Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

[edit]

Soft redirect to: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 - should be merged - SimonP 00:07, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Targeted Memory Erasure

[edit]

Fictional medical procedure created as plot point for the movei Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. An elaborate website describing the procedure was created as a promotion for the movie. As fiction it is unverifiable, and it merits only a mention in the article on the movie. -Willmcw 23:53, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eudemism

[edit]

The article is about a religion, Eudemism, that is apparently so obscure that neither of the two Google hits mention it. Google Without any sources to support it, this article appears to be fantasy, not even an honest, attributed neologism. However, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if anyone can find a verifiable source for this information. -Willmcw 09:39, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 00:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

SchoolRanking.org

[edit]

Advert for nonnotable website. According to google, nothing links to it. There is no Alexa report. Article itself says it started in "early 2005." Delete as advertisement. Postdlf 01:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tv:616

[edit]

Article comprises two brief lines and an external link; completely unencyclopediec boosterism for an obscure rock band. Three pages link to site from Google. Delete as advert. --Brownsteve 02:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 00:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Australian international relations

[edit]

Research essay on Australian international relations since WWII, with lots of POV opinions, unreferrerenced and un-encyclopedic--nixie 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

GameDAILY Community

[edit]

As far as I can tell this is just an average webforum. The article doesn't establish anything notable about the site, and appears to be a community vanity article. The forum has 561,000 posts made in two years and as far as I can tell has had an entirely uneventful history. Google has no results for "GameDAILY Community" outside the forum itself [1]. Joe D (t) 03:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • [Lies. Get your facts straight. It's closer to 1,463,258 posts]
Note: two anons have been adding bracketed comments to users' posts. I have moved them to below the points of contention. Master Thief Garrett 03:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a small forum, with nothing particularly notable about it. Only 5500 members. --Carnildo 04:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the "fads" part of the page lists nothing that hasn't been seen on a thousand other forums... Doozer 04:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [most of the fads listed are unique to 404. You don't see "lolicron" everywhere.]
  • Delete, non-notable. Or, at least, if it were I would add ZFGC, which gets ~20,000 posts a month. Master Thief Garrett 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [404 is larger than ZFGC. Not sure if it's older though.]
  • Delete all but the most notable forums. --the wub (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Note: I AM the person who wrote the original version of the wiki, so I may be biased. Admittedly it isn't a forum of great note, but I don't see anything in the rules against putting in forums - it exists, has existed for a good amount of time and seems certain to exist for at least another couple of years or so. If you look elsewhere on wiki, small schools have wikipedia entries, and we don't have people demanding that those be deleted simply because they are not famous schools that have produced many famous people. The fads section is set to ONLY contain fads spawned on this forum - if you've seen another one elsewhere and it doesn't state who made it on the forum, delete that fad. The actual post count is higher than 561,000 - GD has been hacked and wiped twice, we have had croppings of old topics before and two months of posts were lost due to a technical error. And of course Google's not going to have results for it, we only changed to that name a few months ago, and also, if something came from a board and is credited, who on earth is going to bother to write out GameDAILY Community. This is the very internet that is primarily compromised of people too lazy to spell out "you" properly. --LupusCanis
    • "If you look elsewhere on wiki, small schools have wikipedia entries, and we don't have people demanding that those be deleted simply because they are not famous schools that have produced many famous people."
      Er.. yes, we do, and always have. Bad example, the threashold notability for including schools is one of the longest running and most vociferous policy debates on Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. What is this page hurting by just being here? --ReiOf404

Rei's Reply: I just registered, jerk.

  • Keep if expanded Well, I figure that the actual GameDAILY website carries a lot of importance to the internet gaming world, as it is a rather often-visited web site. However, the forums are not very notable, so I suggest that if the forum section were to stay, then the article needs be expanded to primarily serve the website, but also feature the forums. -- Davis Hurley 23:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

William Creighton Chamberlain, Creighton Chamberlain, Heroine Sheiks, Shannon Selberg

[edit]

Vanity Page --Daveblack 03:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added in three more articles, seemingly from the same user. EvilPhoenix 23:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

last three articles submitted after preceding votes. EvilPhoenix 23:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all as vanity. One or the other of the first two is borderline on the band significance test, but falls short. Kelly Martin 04:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Keep Heroine Sheiks; borderline passes WP:MUSIC due to 1. association w/ Swans (band) and The Cows, who are also notable even tho we don't yet have an article on them (lots of national U.S. tours, nine CDs on Sub Pop and Amphetamine Reptile, two of the major 90's indie labels) and 2. they definitely tour the U.S., although sporadically. Delete the rest. Also:
  • Strong Comment. All of these articles should not be grouped together. The first two, sure. The second two, O.K. But grouping all four together simply because the same user "might" have created them (or hell, even if he did) strikes me as assuming bad faith and biting the newbies. Since the articles are about at least two different subjects, discussing article content or subject notability is ridiculously complex. We are now, essentially, passing judgment on the author, not on the content or possible content of the articles. Wikipedia is not paper; it won't kill us to have 2 or 4 seperate Vfds on the above pages. Soundguy99 09:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 00:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Glug

[edit]

It's a recipe for an alcoholic beverage. For obvious reasons, it's hard to get sensible results out of Google, but it seems that if such a beverage exists, it's named "glogg" or "grogg". --Carnildo 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - one kept other deleted - SimonP 00:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

No Pants Day and Knighthood of Buh

[edit]

On campus nonsense, delete--nixie 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NPD as widespread and notable pseudo-holiday ("No Pants Day" gets 40k Google hits, I've heard of it before with no connection to UT). Delete KoB as non-notable student group. -- Jonel 04:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD. NPD is not restricted to... Austin (or wherever the KoB are). It's probably true that it's observed only by students, but students across the nation. LizardWizard 05:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, No Pants Day is notable both in the United States and abroad (I heard it mentioned here in Perth, Australia the other day). Cedars 09:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I was born and raised in Perth and I've never heard of this particular day being mentioned or people walking around the streets wearing no pants - which would indeed be noticeable. Megan1967 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD and expand. Particularly with regard to the geographical scope of NPD. I've just expanded Talk:No Pants Day. -- Smjg 10:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD, Delete KoB. I've heard of it in the US, and a friend in Canada was talking about it this past week. It's a North American phenom at the least and if it's been mentioned in Perth, that makes it notale on that scale. --Mitsukai 13:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPD, Delete KoB. No Pants Day seems to have gotten away from the Knighthood and become a cultural phenomenon. --Carnildo 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real things and both part of UT tradition, and known well beyond the school. --Brjatlick 02:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No Pants Day (widespread tradition). Delete Knighthood of Buh (not widespread at all). Kelly Martin 04:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I was first familiarized with the group during my time at its originating institution, but there are celebrants of its No Pants Day and upholders of the ideas of KoB (in name not simply action), in a number of the places I have visited throughout the US. Even if I have been strangely lucky (or unlucky) in running across their incidence, it would seem appropriate to give KoB its own page simply as the originator of the apparently more clearly widespread NPD (with regard to the previous comment). Of course, if we were voting for deletion based on taste, I would be the first to vote against keeping it. --eleuthero 04:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If KoB is a widespread group that originated (rather than simply "promotes" as claimed in the article) NPD, then I would say "Keep" it as well. - Jonel 07:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1, delete #2. Radiant_* 14:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No Pants Day; Merge Knighthood of Buh → No Pants Day. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:14 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Abercrombie Kids

[edit]

