Parklife Stockton-on-Tees" on Google. If kept, needs to be moved to ParklifeParklife (Stockton-on-Tees). humblefool® 21:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. --Randy 21:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parklife, the Blur album. Megan1967 07:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blur song or something. Grue 19:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Panocasual

Advert for a website with a gallery of panoramic photos. 73 hits on Google, mostly for pages with a link to a copy of this article at thefreedictionary.com [11]. SteveW | Talk 21:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adverts. Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Coolcaesar 19:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"silver berry"

Delete. Googling 'silver berry' + flower returns a Deciduous Shrub [12], not a flower. Inaccurate info, possibly vandal/vanity.Feco

• Delete no content. Maybe even speedy delete.Howabout1 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to speedy delete it. It's pure nonsense—a microscopic flower that "lives in the camp"? Meaningless. Postdlf 22:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greg Bonser

What's our stance on Community activists? I'd put this one on the delete column. Feydey 21:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Greg doesn't meet any of the Criteria for biographies, delete --nixie 23:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What are the criteria for biographies? This contains biographical info, and points people to other places that they can get more info. Greg Bonser.
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography gives you a good picture. People feel strongly that you should at the very least not start articles about yourself, no matter how important you consider yourself. Feydey 21:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public_bathrooms

Delete. A listing of public bathrooms in the US. Has the potential to become the largest wiki article in the world. Non-encyclopedic.Feco 22:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• An article on public bathrooms could be written, but this has no useful content. Delete unless given a complete rewrite. Meelar (talk) 22:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a list of public bathrooms is not of encyclopedic interest. Thue | talk 22:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The only scenarios where I can imagine this being useful are too comical to assume plausible. --Asriel86 00:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

come on, how many times have you been roaming the United States with your web-enabled cell phone, and suddenly had to find a public bathroom. In the future, once this 999999999GB page downloads in 2 seconds over the 3G wireless network, and you scroll through the list on your 2-inch cell phone screen, you'll find a bathroom.</sarcasm> (note that I voted delete). Feco

• Delete, useless list. (I wonder whether someone was trying to make a point about the claim sometimes made on VfD that all public institutions are inherently notable.) --Angr/_comhrá 04:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur Angr. Megan1967 07:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Flush, Wikipedia is not a local guide. Gazpacho 08:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Where are all the school inclusionists clamoring for this article on public insitutions to be kept? Think of all the lives these washrooms have made immeasurably better; how many people have been saved from humiliation and degradation by the existence of these humble, yet vital, facilities. Oh, and delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The concept of a public bathroom is interesting; a list of them isn't. --SPUI (talk) 21:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Seems like we have a floater. Better make that another flush. Chris talk back 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Swirly delete as poopcruft. - Lucky 6.9 05:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as valid topic as Japanese toilets. VfD is not Cleanup. Grue 19:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What, you don't feel like cleaning public bathrooms?  :^P Sure, the title is legit, but the article isn't the way it stands. Agree that a real article can be built around the title. All we have now is a list with a grand total of two facilities in New York City that shouldn't be part of the edit history IMO. - Lucky 6.9 04:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But hey, it could be useful! How about transwikiing to Wikibooks or Wikisource? :) Grue 05:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I thought it was a good idea...whatever.
  • LOL! I do too. If I'm ever in the Big Apple, I'll know where to go...beyond the usual tourist attractions, of course. - Lucky 6.9 04:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any public institute is inherently notable. Kidding. Just wanted to say that about a non-highschool public institute. Delete. Denni☯ 23:10, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Despite the fact that I would pay good money for an accurate, up to date guide on public restrooms in NYC, delete. Postdlf 23:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense ASAP. --Coolcaesar 19:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:42, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Menusa

