Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 14

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was USERFY. jni 15:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly a vanity page. --EQer 23:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, but it seems like it might have been an honest attempt at a user page. I'm moving it there. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a vanity page, or at least advertising. It's particularly the first sentence I react to, change this and the article might have the right to live (I did find a few entries when I googled the name). - Eixo 00:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is a minor political advisor in the UK, no potential to become encyclopedic at this point--nixie 00:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless some third-party verifiability shows up. Then keep - David Gerard 01:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well [1] lists him as a contact for the All Party Parliamentary Committee on Entrepreneurship. Still not very exciting though, and APPCs are unofficial. Kappa 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Politicians, no matter how minor (a POV-issue) are notable (public figures). Delete. Misunderstanding.--ZayZayEM 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Er... politicians might be notable but this person isn't one. Minor political advisors aren't notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Haham hanuka 09:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not evidence of notability. Delete.-gadfium 01:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 01:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. Zzyzx11 02:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, belong on userpage instead. Tygar 06:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neolgism and an advert for betteruse.org, I would redirect to recycling if I was convienced that people used the term--nixie 02:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism and ad. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An ad full of neologism. Zzyzx11 02:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--ZayZayEM 03:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tygar 06:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Current article is not informative. Thue | talk 08:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Haham hanuka 09:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not a common term at all Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn spamcruft. ComCat 03:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advertisment--nixie 02:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless someone can provide notable information instead of just an ad. Zzyzx11 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--ZayZayEM 03:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author apparently didn't read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." — Trilobite (Talk) 03:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ads. Tygar 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Herbert Kornfeld Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologism, merge to text messaging if necessary--nixie 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. No merge. DaveTheRed 03:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definition; no merge. Tygar 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ruakh 04:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be an ad for the relaunch of what appears to be a non-notable personal website--nixie 03:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, ad. Besides, waffles should never be mixed with pain. DaveTheRed 03:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds gay. Now, "Kiki's house of pain and waffles" would be heaven--ZayZayEM 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This comment was offensive. Please think twice before posting such comments again. RickK 09:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • You are taking "gay" to be derogatory. I merely was suggesting it sounds homoerotic in a non-judgemental fashion.
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can I instead have blueberry sauce with my waffles? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because of advert, but BJAODN the article name. Tygar 06:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hilarious website name though Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 10:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Oh, and by the way, RickK, kids these days use "gay" to mean "stupid," not necessarily 'homosexual.' RussBlau 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything that makes this particular piece of freeware worth of an encyclopeida article?--nixie 03:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Author apparently didn't read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." — Trilobite (Talk) 03:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Tygar 06:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh, snap! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

This article reads like it came straight out of a piece of promotional literature and is in no way an encyclopedia article. Information about the "children's play area" and "full parking facilities", totally redundant duplication of a section on the history of steam, and even the museum's phone number mean that this article is entirely composed of padding and once pared down to an acceptable standard would have nothing worth keeping, except for the fact of the museum's existence, which could get a sentence in the Shildon article. The author appears to have failed to grasp the nature of Wikipedia and doesn't appear to have read the warning above the edit box: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business."

I'm listing for deletion on the grounds that the museum is not especially notable, the article is irredemably POV, and that anything worth keeping could be easily merged into Shildon.

Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article has been significantly improved. I withdraw the nomination. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hence noticed removed from article - Mike. 12:30, March 17, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep and Cleanup.--ZayZayEM 03:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. All museums are notable. --Gene_poole 03:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I fail to see anything in this article that couldn't be merged into Shildon. Cleanup would eliminate virtually all of its content. Trilobite (Talk) 04:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, most musems are notable, especially with respect to their cities. Tygar 06:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up. All but the smallest museums are notable. DaveTheRed 06:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Almost all museums are notable and there are plenty of relevant facts in this article. Kappa 09:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But tidy - Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. -- RHaworth 10:22, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wager you, trilobite, to quote one instance from the article when I expressed a personal opinion. I kept to the cold, hard, fact. User:Mikesc86 12:43, March 14, 2005 (GMT)
    • In addition, the only duplicate information is the mention of the bio-diesel bus, which was mentioned twice. Mike.
  • Keep with extensive cleanup. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 13:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article has now ben cleaned up. Mike. 13:37, March 14, 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I wouldn't quite go as far as to say that all museums are notable, but the vast majority are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Pavel Vozenilek 19:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This nomination showed a lack of grasp of the category system. I have recategorising the article. Wincoote 01:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A zine for role-playing gamers published for just two years; Google searches mostly turn up Wikipedia forks. Probably non-notable. /sɪzlæk˺/ 03:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The familiar is not familiar. Delete. Tygar 06:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fanzines unless spectacularly famous Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Seems promotional-ish. Creator says "the coolest thing on the web". This is not a reason fora dding something to Wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 03:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE KEEP and EXPAND!!! Next to the census, the GSS is probably the most frequently used dataset in all modern American sociological research and writing. It is much more than just a survey; it is a comprehensive examination of American points of view, conducted at regular intervals and asking thousands of participants the questions about religion and politics that the census just doesn't. I will note also that it gets 66,300 Google hits. --BD2412 04:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--GSS is very significant in much of American social science. I'm sure this deserves to be in, but I'm also sure I'm not the man to write it, unfortunately. Cleanup. Meelar (talk) 04:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 04:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:21 Z
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