Page is obviously poorly written advertising. Unless someone can fill it with useful information, it should probably be deleted. Doozer 04:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a good article on Abercrombie & Fitch Co., or is "Abercrombie Kids" a separate new offshoot? Oy vey if so. Moncrief 05:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Abercrombie Kids has their own store line. RickK 19:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Real Rubyrulez

[edit]

The Real Rubyrulez cartoon series is coming soon to the net., delete--nixie 04:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - 00:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)~

Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli/Temp

[edit]

'Temp' version of a completed article at Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 by Hemanshu (Nonsense) --cesarb 01:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroskism

[edit]

I can find no evidence (via Google) that anything here is true. Algebraist 21:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nonsense. I've already speedied other articles by the same anon.-gadfium 05:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged - SimonP 00:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bajarl (Monster Rancher), Joker (Monster Rancher), Dragon (Monster Rancher), Ducken (Monster Rancher), Durahan (Monster Rancher), Nya (Monster Rancher), Pixie (Monster Rancher), Naga (Monster Rancher), Golem (Monster Rancher), Zuum (Monster Rancher), Beaclon (Monster Rancher), Tiger (Monster Rancher), Hare (Monster Rancher), Baku (Monster Rancher), Gaboo (Monster Rancher)

[edit]

The Pokestubs are bad enough, but Monster Rancher is even worse. There are hundreds dozens of Monster Rancher monsters, and other Poke-alikes; do they all need to be on Wikipedia? A Man In Black 06:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Only Bajarl (Monster Rancher) was originally submitted, I added all those after it. It is only fair that they should all share the same fate. However votes below my last one may not necessarily be intended to apply to these additional pages. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>Hundreds? There are 50. And if you delete the Monster Rancher stubs, by that token, you need to delete all the Pokemon stubs for the same reason. And the Neopets stubs. And all the other virual pet pages. And to a lesser extent, any stubs on videogame "ripoffs". And possibly stubs on dervivative movies and franchises, too. Why have stubs on Family Guy when you could argue that it's a Simpsons look-alike? And why not delete the Star Wars pages? They're just like Star Trek. Wikipedia is supposed to be totally comprehensive. Deleting pages because YOU don't like a franchise is just immature and goes against the inherent spirit of the Wiki. Please give a reason that's better than that. The page isn't offensive, false, spam, or vandalism. Just because you don't like the franchise or have the OPINION that it's superfluous is no reason to delete pages on it. I vote to keep any wikipedia page that isn't false information or vandalism. Too much information never hurt anybody. Keep, obviously. - Zeta7 06:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - See Wikipedia:Pokeprosal; it's currently being discussed whether the Pokemon stubs are worth keeping or consolidating. The Monster Rancher monsters aren't terribly excyclopedic, because, to be honest, nobody but fans of Monster Rancher really care about them. Contrast this with the more important Pokemon or the Star Wars characters and concepts, which have significant cultural and pop culture impact. A Man In Black 06:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has notability been a requirement for a wikipedia page? Once it's established that anything too indepth or obscure can't be included in Wikipedia, I'll give you the point, but until then - none of these arguments actually adhere to real wikipedia policy. Unless there's a notice that says "Hey, don't write TOO much or else!", I don't see how Wikipedia could BENEFIT from NOT including articles that are factual. Wikipedia is not a real book with a limited amount of pages to write in. There are a number of articles on obscure data, facts, movies, or videogames that could just as likely be deleted. But I don't see how this website could ever claim to be comprehensive if "some information is just too much". Maybe you could just get rid of ALL the fictional pages? Or split wikipedia into fiction and non-fiction? I mean, all of my friends told me how great this place is because it accepts a high volume of data. I had no idea that it would be so discriminatory based on tastes. Oh, and A Man in Black, I notice that a high volume of your edits are to Pokemon pages. I wonder if your opinion on this franchise might have been infulenced by something else. These pages don't hurt anyone, and they don't violate policies. I don't see how you could argue for their deletion unless you change the policiy of wikipedia to exclude "information nobody wants". Which is an absurd idea - Zeta
  • Notability has nothing to do with how big an article is. There could be 2000 lines on this or more and it would still not change the fact it scores only 270 hits [3]. While Wikipedia might not be a paper encyclopaedia, wikipedia is also not a general knowledge base - it is policy not to include everything in the known universe. Megan1967 10:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or consolidate with similar articles to create one covering some larger subset of the monsters in the game. Murgatroyd 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper and because it seems to be a collection of different but related monsters. Kappa 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly I HATE people constantly spouting "oh this isn't paper!" as a reason why others' notability/(something)cruft deletion votes are silly. Why document the side details of a (comparitively) non-notable franchise? It's not favouritism, it's realism. Do I start pages about every single Golden Axe character and monster just because I love the franchise and could easily write a detailed page for each with "fascinating" (to me and other fans that is) details? No, because it's NOT important to most of the world. This is certainly far more noteworthy than Golden Axe is (I'll readily admit to that) but does not quite transcend into timeless culture the way Pikachu does. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, or a site for the collection of all trivia about the latest kiddie craze. These individual creatures do not have any literary or cultural significance separate from Monster Rancher. Average Earthman 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Monster Rancher series monsters or similar, nn, other reasons and concerns as those voiced above. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete for the reasons above. Nestea 11:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge, cruft of the worst kind. The idea that those should be enyclopedic is laughable. Martg76 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's laughable. The same should apply for them as for many other TV/book etc characters. E.g. there is Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, etc. or Admiral Forrest from the Star Trek: Enterprise. Where to put the border? It's not paper! Ben please vote! 12:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopaedic, WP is not a knowledge base. Most first appeared in a sequel which doesn't even have its own article yet. The Simpsons comparison does not hold - there is an article on Homer, yes, but the non-regular characters are listed in One-time characters from The Simpsons, not in their own articles. The same should apply here. --bainer 12:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't even heard of Monster Rancher. It would be better to have the info all one page. There is no point in having a bunch of small articles that people have to wade through, when one article will provide the information in a more readable fashion. I agree with bainer. Orange Goblin 12:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the entries just say "No Encyclopedia Information" or junk like "Poison (Pixie/???) They say it is hysterical. But the truth is unknown." BTW I was looking at the Pokémon articles earlier, perhaps when Monster Rancher has spawned 2 anime series, a live stage show, 8 movies and no less than 33 video games, and still be growing, it could possibly be considered notable. --the wub (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of themStancel 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Non-notable. Quale 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into as few articles as possible. Preferably only the Monster rancher article. Just a short description of each main breed of monster should suffice. -MarSch 16:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. See, this is why I hate these group nominations. There are fifteen articles being nommed here. Fifteen. I'd be surprised if anyone had the time and patience to individually determine notability for each of them. I know I sure don't. The first one, Bajarl, has 1,450 Google hits, which is enough for a cartoon character in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes there are fifteen. The original nominator only nominated the first, and I, as noted at the top, dutifully added the rest. Or would you rather have a separate Vfd for each of the identical (notability-wise) characters? The less time this takes on Vfd the better, surely. Master Thief Garrett 05:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge all. Well-written articles about an awful but notable anime. —Xezbeth 16:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so long as all of the Pokecruft stays. RickK 18:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - more useful to users thataway anyway. -- BD2412 thimkact 20:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topics shouldn't be omitted from Wikipedia only because of their perceived childishness. -Hapsiainen 20:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia's strength lies in great deal in it's ability to have information even on things this obscure. Besides, Monster Rancher is really fun. -Birdboy2000 21:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • keep. Wikipedia will one day be a great cultural resource, and factual articles about pop culture are interesting in that regard. (I would also be happy with a merge.) Brighterorange 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the series is notable enough to keep, then the monsters are notable enough since they'll add extra info to somebody who hasn't played the game but is looking for info (For example, the articles tell what the specific monsters look like, which can help somebody decide what the graphics in the game are like, or it can help somebody who reads that you can create different monsters with disks but who doesn't understand how the monsters vary.