We don't have articles on the other 1000+ soldiers who have died in the Iraq war. RickK 22:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial--nixie 23:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, we haven't articles neither on the other 1000+ soldiers who have died in the Iraq war, nor on the Iraqis who have died there or in the billions of wars of the history of the humanity.
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki to a Iraq war memorial wiki. This guy died to make the world safe for democracy. Klonimus 02:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so delete. Radiant_* 07:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a matter of opinion, but neither point has a bearing on this issue. Or would you like an article on every person who died in World War II on the Allied side, as well? RickK 00:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure why not. I know that Yad Vashem has a project to collect names an biographies of everyone who dided in the holocaust. Klonimus 02:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That's nice for them, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. — JIP | Talk 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I consider using "to make the world safe for democracy" to mean "to further the USA government's cause" extremely POV, and take offense at it. Menusa has died a heroic death but he fought for a nation, not an universal, non-disputed force of good. — JIP | Talk 06:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote above was vandalised by User:24.18.157.93, who changed "heroic" to "heretic". — JIP | Talk 17:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I'm not responding to the suggestion that we should base deletion policy on the moral character of the article's subject. Rhobite 05:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 07:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - because the number of U.S., British and other Coalition soldiers dying in the recent war was so low, and because media scrutiny actually makes it possible to know quite a lot about them, it would actually be plausible to have articles on all those who have died. The question is - why should we? A list of them with brief biographical details would probably (hopefully!) survive VfD and would be my preferred response. In the absence of a list, why keep an individual article? Has an individual American soldier done something noteable in the recent war just by dying in it? The answer is, arguably, yes - WW2 and Iraqi deaths in the war are bad analogies because that would involve making far more articles on individuals for whom there is often little information. Local press coverage of deaths in the recent war is pretty extensive, and the impact on a local community of a "local hero" dying in the war shouldn't be overlooked. From the point of view of the entire USA, most individuals will be non-notable but from the point of view of a (substantial) local community an individual may well be. The fact that Menusa was the first person from the Philippines to die in the conflict does swing me towards a keep vote, for now, but if somebody put a list together, I'd rather set this as a redirect to that. VivaEmilyDavies 21:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything said in the above comment. Klonimus 02:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Egil 11:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMW E46 Problems List

Non-encyclopedic. An invitation for people to post problems with their cars. "this is done in a "wiki" is so that everyone can add their problem" - well, great: create a wiki at wikicities or something. This shouldn't be in wikipedia. SteveW | Talk 23:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-encyclopedic, more suited to a community forum. Impi 00:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not-encyclopedic. It would best for him to buy a new car. Dsmdgold 02:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapboax a free host or a webspace provider. This is better suited to a message board, car review website or possibly some kind of car wikicity... -- Lochaber 11:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Detective agency

• VfD should not be the place to discuss WikiProjects. Instead, if you think we should (or should not) have a policy on inappropriate projects, please join the general discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

While it may be unorthodox to list a user sub-page for deletion, I believe that this page and the so-called "organization" or "agency" it promotes violate the spirit of Wikipedia. The introduction reads:

Welcome to the Sam Spade detective agency Our goal is to provide top-notch investigative service to our clients, promote justice and discourage corruption, and to combine our efforts as effectively as possible. We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place. Those wishing to be public members may contact me on the talk page. Those wishing to remain confidential may contact me by email or IM.

Recent discussion has deplored the increasing pseudo-legal language being used on various Wikipedia pages, and this takes it way beyond the limit. Exploding Boy 23:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as it is a user page. If this organisation does anything that violates the spirit of wikipedia then it should be dealt with at the appropriate time and place. Right now this page is not doing any harm, and can be considered part of Sam Spade's wiki work, --SqueakBox 23:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is a useful concept and it's in the user's own space! — Davenbelle 23:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Any unofficial, unsanctioned, ad hoc organization that seeks as it's stated goal to collect "evidence" of other editors that they consider "dubious" for later use in actions like RFC/RFAR smacks of witch hunts, is antithetical to wikipedia's spirit, will have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas that Sam & crew deem "dubious," and will lend itself to abuses in the form of vexatious litigation, malicious prosecution, etc. Consider the group's statement of purpose: "We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place." This there anything that more utterly violates the spirit of wikipedia? Taken with Sam's recent history of frivolous actions these new efforts to amass evidence prior to any specific charges and recruiting others to do the same on his behalf show Sam to be little more than a vexatious and mendacious litigant looking to expand his reach and scope. Furthermore, the fact that this is a privately organized effort directed at selected individuals will heavily discount the value of any "evidence" this group obtains and presents, and will cast serious doubt on the motive of any subsequent action that Sam or any of the crew that he assembles are party to. Vexatious and malicious prosecution are serious concerns at wikipedia and far too common, and this sort of experiment lends itself to barratry quite easily. That concern is justified here considering this organization is being instituted and promoted by an individual who has an extensive history of litigation [13], bad behavior [14], side-stepping policies[15]&[16], and refusing to atone for his misdeeds when caught [17] here at wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this article goes against the spirit of good editing and conduct on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a user it should be taken up with admin, not a "detective agency". Megan1967 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose you mean, with a mediator; dispute resolution is not an admin task. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How about with an AMA advocate, of which I am one, which has arbcom & community sanction. This user page falls under my duties there, as clarified by myself here, and the AMA coordinator here. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 14:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, highly inappropriate user page. Radiant_* 07:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is vfd really the place to discuss user pages? Wouldn't Rfc, arbitration, mediation or some other process be superior? Making this decision was not the purpose behind vfd. Meelar (talk) 07:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. 'Delete' because I think that it is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and, frankly, because SS's editing and Talk-page history makes him one of the last people I'd trust with something like this. 'Weak' because it is his User space (though there are still conditions of use), and because I doubt that it would do anything but become (at most) a mild irritant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not a big fan of this page or of its creator, but it is in userspace, and I don't believe that VfD is the appropriate forum for questionable userspace content like this. This concern should go to RFC or, if necessary, arbitration. Firebug 09:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment quite a bleak example of wikilawyering. This sort of activism is certainly not welcome, dispute resolution is a necessary evil, and not the point of Wikipedia. It is in user space, however, and I trust that the community will react appropriately to such attempts, regardless whether it be "professional" wikilawyering or "amateur" wikilawyering. If it is considered disruptive, the arbcom should deal with it, not vfd. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with Meelar, Firebug and dab. VfD is only for articles, things that matter to our readers, not to decide what particular user pages are (not) in violation of Wikipedia's community spirit/conduct policies. Take it to RfC or RfAr. This page can be deleted if Sam Spade slaps a speedy tag on it or if the ArbCom tells him to take it down. VfD has been flooded with user sub-pages recently; I don't like this trend one bit. JRM 11:51, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • How exactly is it flooded? I've seen two user pages on VfD in the past month. Radiant_* 14:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