This article is nothing but pure SPAM for a website. If you cannot SPAM websites with external links in articles, you certainly should not be allowed to write articles that exist in order to promote web sites. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • DELETE this SPAM immediately. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT continues to elude John. As a note, the site in question has an Alexa rating of under 4000. Snowspinner 04:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • You persist in stalking my votes for deletion. SPAM is SPAM, and you were clearly editing SPAM. I believe in getting rid of SPAM, when I find it. -- John Gohde 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You tagged an article on my watchlist that I've made edits to for deletion. Am I supposed to not vote? Snowspinner 05:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Pornography is the most popular reason for using the web. So, so what about the Alexa rating of 4000? But, thanks to your comment, I have filed a complaint with Amazon.com by way of Alexa. I was actually the 2nd person to publicly point out this problem on Amazon.com. -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The Internet is for Porn. Note also that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)Snowspinner 17:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
            • The adult content of Wikipedia is its Achilles' heel, which could be exploited by anyone so desiring, IMHO. -- John Gohde 09:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Care to elaborate on that statement/belief? Djbrianuk 23:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • Ever notice how green slime grows under rocks? -- John Gohde 01:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • I'm going to assume (in good faith) that refers to your opinion of the article and/or it's subject, rather than me. Doesn't really answer the question though. Djbrianuk 03:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs major cleanup. SuicideGirls scores 1,680,000 Google hits, see [3]. There is also a published book by them on Amazon, see [4]. Megan1967 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep , i don't see how this is spam, any more then an article on a corp has a link to it's website, ah-la Amazon.com, i find the article very well written and informative, though it could use some clean up. This leads me to question the motives behind John Gohde listing of this article on VFD. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, you have got to be kidding me. Huge well-known site. Rhobite 05:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is an example of a well-known site being mentioned in Wikipedia, not an obscure or new site trying to use Wikipedia to get known. Article should be checked regularly for potential copyvios and should not be permitted to become an unapologetic advert, but John, it's not necessarily spam just because it's about a commerical product that you don't particularly seem to like. (Doesn't wrap me particularly tightly, either, but you know, "different strokes" and all that.) Rlquall 05:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, adequately notable. -- Curps 07:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:48 Z
  • Keep. This has been featured in Rolling Stone, Wired, The New Yorker, on HBO, and on Nightline. Zzyzx11 08:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 09:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trolling is trolling, and SHOUTING is SHOUTING. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (Note: Article author) Keep. This is an indefensible VfD listing, as the website is highly notable. I also don't think anyone who's been on here for awhile would honestly believe that I am taking payola from the site, nor do I even have a membership on it. From the edit summaries of the VfD poster attempting to tag the article as nonencyclopedic, it is clear that he objects to the subject itself, seeing it as "trashy". Perhaps it's a genuine misunderstanding as to wikipedia policies. Perhaps. Postdlf 11:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I have seen that you authored this article on a web site. [personal attack removed] See the modern pedagogic technique known as journaling discussed on this critique of Wikipedia.[5] -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And you could try explaining yourself rather than resorting to ignorant personal attacks. Postdlf 17:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Notable, famous website with significant media coverage. Gamaliel 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:POINT - David Gerard 19:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Xezbeth 20:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major performance group (recently featured during a play festival here in Calgary) and a major website. Controversial, yes, but worthy of an article. 23skidoo 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting article Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - Definitely a notable site. John Gohde is clearly biased. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, debate them somewhere else. Don't attack individual articles. (And good luck with that.) - Omegatron 04:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. I'll just pretend this little ordeal never happened. It's better that way. —RaD Man (talk) 10:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable. John Gohde appears to have decided to express his views on this review of Wikipedia on Amazon. - BanyanTree 16:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Website and organisation. The fact it's adult material is irrelevent. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If someone wants to start ChildSafePedia, good luck to them Djbrianuk 23:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep An article about a company isn't necessarily spam, after all. Zantastik 02:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. If there were only 100 things related to pornography, etc., that merited articles, this would certainly be one of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major website known by many. I just used this article to learn more about the site, and was apalled to see it was marked for deletion. Siliconwafer 04:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how this is spam; the website in question has been popular and well-known long before this article was posted. Psychonaut 10:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. -- Infrogmation 17:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The only "reasonable" argument for listing this in VfD seems to be that Wikipedia should not have adult content, and this is actually not reasonable. vlad_mv 22:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Potentially Biased Keep, as I am a member. Though also an avid Wikipedian.  ;)
  • Keep Hedley 03:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Robinoke 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as it's NPOV, how can it be spam? SG is a significant site, and clearly there is interest in the article, so I say keep. -- Klparrot 19:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd never heard of this site before now, but the other responses convince me that it's a popular site, and hence deserving of an article here if popular Web sites in general are deserving of articles; if this is removed, then I guess all articles about Web sites should be. It being an "adult" site shouldn't have any bearing on this. The person who put this vote up seems to be a crusading crackpot with a personal agenda. Dtobias 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's porn, but it's nice porn. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia is not for advertisments or consumer advice warnings--nixie 06:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:19 Z
  • While I don't like the tone of the article or the overdose of external links, I think the topic should deserve a mention (if only because people reading about the drug may want to get more info on it from WP). So remove superfluous material, mark as stub and keep. Radiant! 12:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep products backed by major advertising campaigns. If you are going to imply something is fradulent, you need external links to back it up. Kappa 12:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added a few minor updates to the article from the available sales information. -- Arevich 20:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment -- Removed fraud allegations from article. Fraud should probably not be alleged unless there has been a conviction in a court of law. Arevich 21:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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