(There maybe doesn't need to be a separate article for each monster though--you could probably make one "Monsters in Monster Rancher" article and merge most of the info together. 

-Cookiemobsta 21:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I could care less which, because Wikipedia is not paper.--Unfocused 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them, without even looking at the articles, as per consensus. — JIP | Talk 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't triviapedia, nearly endless storage doesn't change our charter. Most fictional material only makes sense inside an article discussion the actual fictional work. Gmaxwell 06:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot of them, just like we're doing for some Pokemon. WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot with extreme prejudice. :) — 130.76.32.16 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge and redirect the bejeezus out of them. Extreme fancruft. -R. fiend 20:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of work has been put into these - I'd hate to see that go to waste (or to risk losing another contributor to WP as a result), jguk 22:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and do not (try to) merge. Usually we merge things like this, but how on Earth are we going to merge together fifty articles of that length? Sjakkalle 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a place for this lameness. Grue 18:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. Despite the apparent belief of its fans that these Monster Ranchers are on par with Darth Vader and Homer Simpson for pop culture impact, such arguments are, to put it politely, far-fetched. They are too insignificant for the amount of attention they're getting--- Scimitar 3:17 18 May 2005
  • Keep or merge. Monster Rancher characters might not be as culturally significant as say, Homer Simpson, but there are plenty of pages here that deal exclusively with characters, etc. that people not in that fandom wouldn't care jack about. Just in the realm of videogame players, Cecil Harvey and Kain Highwind both FFIV characters, have their own pages, and I think the Monster Rancher series probably has had more cultural impact than Final Fantasy IV did (as it first came out before the series got truly popular in the U.S., and it's rerelease made relatively little cultural stir outside of die hard FF fans). Goodrobot 2:09 20 May 2005
  • Keep or consolidate into one page, as per Goodrobot. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 18:48 Z
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fractal stone

[edit]

Original research in incomprehensible English. See how the Italians are voting. -- RHaworth 06:33, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • delete completely baseless. Snowdog 08:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive patent nonsense. Delete. -- The Anome 08:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - The article was probably meant as a "promo" for some book or websites, but the translation makes it really funny. --M7it 08:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it wasn't encyclopedic in its original Italian, it certainly isn't in mangled incomprehensible English. --the wub (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like original research to me. I think. Kelly Martin 04:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. -Murgatroyd 06:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: pardon me for intruding, but a quick eyeball of the "mangled incomprehensible" hints to me that this may well be an article about recent discoveries of fractal patterns in stone strata. This could really do with peer reviewing, by someone who can tell fact from f*ction. --62.25.106.209 06:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [4] for examples of the extraordinary claims being made, and [5] for the only example given as "proof" of these assertions. Even if you don't consider it patent nonsense (which I do, see vote above), this is certainly original research, and apparently unverifiable. -- The Anome 07:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I qualify as "someone who can tell fact from f*ction" in a discussion of fractal-related material. This article, and the sources linked, are slightly more scientific and coherent than Time Cube. -Murgatroyd 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can translate it in a way that English speaking people can understand AND convince us that logic, as we know it, has been disproven. --Fazdeconta 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baseless. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Filiocht (speedy candidate) --cesarb 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Harkness

[edit]

Looks like a hoax. I mean, an article on a 16-year-old gay activist who openly professes his love for being "a fat gay man"? Unless this is verified, I'd put it down to a schoolboy joke. Harro5 06:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • lol...i admit, this was a joke. THe guy got pretty cut when he saw it today...but hey, he's a fat gay man! delete this if you want. - Chris Fuller
    • Can we please now fast-track this VfD? It could go to speedy deletions, but it's here now, so it can be dealt with from here. Harro5 06:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete admitted hoax. Gazpacho 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable - only Australian Google hits are for a rheumatologist in Malvern, Victoria and a web developer called Darren James Harkness neither are whom likely to be 16 years old, admitted hoax. Megan1967 10:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless article. -Imperialles 11:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it was deleted already. Jonathunder 18:58, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deletion request withdrawn - SimonP 00:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

HK Golden Forum

[edit]

This forum is probably not notable. Thue | talk 06:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the rewrite I withdraw my vfd request - keep, seems to meet minimum requirements for notability and wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thue | talk 11:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept due to Vashti's unrebutted evidence of worthiness. - SimonP 00:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mars Bar party

[edit]

Patently non-encyclopedic, neologism. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 06:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 19:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hebron

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:40, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brothers from other mothers

[edit]

Vanity page, suggest deleting. Michael Geary 07:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood brought down John Kerry

[edit]

This article appears to be somebody's personal commentary - even if it were to be rewritten, I can't see any hope of it becoming a properly encyclopedic article. -- ChrisO 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 - kept - SimonP 00:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sister Theresia Unno

[edit]

Tagged for speedy with not reason given. Here's the current content: "Sister Theresia Unno is a Japanese nun who made a commitment to help the Japanese Mestizos living in poverty at Baguio, Philippines. She helped churches, houses to be built." I have the feeling she's notable in the history of Japanese immigrants to the Philippines [7], and vote keep, but your mileage may vary. Kappa 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sailor Toadstool

[edit]

I'm sorry, but this fails the Google test. Consequently, I doubt the existence of this character. Perhaps if there was a picture of this particular character available, I would not have submitted this article for deletion to begin with. Denelson83 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lindsey Marshall

[edit]

Vanity article. 青い(Aoi) 09:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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; article reverted to the point in its history where the notability is clear before a vandal overwrote it. --Neutralitytalk 04:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wilson Rawls

[edit]

Incomplete? Geneaology project? Doesn't appear notable. Gazpacho 10:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I reverted the article back to the point in its history where the notability is clear, before someone overwrote the stub data with an incomplete biography . Please check the earlier versions of articles in their histories before nominating them VfD. It certainly is still a stub, but it clearly belongs. --Unfocused 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally removed the VfD notice from the article. I'm putting it back.--Unfocused 18:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 19:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Altaa

[edit]

German slangdef nominated by User:Nebiros. Gazpacho 10:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. This word is more or less unknown in Germany. If any, it would be Alder. -- 84.176.194.61 11:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC) delete MarSch 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 1) it doesn't seem to be that common in German so it won't be used in English (and this is the English wikipedia); 2) this isn't a dictionary

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cerol

[edit]

A dictionary definition in Portuguese: not appropriate for an English encyclopedia. I also can't find its meaning in a Portuguese-English dictionary, which suggests that it may be some kind of dialect or slang. Sietse 11:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP 00:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Continuum calculator

[edit]