    This is called "unfounded hyperbole", and it works quite well as long as people don't counter it with facts. Stricken. I still don't like it, though. VfDs on articles and VfDs on user pages are completely different things. JRM 15:10, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

  In addition, if consensus should be we do decide this sort of thing on VfD, I'd like that to be said more explicitly. Current discussions are bogged down by questions of legitimacy, so I don't think we can rely on "we'll figure it out as we go along" anymore—especially considering Sam's diatribe below. Do we really want this sort of in-fighting to bloat VfD? JRM 12:13, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Delete. Though it's on his userspace, it's still on Wikipedia, and is inappropriate and against the spirit of the 'pedia. Agree with FeloniousMonk's comments above. — Asbestos | Talk 11:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed my vote after reading comments below. Still think it's against the spirit of the community, but deleting this would amount to censorship. It's his userpage. — Asbestos | Talk 13:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Spurious WP:POINT, read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy and Wikipedia:User page. Voters might be interested in EB's long history of harassment against myself ever since I voted against featured article status for gay bathhouse. This flagrant misuse of VfD by an admin will not be ignored. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks please. Radiant_* 14:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to note, user subpages may indeed be listed on WP:VfD. Wikipedia:User page#Removal, where vfd is listed as the approved method of requesting a user subpage be deleted. — Asbestos | Talk 12:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Interesting. Seems to be quite old, too. But this should be listed in the deletion policy as well, then. JRM 12:32, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

  It is. Problem with page: Inappropriate user page. Solution: Talk to the user; if that doesn't work, come back here. Problem with page: Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases. Solution: List on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. —Korath (Talk) 12:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  You know, I should really sit down and read stuff sometimes. Aside from wasting people's time, it would make me look like less of an idiot, which is nice too. Alternatively, don't try editing Wikipedia when you're busy with other stuff. In my defense: what you're quoting is in a table headed "Problems that don't require deletion", which is probably why I missed it in my fly-by skimming. It should be under "problems that might require deletion". :-) Thanks to Asbestos and Korath. JRM 13:06, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