Appears to be primary research. No reliable resources are given, the text is far from being understandable. There is a VfD running at de.wikipedia. You might be advised to check for related articles of the same author. -- 84.176.194.61 11:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with 3 googlehits -MarSch 16:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link in the article shows that this is a German-language neologism promoted by a single author. Not notable until (if) if receives attention in the field of AI. (The article is also not comprehensible.) The author also inserted links to Continuum calculator from a bunch of other articles that should be removed. Another related article, Information continuum, should also be deleted. Quale 17:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can provide evidence that the idea was published in an scientific or technology journal.--JiFish 20:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, article has reference to publication in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal. Gazpacho 22:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Thought that was self-published. But my German is very poor. If someone can confirm that this a peer-reviewed journal, I will change my vote to merge with neural networks or weak keep.--JiFish 23:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a mistake to keep if the term has only been used in a single German language publication, even if peer reviewed. If no one else in the AI field finds the work interesting enough to cite, critique, or build on, then WP would be showing tremendous arrogance to decide that the idea is notable if it elicits a collective yawn from experts in the field. Quale 01:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone shows that this is more than speculative meanderings by a minor author. If Stanley Schmidt had written this, I might be interested. Kelly Martin 05:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. Utterly meaningless. Robinh 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - didn't find any other reference, style is poor. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to no vote. It still feels poorly written but perhaps expert should be asked in this case. There's link on pretty old source code and executable. The exe doesn't wipe out the disk if someone wants to try. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for an opinion on talk page of Artificial neural network. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article describes knowledge that has been published several years ago in a journal of the german Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. under the term Information Continuum. I must admit that it is very special knowledge and it is not interesting for everyone, quite as many other articles about specialized knowledge. I have added a link to the internet that allows you to download two example implementations and their source code files. This should proof evidence that the article describes working reality, not just a vague theory. Furthermore, I have replaced the image links by proper images. I know that my english is not perfect and I am willing to increase the comprehensibility. Please make your criticism about the comprehensibility more precise. -- Karsten88 15:01, 21 May 2005 (CEST)
  • Article has been substantially expanded by Karsten88 but still appears to be original research. There's little question that this was published in a journal, but my knowledge is deficient as to whether Informationstechnik und Technische Informatik is a peer reviewed journal (or whether the article in question was published as a peer-reviewed article or merely as an unreviewed "letter"), so I'm dropping my delete vote for now. Perhaps someone more literate in German than I can provide more information. Kelly Martin 14:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has been updated. I appreciate the effort and it's prettier, but I still cannot change my delete vote. Although the work was published in a single journal, there's still no evidence that any other AI researchers have given this theory the slightest bit of thought. There are hundreds of thousands of journal articles published each year. This WP article is essentially a vanity article solely for that single journal article which appears to be entirely insignificant. If WP goes down this path, expect articles for each of the tens of thousands of masters and PhD theses published each year. Sorry, it's a nice looking article, but still orginal research and non-notable. The bar for scientific theory has to be higher than a single publication of an obscure theory that appears to be ignored by experts in the field. It's a mistake to keep WP articles like this because they give the reader who is not familiar with the field an entirely distorted view of what's important. Quale 22:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Php-net, Phpnet

[edit]

Self promotion, not sure if notable since hard to Google. Orange Goblin 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 00:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dao (political)

[edit]

What has to be in that article is already in #China section of Circuit (political division), and #Provinces since the division of Korea section of Provinces of Korea. --Puzzlet Chung 13:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - made into a disambig page - SimonP 00:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Verity

[edit]

Dunno if this is a speedy candidate. It's at least a completly non-notable character. --Conti|✉ 13:44, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zohar Manna

[edit]

Vanity. While he seems to have written a few papers, there's nothing to indicate that he is anything beyond a computer instructor at Stanford. If he is, then this article is badly in need of expansion. As I see it, though, it just needs a delete. --Mitsukai 14:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Luis von Ahn

[edit]
Marsch linked this to another VfD but I think it should stand on its own --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass the average professor test, vanity and/or self-promotion. (nominated by User:MarSch, 17:52 UTC 15 May, 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Heilkunst

[edit]
  • RETAINI have studied medicine, including homeopathy, intensively for over 10 years in an effort to address my son's chronic ills related to Autism. This article clearly explains why the full understanding of Hahnemann's whole system of medicine, which includes Homeopathy, has the capacity to broaden our scope and imagination for true remediation and a reliable systematic cure. Hahnemann himself was also subject to the emotional plague reaction where the establishment attempted to suppress true knowledge. My son demands a better way. (AAMc)
User:64.230.76.156 first contribution.Geni 13:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this article is aboput homeopathy which we already have an article about.Geni 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain - This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information; it seems this author has provided information. Hahnemann called his major work "Organon Der Heilkunst". Therefore this needs to be a part of wikipedia, so that the information can be available to the readers of this encyclopedia.--Scottish lass 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
congratulations on your first edit to wikipedia.
  • Delete this ranting vanity. -MarSch 16:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd suggest merging with homeopathy but the author has already put most of this information there (replacing much of the original homeopathy article in the process). The author is apparently promoting an organization that he is associated with. [10]--Lee Hunter 16:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all comments above. --capnez 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author is definitely promoting an organization, of which he is head. That which is called "Heilkunst" in the English-language world is taught at his school and his school alone. Here's its website. --Homeoinsider 21:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN I have read this article, and it provides useful information that shows clearly that Heilkunst is not part of homeopathy, but rather the other way around - which is fascinating. I've studied homeopathy 27 years and practiced for 18, and this is food for thought. This fulfils the mission of an encyclopedia, I think, in providing factual information and references/resources for readers to do further research. homeowiki--Homeowiki 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain- for reasons set out in comments below - rudiverspoor
  • Please Do Not Delete This is not the same as homeopathy. Homeopathy is a part of the greater system of Heilkunst. Not the other way around. This has nothing to do with the argument about mainstreams acceptance of homeopathy or heilkunst. I appreciate having a definition. Heilkunst includes things like regimen eating the right food and homeopathy is about remedies. I found it informative and i wonder why more people do not know about it.[ marlasw1
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, Marlasw1! Because your only edits are to this page, I'm guessing that you're associated with Heilkunst and you already knew a lot about it. Most readers don't have that background, though. The article might survive if it's promptly re-written to show the nonspecialist that this subject is notable and that we need a separate article on Heilkunst. In its current form, the article is so jargon-laden and unencyclopedic that it's practically impenetrable to those of us who aren't steeped in homeopathic teachings. Another possibility would be to re-write it as an article about the Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst, if that institution can be shown to be notable -- although the article would still be obvious vanity (our term for an article authored by the subject or someone closely connected with the subject) and would attract some deletion votes on that ground. JamesMLane 01:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Btw German Wiki redirects this word to Medicine. Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I have been studying material related to Homeopathy for over 12 years, and this article is one of the most lucid and acurate pieces of research that I have seen. The material is "unbiased" in the true sense of being actually based on the facts of what was written in the historical texts in question, and not on any current political or social bias.[JKorent]--69.156.80.121 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • retain this article and stop the fear of traditional and other medicines place on humankind --64.230.7.162 01:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)mousie[reply]
  • RETAIN It seems to me that Wikipedia was created for everyone to share knowledge. Heilkunst and homeopathy are both worth some reading, which I have done. And I hope to continue doing in this wonderful medium. To remove an article for the presented reasons seems to me a simplistic solution. Let it be and evolve as most other topics have grown in Wikipedia. Certainly none of the calls for deletion have impressed me exceprt with the lack of courtesy and information - and I hope it is not the criteria on which Wikipedia bases such decisions. I for one, find heilkunst fascinating and a vast theme worth examining in more detail and I hope to be able to do so on this forum.(Z.Alex) (The foregoing was from User:24.114.164.108.)
  • Delete and watch for sockpuppets. All the keep votes above me are by users who have only edited the article in question, this vfD page, and Bioresonance. ESkog 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN. I have been studying and working with homeopathy for 10 years and after reading the article on Heilkunst have a better understanding of how Homeopathy fits into Hahnemann's greater system of healing. This gives me more alternatives to work with and as such is invaluable, it has increased my knowledge base, which after all is the function of an encyclopedia.--Thornton 09:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold textRETAIN. There is so much more to Samual Hahnemann's complete medical system - Heilkunst - of which homeopathy is only one part of it. Embrace the complete genius of Hahnemann and take it to a place beyond that which it is being kept at by some homeopaths who resist the change! Therefore Heilkunst should stand on its own in order for it to be recognized for what it is - a complete medical system including homeopathy, not the other way around. Congrats to those who boldly go beyond where anyone else has gone. I vote for keeping the lines clear between Heilkunst and Homeopathy and retaining this page. Sherlock. (The foregoing was from User:198.103.184.76.)
  • Delete and Kill the socks. Radiant_* 14:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Homeopathy and Heilkunst are not the same thing at all. There are only 2 things that I see that link them. The first being that they both claim Hahnemann as the father of their art. This is true. The second being that homeopathy uses remedies that are potentised and are chosen on the law of similars. This is true for heilkunst as well. That is where the similarities end. From what I understand, that is the extent of homeopathy, and heilkunst goes further into the lifestyle of the individual, as was detailed below. It seems to me that homeopathy and heilkunst can be compared to pharmacology and family medicine. One is a part of the other, but it is not the same. - S. Guttman (The foregoing was from User:70.81.98.6.)
  • Delete for self-promotion, pov fork, sockpuppetry, (and for making me use so much jargon). CDC (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just an attempt to write a POV article on homeopathy. A remarkable number of votes for retention coming from sockpuppets. Jooler 12:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]
  • An argument about mainstream medicine seems useless here. Mainstream changes constantly, so mainstream medicine is hardly mainstream. Homeopathy is a fact and it seems from what I understand that Heilkunst is also. I do not profess to be an expert, but the reasoning is sound based on my readings. -jowiley--Jowiley 00:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Lane has some amusing thoughts on homeopathy, which is part of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, where there are homeopathic hospitals, where it is a fully recognized medical option for many countries in Europe, and in India. No form of homeopathy is accepted by mainstream medicine? Guess again. The first practitioners of homeopathy 200+ years ago were medically-trained physicians, and many MDs (and DOs, RNs, FNPs and PAs) STILL include homeopathic medicine in their practice. Check the membership directory of the National Center for Homeopathy in the US, for example (www.homeopathic.org). The first medical association in the US was homeopathic, then the AMA was formed (a few years later). The first medical association in Canada was homeopathic, then the CMA was formed. Please check your facts before you comment on things about which you obviously know nothing. --Homeowiki 23:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indeed been tireless (is that a fault?), but in correcting factual errors, removing attacks that have little room in such an article, which does keep the basic idea that homeopathy is not accepted by mainstream medicine - point noted, let's move on. Everything that I have written I can document, with sources and quotes. I referred people to the website where much of this is done, but I can do it in more detail if anyone wants. As for Heilkkunst being taught in only one place, that is indeed a true, if sad commentary, which shows that Hahnemann's legacy, which goes way beyond just homeopathy, has effectively been ignored, misunderstood or maligned by his supposed followers. At the start of any new issue, there will not be widespread acceptance. If homeopathy had just come on the scene today, I'm sure it would receive the same reception, such as that "homeoapthy is not an English word." Well, many of the words in the English language were not English at some point, but from Latin, Greek, German, French, etc.

The fact is that the "homeopathy page" is about homeopathy and Heilkunst is about Hahnemann's complete medical system, part of which is homeopathy. To claim that homeopathy encompasses Hahnemann's complete system and genius is patently false and demonstrably so. (Again, I would be happy to provide the evidence to any who cares to take the time to read). This is documented in the texts I have cited by Hahnemann for anyone to read, which few people do, I have found. Heilkunst is Hahnemann's term, as is "homeopathy" and is legitimate as a topic for an encylopedia. The issue should now be focussed on the content. There is much yet to add to Heilkunst and while much is already distinct from the homeopathy page (some overlap, yes), it will be very different. - Rudiverspoor

  • This author has been tireless in attacking the Homeopathy article, to remove information (such as actual studies) that reflects badly on this quackery, and to re-insert his own idiosyncratic views. I might be amenable to having a separate article about "Heilkunst" if doing so would make it easier to preserve a genuine article on homeopathy. Of course, this separate article, if kept, would have to be suitably NPOV; it should state that no form of homeopathy is accepted by mainstream medicine, and that, even within homeopathy, "Heilkunst" is a small splinter practice (with an explanation of how it differs from other schools of homeopathic thought). JamesMLane 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chavmenian Rhapsody

[edit]

Oh dearie me! Advertising/spam, whatever. Part of a spam campaign by User:131.111.8.101 delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Cole likes to wank small boys, and play with their willies. --84.9.103.212 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pete Tyler

[edit]

Pure fancruft. A character who only appears in one episode of a long-running TV series. Miss Pippa 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - made into a disambig - SimonP 01:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Sackville

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. The article contains nothing about this man, only a list of some of his relatives. Gdr 17:08, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • disambiguate his grandson was an important Richard Sackville who was Member of Parliament [11], and there appears to be several Earl of Dorsets with the same name, so I suggest an initial change to a disambiguation page. It may turn out that the one mentioned was somehow notable, and if he is notable then his children are important, but I can't see anything. Dunc|☺ 17:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support replacement with disambiguation. Gdr 20:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rene Elizondo

[edit]

Someone who apparently is notable only for having been married to Janet Jackson. This title was once redirected to Janet Jackson but an anon user re-created it a few months ago. RussBlau 18:19, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nez

[edit]

Listed person either does not exist or has not done any of the claimed feats. There have never been any Grammy awards awarded to a person with that name. Also, the name of the listed person (Ebru Mercan) does not match the title of the page.

  • After removing the Wikipedia mirrors, there are only three Google sites with the name "Ebru Mercan", all in Turkish. She may be a famous Turkish singer, I don't know. There is an artist named "Nez", she has one album listed on allmusic and artistdirect, the album is also called Nez, released in 2003. She seems to be a Turkish rock singer. I would vote keep if all of the fantasy is deleted from the article. RickK 19:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not really up on pop - but I think I'd have heard of 'one of the most famous' stars in the world. There may be a real artist out there somewhere - but this isn't a description of her. Delete unless totally rewritten. --Doc Glasgow 22:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person does exist. See here for "Nez" on allmusic [12]. She is Turkish, and there was one article I found on Google about popular turkish musicians and it said Nez was like a "Turkish Shakira". Although the article may need to be given more factual accuracy and cleaned up. Stancel 22:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cleaned up the article and made it into a stub about the actual Nez. I'm having trouble finding info about her in English though. Stancel 23:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RickK, ty Stancel. Kappa 23:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. No biography on the allmusic.com site. An editor will have their work cut out trying to add anything else to this microstub. Megan1967 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to be honest, even after the clean up, the artist is so obscure, I see little point in keeping her on Wiki. You can't even buy her album on Amazon. Kel-nage 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Coleman

[edit]