  How about "Problems that might not require deletion"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  According to the pages (as Sam mentions, below) the "proper channels" do not appear to have been followed. I think this VfD is spurious, and not called for at this point in time. It's also amusing that the note says "After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it" good thing Sam hasn't been here for a year and hasn't written many articles, huh? Guettarda 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Actually I have, but who cares about the letter and the spirit of the rules when your busy trying to burn someone your holding a grudge against, eh? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• as a note, EB hasn't discussed the matter with me whatsoever, so this couldn't apply as an inappropriate user page VfD. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 14:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the page is Useful, and if people have been using it, it deserves to stay. Besides, it's his own space. He should be able to use it for whatever he wants. I think as long as he doesn't advertise it on other pages, it should be fine--Zeerus 14:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • He does, however, advertise it on other pages [18]. Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - on proceedural grounds. See my comment above. Guettarda 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, User sub-pages are a good place to keep this kind of thing. It's where you have some policy or idea that you're still polishing. In fact it's an excellent idea, procedure wise at least. (And Sam Spade, stop cribbing ideas from the WP:AMI page :-P , you are definately capable of better than that! Read the comments here (especially the negative ones) and improve your concept!) Kim Bruning 15:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I am disappointed with the tone of the page, and can certainly see the potential for abuse. On the other hand, I would rather see any organizations like this to be out in the open and not hidden in back channels or completely off the Wikipedia. I agree with several of the people who have said that this nomination is (currently) inappropriate for a VfD vote. If it does look like the organization is living up to my worst fears, then it should be handled through WP:RFC and WP:RFAR and not WP:VFD. For the purposes of voting, count this as a very, very weak keep. BlankVerse ∅ 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) User pages are generally free to have whatever content you want. I know plenty of people who have frivolous content and even anti-wikipedia sentiment on their User pages. (2) How is this "agency" any different from letting people contact you on your talk page about issues they want your help with. People do that to me all the time. All Sam is doing is creating a separate page for it and adding a little more organization. Perfectly fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Deleting this page will not delete the agency. Sam has been open about his project, and it is being monitored. if this page goes there is no way to monitor what the agency will do, which I think would be a bad thing. If people want to stop his agency here is not the place to do it, and as long as his agency is legitimate then this page should be too. I urge those who want to stop his agency to go through the proper procedure and debate it in the proper forums, then put a Vfd here, --SqueakBox 18:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There is nothing wrong with someone conducting investigations, many users probably do, at least Sam is being open about it. It is a user sub page and compared to many user subpages that are maintained this one does not merit deletion. Regarding starting any kind of "organization" as far as laws and concepts regarding "freedom of association" are concerned I do not think that "we" could stop such a move by Sam and his friends if we tried. Or let's call it Totalitaripedia, not Wikipedia. — © Alex756 21:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace and make it a public organization. Run it in the same way as other voluntary and unofficial organizations, as was (eventually) done with a group that had rather similar aims and methods. That should keep potential abuse well in check—but would make it redundant with at least two other groups.
  Or: Leave it alone, watch it carefully, and publicize its actions well. Let it stand or fall on its own merits. Perhaps it will acquire a reputation as a stalwart defender of the bullied and downtrodden. Perhaps it will acquire a reputation for bullying and treading down. Perhaps no-one will use it and it will fade into obscurity. Who can say? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations already exists in the Wikipedia namespace. What would be different about this one? — Asbestos | Talk 00:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. sheer nonsense vfd of a user subpage directly applicable to the project. absolutely no policy justification for the vfd. seems the cabal fears investigation might bring their misbehavior to light:(. Ungtss 14:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep out of User pages unless there is actually a problem. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep So far I don't see Sam Spade doing anything illegal with that page. I also find it disgusting that we are here to defend a USER PAGE. Have a life! -- Toytoy 15:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Sam's user space is his own business, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal or wildly offensive therein. I would, though, encourage Sam to remove the link from his signature, or at least make it shorter. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure on the page, but the actions describe within should be examined and rebuked if they make Wikipedia a less open and community-based system. Tabs should be kept to make sure this group doesn't get out of line or becomes some sort of police force for Wikipedia, but I don't think the userpage is all that significant until that occurs. If this little detective agency moves forward and violates the community, then my vote becomes a vote to delete.

• Keep Is in user space - sets dangerous precedent to delete a user advocacy group because we may disagree with their POV. Trödel|talk I have read some more and now feel strongly keep - while I disagree with Sam on many things and think that his behavior at times has been confrontational at best, to delete a page in a user's space that is a voluntary effort sets a bad precedent. The group is open in its conduct and all can see what is going on - in our age, witch hunts are equally liable to result in exposing the hunters as the hunted. Do not let your disagreement with Sam drive your decision - if another user like say User:SlimVirgin or User:Tony Sidaway had done this would you still vote the same way - I would. Trödel|talk 18:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep An excellent idea that has, like so many other previous ideas, come under the destructive lense of the cabal that enjoys ridding wikipedia of any and all articles that do not fit into their collectively narrow POV. --Da 'Sco Mon 01:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep biatches. SamSpade is a good man FIGHTING against the JEWISH cabal. So a STRONG keep. YEAHHHHHHHHHH. I wanna join this detective agency and help take down you LIBERAL FREAKS but I dont even know if Im cool enough to be accepted by Mr. Spade. - DA CHILD -SmarterChild3 17:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-P.S. I am NOT Sam Spade. -SmarterChild3 17:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments like this make me rethink my intended principled stand Trödel|talk 18:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If this detective agency is a disguised version of attack Stormfront tried to organize in February, I will change my vote and lobby all the keeps above to do the same Trödel|talk 18:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you havn't heard of black propoganda or the misuse of power words. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just making my position clear: the decision shouldn't be based on ideas we don't like; however, disrupting wikipedia to prove a point is a valid reason to delete the page. Trödel|talk 15:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like we need to write an article on Black Propoganda (hey, wouldn't that be more productive than trying to delete my user pages? Just a thought..). To help you out:

"Propaganda can be classified according to the source. White propaganda comes from an openly identified source. Black propaganda pretends to be from a friendly source, but is actually from an adversary. Gray propaganda pretends to be from a neutral source, but comes from an adversary"

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Even though the page arguably goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, until actual harm is demonstrated, users should have leeway regarding their own user pages. Wmahan. 16:59, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

• Keep until there's a real demonstrable reason to delete it. So far there's no actual harm shown, merely dislike. Wesley 17:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; spurious listing. Fascist restriction of user pages should not be a goal of Wikipedia. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggested procedure

• Checking edit histories, I must conclude that Exploding hasn't contacted Sam about this page, before listing it on VfD. It therefore seems proper to close this VfD, give Exploding the time to contact Sam, and then have Exploding start a new VfD if he deems it necessary. This does sound needlessly bureaucratic, and seems unlikely to actually help. Indeed, this VfD seems likely to end in 'no consensus' either way.
• Therefore, the best solution seems to be to take the matter to RfC - that applies to both (and separately) the alleged conflicts between Sam and Exploding, and any disputes regarding existence of a detective agency on WP.
• Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That seems to be the right thing to do. Alright, I agree, and 'second the motion' to move to RFC. Are there any opposed? Kim Bruning 15:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Let's cut out the needless bureaucracy: Sam, what's the deal with this page? It seems highly inappropriate and I'm concerned also that you're advertising it on other pages as well as embedding it in your user name whenever you sign a post. I have no desire to antagonise you; I would have listed a similar page started by any user, because this type of "organisation" is, in my view, completely anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia and has vast potential for causing problems. Please seeFeloniousMonk's comments for a much better analysis than I've provided here of why such a page and such an organization is totally inappropriate here. Exploding Boy 18:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You can't ban an organisation with a Vfd. If you want to stop Sam's agency find a legitimate way of doing so, --SqueakBox 18:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Radiant! has pointed out to me that VfD can indeed apply to userspace pages. Nonetheless, I will retain my prior vote. If VfD is to be utilized in userspace, it should only be applied in the most egregious cases. I'm not convinced this qualifies. Firebug 20:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the word detective is putting people off, --SqueakBox 00:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

But we're talking Sam Spade. The opportunity is too good to miss. JRM 01:17, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

But we're also talking User:Sam_Spade as well. It's the agency organizer's history of shabby behavior [19], litigiousness [20], and cynical policy manipulations [21] [22], not the agency's name that's the cause of concern for some here. --FeloniousMonk 05:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If your concern is with the organizer, the proper forum is a request for comment, mediation, or arbitration. We may allow deletion of user subpages, but we don't have votes to delete users. --Michael Snow 06:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never suggested we vote to delete any user. That Sam has avoided RFC, RFM, and RFAr for his insulting behavior is only because I chose to give him a chance to atone on his own without being compelled to. That he's responded the way he has is clearly his choice. All I've advocated here is that an unsanctioned police group operating out of a userspace and hence having total control over what is and isn't allowed to be said and presented is a powerful tool that is a temptation to misuse even by the most ethical of editors, and as such it should not be permitted to exist in a userspace, but if it is, then it should be heavily monitored. And judging by his recent antics in limiting the speech of those being investigated at User_talk:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency, keeping tabs on them is clearly justified, as well as my concern here. FeloniousMonk 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aleman-Zometa

• Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. José San Martin 00:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 01:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Wmahan. 20:23, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Music Records

Non-notable record label, tone is completely wrong and google gives 23 hits, none of which seem to be about a record label. --Alexs letterbox 23:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn labelcruft. ComCat 06:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was This page is kept. A summary will be written in Portuguese grammar article. User:Sanmartin

Portuguese pronouns and Portuguese verb conjugation

Very good articles. Although, I think they should merged to the poor Portuguese grammar article. José San Martin 00:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it would be better to merge just a summary, not the entire articles. Kappa 00:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both articles. (They don't even have VfD tags on them.) While Portuguese grammar is not yet overlarge, it could quickly become so, so there should be no merger. --Angr/_comhrá 05:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • They do now. By the way, merge seems appropriate. Radiant_* 07:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both. Megan1967 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You can carry out the merge yourself, or use Wikipedia:Duplicate articles if you don't know how. No need to use WP:VfD. Gdr 20:37, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep, both have the potential to be substantial individual articles, if they aren't already. Wmahan. 20:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• keep, make a summary of it in Portuguese grammar. -Pedro 20:42, 19 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.