This non-notable generates a number of google hits, some of which seem to be related to this "child star". Upon further inspection, however, none of these hits seem to establish notoriety. May some day deserve a wikipedia entry, but not this day. Tomer TALK 18:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's no doubt that he did appear in the television programme (a number of Web sites, such as [13], [14], and [15] attest to that). Even assuming that you're not really arguing that one has to be notorious to get into Wikipedia, but only notable, he seems to me to make it. The facts in the articles ar NPoV and accurate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Mel Etitis for the research. --Unfocused 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that Wikipedia was a catalog of non-notable child television starlets. That's what IMDB.com is for. As for my use of the word notoriety, I meant it in the sense of "famous", not "infamous". You'll notice if you go through the list of "former cast members" at [16], that most of them do not have Wikipedia articles. With the exception of those who are mentioned as relevant in the All That article, in fact, I would recommend that those that do have Wikipedis stubs (as they all are), be removed. Wikipedia is not a catalog for all knowledge past present and future. Sorry...I should have been more thorough in my criticism from the outset. Tomer TALK 20:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is a catlogue of tiny U.S. villages, of nondescript schools, of Pokemon characters(!) as well as characters and even fictional hardware from countless computer games and comic books, of roads, of individual power lines, of radio masts, of minor politicians of whom nobody but their constituents (and not even most of them) have heard, and so on and so on. I'd place this person above them all (speaking as one who has never seen or even heard of the programme, and who has no desire to do so). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes, many would like to see a lot of those get removed or put into another wiki. So, I'm not sure that using them as an example builds a case for keeping or builds a case to get a lot of stuff moved into other wikis. Personally I think it helps build the case for another wiki. Vegaswikian 22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, famous enough. Kappa 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete says nothing that is not said in the main article. If there is really enough about this person, and I doubt it, then expand the article, but unless this happens before the deadline I'm sticking with delete, not notable.--John 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and why encourage the pop-culture systeic bias? --Calton | Talk 04:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Bk0 04:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_* 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Governor of Columbus, GA

[edit]

Unverifiable. The Columbus government website makes no mention of a "governor." This seems to be someone's little fantasy. RussBlau 19:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, very few google hits for the phrase (34), many seem to be about the "Military Governor of Columbus". This was the best site I could find [17]-I think that says it all. I say delete as I don't think it exists.--John 21:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. --Carnildo 23:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity nonsense; damn, that picture is scary!. RickK 23:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Somehow I think that if such a unique office were to exist in reality then the city's official website would make note of it, which it does not seem to do. Rlquall 02:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. Incidentally I once knew a man who claimed to be the mayor of the portion of Portland, Oregon that was within seven feet of the ground, as well as being a soceror [sic]. DanielCristofani 11:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of the city's website turns up a single hit for "governor":
ELECTION AND REGISTRATION, BOARD OF:
This board was established for the purpose of carrying out the duties heretofore exercised by the Muscogee County Board of Elections and the Muscogee County Board of Registrars and which have the powers relating to the conduct of elections a primaries and the registration for voters and absentee balloting procedures that are provide for in the laws of Georgia. It has five members, consisting of one each from the two major political parties and three appointed by the Columbus Council. (Act No. 149 (H. B. 941) signed into law by the Governor on April 4, 1991) Its executive director is also appointed by the Columbus Council. [18]
To me, this is pretty clearly talking about the Governor of Georgia, who works out of Atlanta, not Columbus. Even if it were talking about the Governor of Columbus, I think it's pretty telling that such a supposèd personage has done nothing, at least worthy of mention on the City's website, in the past 14 years... Tomer TALK 03:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly enough, there does appear to really have been such a thing as "Governor of Columbus". Unfortunately for this article, he appears to have been a military governor, and that, of Columbus, Kentucky, and that, in the era of Reconstruction. No help for this article there... Tomer TALK 04:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bandwidth Throttling

[edit]

bad english, wrong category, simple view on something that isn't, wrong title, explanation wrong, nothing links to it. Biot 19:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Keep. It needs cleanup, not deletion. It is a valid topic for an article, it just needs improved slightly. Perhaps some stuff could be pulled from the main Internet page which would help to reduce its horrendous size --Cynical 19:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If there was some other article that linked to it or if the article got cleaned up and expanded, then I'd say keep it for sure. The article in its present form isn't worth keeping, but since it's on the wikipedia a year from now it'll probably be a featured article :) -Cookiemobsta

I just noticed that there's an article called "Bandwidth throttling" (note the difference in capitalization), which is actually quite good. I should have spotted this before VfD'ing this page, and just redirected it instead; it's the obvious thing to do. I've gone ahead and done it. Sorry about the mess. - Biot 08:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bo Bice Band (now redirecting to Sugar Money)

[edit]

Insignificant garage band formerly containing American Idol contestant Bo Bice—Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

11:11

[edit]

Not explanatory, pointless, no need in an encyclopedia.-72.20.132.7

Comment: User:72.20.132.7 put the VfD header on the page but never listed it on the VfD page. I am adding it here, this is not a vote. RickK 21:00, May 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 - deleted - SimonP 01:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zach Zarzycki

[edit]

Entry is a Wikipedia:Vanity_page and the author's IP address has only been involved in vandalism --Swift 21:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion page. EvilPhoenix 06:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 01:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

German military occupation of Norway during World War II

[edit]

This article was a result of a move from Nazi occupation of Norway, as well as apologist edits for the Nazi regime, e.g., that the invasion was a result of Allied aggression against vital supply of iron ore from Sweden to Germany.

The original article is correctly titled, for several reasons:

  • Although there haven't been other German occupations of Norway, labeling it "Nazi" makes it precise and less ambiguous
  • It was not only a military occupation - in addition to the role of Quisling's illegal regime, Terboven ran the civilian organizations that occupied Norway but had no control over the military forces there
  • In truth, not just Germans were involved in the occupation - there were Norwegian collaborators and Austrian troops
  • There is no reason to embellish the fact that this was a Nazi act of aggression. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the fact that the Nazi leadership was German, but the responsibility should be laid at the feet of the Nazis first and foremost. --Leifern 17:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
If there existed a "Nazi occupation", there must also exist a "Zionist occupation" or "Likud occupation" of Palestine, and a "neo-con occupation" or "republican occupation" of Iraq.
Concerning the Austrians, Norway was occupied by Germany as a state. Austria did not occupy Norway as Austria did not exist as souvereign state at the time in question, Austria was part of Germany. Also, military occupation is the correct term here. Consider checking what a military occupation actually is.
Please stop trying to drag the Jews and the issue of Palestine into this. RK
We have to use one standard for all countries. Thus contemporary American and Israeli occupations are relevant to the debate. Courage 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well include the Palestinian occupation of British territory, the British occupation of Turkish territory, the Turkish occupation of Crusader territory, the Crusader occupation of Muslim territory, the Islamic occupation of Roman territory, the Roman and Greek occupation of Israeli/ Jewish territory, and the Jewish occupation of Canaanite territory.... and on and on and on, back to when Homo erectus occupied the territory of whatever animal was king or queen of the Levant before his or her coming. It's ALL relevant, but it makes quite a bit of work to do. Besides, it's easier to refer to border changes and conquests than occupations, and, even then, "occupation" should refer to takeovers that are temporary. Much of Israel's "occupied" territory is under Israel's jurisdiction in a manner intended to be permanent or long-lasting; therefore, "colonizing" or "annexation" is really a better term. (Or Manifest Destiny. Or expansionism.) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Leifern 17:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RK 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ulflarsen 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the one reason that this is a carbon copy of the article Nazi occupation of Norway (done by User:83.109.191.208). There obviously seems to have been some POV fight back at the original article, and this need to be settled, but that is a seperate matter. Forking of a copy is not the way to do it. -- Egil 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and delete the article with Nazi in the title - during World War II the German Government was Nazi; but it was Germany as a soverign state occupying Norway not a Government party. We would not refer to the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq but rather accept that the US, UK, Australia and other countries are acting as sovereign powers. --AYArktos 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would argue that the Nazi regime in Germany was illegal in and of itself; please see point 3 above. Also, you surely can't mean that we should limit the meaning to a "military" occupation? --Leifern 22:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The German government "illegal"? LOL. If this is not POV, I don't know what else would be. Note that Leifern is a notorious pro-Israel POV pusher known for his right-extreme viewpoints from Norwegian websites.
The above is perhaps the purest usage of the ad hominem fallacy I have ever seen. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the anonymous "editor" who has instigated this sees a clear connection between the two topics, in the sense that it's "Jewish propaganda" (as he put it on my Talk page) that is the core problem. --Leifern 10:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Leifern, you are correct. We unfortunately have a number of people who attack those who are Jewish (or anyone who doesn't hate the State of Israel), and usse any debate as a pretext to use anti-Jewish polemics. I would think that this Judeao-obsessive anger is reason enough to disregard their views on any subject, including this one. RK
Antisemitism is a big problem - it's POV, and it is, essentially, a bunch of lies with a few embarrassing truths thrown into the mix (the truths being that Jews want their old homeland back, they have it, and they don't intend to go anywhere). — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who bears moral responsibility is not the issue - the fact is that Norway was occupied by the German military not simply the Nazi party --Doc Glasgow 23:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with AYArktos. Following the logic of those who prefer term: "Nazi Occupation", for consistency purpose, ALL of the occupations during the last 60-70 yrs. by Germany, Soviet Union, China, Japan, US, Israel, etc. should be renamed using the name of the political party in power at the time. --Ttyre 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV forks, and work out the proper name for the original article on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Leifern's explanation above. As he points out, the occupation was not just military, it was political. The analogy between Nazi/Germany and Bush/USA is faulty. However much a shmuck our president is, he was legitimately elected and complies iwth our constition about as well as most presidents. While the Nazi party was a political party, it was also a paramilitary organization; Hitler was legally named Chancelor, but no one seriously believes his government has any kind of legitimacy (one of the issues at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal). World War II was unique in many ways, because of the ideological and political dimensions of the conflict — it was not just another war, and Germany was definitly not just your typical occupying power. And, as Leifern points out, the occupation involved not just the self-interested kind of collaboration that always occurs, but politically motivated collaboration. "German military occupation" is history without politics. This is bad history, especially in this case. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use the 'Nazi' wording. It's a more obvious and more well known title.--Fangz 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above title, and allow the original article Nazi occupation of Norway to remain. For goodness sake has no-one heard of Vidkun Quisling, the original "Quisling" himself!? The Nazi party is fully responsible for ALL the activities of the Third Reich, including whatever the Wehrmacht did or did not do in Norway or elsewhere. Hitler and the Nazis were the supreme leaders of Germany from 1933-1945 and they bear full and complete responsibilty and guilt for all foreign and military actions, the army was following orders. IZAK 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sheesh - Can't say I'm that bothered over this - Nazi may be a more obvious title - and I certainly don't want to minimise Nazi guilt - but listen to yourself - is just 'following orders' now an escape from moral culpability?? --Doc Glasgow 23:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doc, note very carefully, I did not write "just 'following orders' ", what I did write was that the German army "was following orders" of the Nazi party, not as a judgment of its "morality", but as an aspect of how the occupation worked and how the system worked as a totality as a whole in Nazi Germany and beyond its borders: It was a clear "Pyramid" with Hitler at the top, the Nazi party below him, and below them came the army and then the rest of the German people and below them their foreign (Axis) allies and collaborators, all of whom share "moral" guilt, but this is not about guilt as such, this is about how the political system of Norway functioned at that time. IZAK 00:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK noted but you did say that the leadership bore 'complete responsibility' Doc Glasgow 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect. El_C 23:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be the result of a copy-and-paste move from Nazi occupation of Norway, so simply deleting the other copy is not an appropriate way to rename the article: it won't preserve the edit history. --Carnildo 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up the move properly. Sam Spade 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect. And yes, keep the Nazi occupation of Norway title. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article and the redirect. As long as one is a redirect to the other I just can't get all that worked up about the title. Either one works for me. — 130.76.32.16 15:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the above I can't get too worked up over Nazi or German - but I'm curious as to why this has been speedied - without a clear consensus? --Doc Glasgow 18:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the government of Germany was recruited from the Nazi party, but it was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway, but the German army, German government and German police forces. Also, to me the promotion of the term Nazi when speaking about the state of Germany seems like one of the ways to promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany. As such, I find it quite POV, when used outside of the purely political context. Halibutt 19:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves. After merge, create a redirect. Keep preferable to deletion if any information was to be lost. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDeirYassin 19:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Witkacy 20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create redirect Szopen 06:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete this and keep Nazi occupation of Norway; or vice versa. In this case, the longish current title should be shortened to German occupation of Norway (unless used metaphorically, an occupation is always military, and the only German occupation of Norway was in WWII, so there is no need to disambiguate in the title). Further, I suggest not to hype the supposed difference between the attributes "Nazi" and "German". The above objection that speaking of a "Nazi occupation" would necessitate to speak of "'Zionist occupation' or 'Likud occupation' of Palestine" or "a 'neo-con occupation' or 'republican occupation' of Iraq" by analogy does not hold water, neither does Halibutt's comment that it "was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway" - Halibutt, is it possible that you are reading too much stuff of this kind? ;-) The Nazis were not just another party that happened to be in power at the time, but a totalitarian regime which established a firm grip on German society. By the time WW II broke out, the German government, state apparatus and society at large had become largely synonymous with the Nazis. It is a commonly accepted practice to prefix the name of the country with the name of the totalitarian regime which controlled it (that is why we have a "Fascist Italy", a "Nazi Germany", a "Soviet Russia", but no "Republican United States" or "Likud Israel"), and to use the ideology's name as interchangeable with the name of the country proper. Thus, "Nazi occupation" and "German occupation" are equally correct. --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me. My oppinion is equally valid as yours, BTW. As to the Nazi being synonymous to Germany - not really. There is a strong belief in many of contemporary historians that the German army was not that Nazified - and it was the German army (not Nazi military units!) that carried over both the invasion and the occupation. Also, the civilian German authorities were not always Nazi. The Nazis were indeed a totalitarian regime, but it is the governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such. It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state? Of course, there is a common practice to add a prefix to the country's name in order to make it clear to which historical period we are referring. However, here the case is not about adding the prefix, but about replacing the whole name of the state with a name of one of the political factions. Also, as someone pointed out, there was only one German occupation of Norway, and there was only one German state at that time, so there's really no point in disambiguation. Halibutt
"Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me." I am pleased to hear that, no offence intended. :-) However, it seems that their opinion-forming power in Poland, even over those who try not not swallow their polarising line, is easily underestimated. Quite irrespective of that, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion that there are people who "promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany" - even if it is strikingly close to certain conspiracy theories emanating from Wprost's editorial office. However, those unnamed "people" seem to receive more attention in Poland than elsewhere, including Germany - the situation is similar as with the ominous Polish death camps, a term actually rarely heard outside Poland. I have a vague idea that this might be why you are reading more into the issue of "German" vs. "Nazi occupation" than there actually is (or should be, in my opinion). Note that I was not arguing for or against either attribute; my point is simply that the difference is not really as defining as you (and the author of this article) seem to think.
As for your comment on the German army - yes, ironically the German foreign service and military, milieus shaped by traditional, aristocratic conservatives, were a stronghold of anti-Nazi opposition. However, "stronghold" is a highly relative term here. In the end, the uppish generals executed the orders of the proletarian Nazi upstarts; and it should not be overlooked that every German soldier was obliged to swear an oath to Hitler as a person, not just as an incumbent of a constitutional office. The few officers who actively or passively opposed the regime, and attempted to assassinate Hitler as late as 1944, did so on their private initiative, not as representatives of the military or any constitutional body. The government consisted of Nazis, the army would not have started the war without receiving an order, and would certainly not have occupied Norway. In this light, your objection that it is "governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such" appears like a distinction without much difference. "It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state?" No, the army and the state were obviously not Nazis, as party membership was restricted to physical persons such as John Doe or Jane Smith. However, while not every single German John or Jane D. was a party member, the army and the state as a whole were executioners of Nazi policies. As for replacing "the name of the state with a name of one of the political factions" - I am sorry, but this statement does not reveal much historical competence. In Nazi Germany, the Nazi party was not simply "one of the political factions"; Germany was a one-party state, membership in many of the party's affiliated organisations (most notably the Hitler Youth) was compulsory. The party was not just one political faction - it was the only and defining political force from 1933 to 1945, and it was not governing within an existing state structure, but reshaped the state to fit its own ideology. It controlled each and every aspect of social life, leaving a degree of autonomy only to the two major churches. A key difference between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism was that the former saw itself as a kind of deus ex machina to preserve and strengthen the state, whereas the latter considered the "party" as the supreme incarnation of the general will. Although the Nazis never bothered to formally revoke the Weimar Constitution, it became waste-paper within weeks of Hitler's appointment as chancellor, and you will certainly not find any authority to refute that the Nazi state was an entity essentially different from the Weimar Republic. In the light of all this, there is really no compelling reason to replace the existing title "Nazi occupation" with "German occupation"; although, on the other hand, there is no compelling reason to keep the original title, either. --Thorsten1 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply incorrect that "the government consisted of Nazis". The government consisted of people from different political camps. The minister of finance was not a National Socialist, but a conservative which did not belong to any party. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the discussion. It is absurd to claim it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway, and no serious Norwegian historian would support this ridiculous claim. Courage 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you found a minister who was not a party member ? Eureka, the history of Nazi Germany needs to be rewritten! ;-) Not all ministers during the 12 years of Nazi rule were party members; in the very beginning, there were only three Nazis in the entire cabinet, and Hitler was hoped to be outmanoeuvered within months. As any history book will tell you, this did not help much. While the Nazis still had to be considerate of the conservative political establishment in the beginning, foreign minister von Neurath's replacement with Ribbentrop in 1938 marks the definite end of that period. The occupation of Norway occured afterwards. Apart from that, nobody claimed that "it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway". If you choose to read this "ridiculous claim" into the title "Nazi occupation", that is entirely your business. --Thorsten1 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on replacing Germany with Nazism, you are certainly making such a claim. Courage 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you would care to actually read my statements you might discover I never did that. Instead, I doubted the relevance of the distinction. --Thorsten1 20:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the German government was ruling power, most articles and references to that time in German history refer to Nazi rule and not German rule. Accurately or not, the Nazi regime is usually viewed as an aberation in German history, and thus should be distinct. In addition, the existance of non-German Nazi's is not included in the title "German Military Occupation." Mikeage 13:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should definitely only be one article, so the issue of the name needs to be resolved on the page. As far as the naming, I think it should either be German or more correctly Axis...but I am not knowledgeable enough about the naming conventions, and I do agree that whatever is the norm among historians should be continued. PhatJew
  • Delete either this one or the other one. I suspect a good title would be "German and Nazi Occupation of Norway during WWII" for the remaining page. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I would like to suggest "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany". Is that an option, or can I only say nay or yeah? gidonb 07:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this solution as one possible compromise (note my comment above, though). --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" is a title that covers the actual situation quite well, and so gives meaning and knowledge to the one reading about it. So I support that. Ulflarsen 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. Tuohirulla 12:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with that title. --Leifern 13:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good title. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great that my suggestion is being appreciated. So what can I do next? Just change the title? Suggest it here or elsewhere? I am terribly unexperienced at this. If somebody would like to take over from here that would be fine. Otherwise, I would like some directions what to do next. gidonb 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you get enough support for the new name, it can just be moved. Why don't you give it a couple of days so that other people have a chance to comment? Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets go for it. I would like to suggest the following title for this article:

Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

[edit]

Rationale

[edit]
  1. Nazi Germany is a well-known and unbiased name for the period that Germany was ruled by the dictator Adolf Hitler, also known as the Third Reich.
  2. Including Nazi Germany gives a similar temporal specificity as "during the Second World War" (WWII).
  3. It includes both the word Nazi and Germany, which each side demanded.
  4. The title combines the unbiasedness and specificity of both proposals.

I would appreciate if the participants to this discussion will consider my proposal. gidonb 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The country was not called "Nazi Germany". This awkward term is only used by some Germans who claim "Germany" had nothing to do with WWII. It is an ahistorical apologist title, which is completely inappropriate in formal uses. It suggests that the German government of the time was not actually the "real" German government. We shouldn't use this title for the same reason that we shouldn't use "Republican US", "Bush USA", or "Likud Israel". Courage 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that Nazi Germany never was the name of Germany. However, the names 'Third Reich' and 'Nazi Germany' are widely accepted names for the temporal phase of Germany (then officially Deutsche Reich) during which Hitler was its ruler. Nazi Germany is wider accepted in English, yet neither was an official name. In German the term Third Reich is more commonly used. See also the article Nazi Germany and its talk page. A hardly used term is the 'Thousand Year Reich'. To overcome the trap that someone may think that Nazi Germany was not Germany, I believe it is good practice to use the names interchangeably in the text of articles on this era (that is Germany for Nazi Germany; not the other way around). In the title, however, the specificity of Nazi Germany can add to a better identification of the article's content. I do not see what Israel or the US have to do with this issue. gidonb 21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Courage, I do not see a real point in discussing with you when you do obviously not even care to read your opponents' statements, and either ignore them or claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually say (see our exchange above).
Just for the record: The claims you are making above are totally out of line with what everyone else seems to think. Not only is Nazi Germany, as Gidonb has pointed out, a perfectly common name throughout the English-speaking world, the conventions of which we should follow here. To my knowledge, no one has ever implied that the Nazis were not "real" Germans or that the term "Nazi Germany" was apologetic. This remains your own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation.
As for "Likud Israel": Israel is a liberal democracy in which the Likud was elected to govern, based on parliamentary support and within the constraints of a coalition, for a constitutionally determined duration. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was a totalitarian state shaped by Nazi ideology. Not only were there no functioning democratic procedures to change the governement again or to articulate dissent; dissent itself was forbidden on pain of death. Similar can be said of the U.S. I repeatedly explained the difference; your consistent refusal to consider this gives me an idea that you are not really seeking to discuss the German occupation of Norway at all: Is it possible that you are really just looking for a venue to criticise Bush and Sharon? If so, rest assured that the title of this article is not the most effective choice. --Thorsten1 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

I AGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

[edit]
Actually, I think the insistence on German military occupation was intended to have the opposite effect: to depict a version of history that makes the occupation seem like a conventional, neighborly occupation that was justified by British aggression. The person who proposed this title accused me of "Jewish propaganda," though it isn't clear to me how religion enters into this discussion. --Leifern 18:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am always puzzled how people will relate anything to American, Jewish or Israeli people, organizations or features. Why not just discuss topics "as is"? This may be one of the very few points shared by the far left and right. gidonb 18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 by Moncrief (speedy delete due to consensus - utter nonsense, classifiable as speedy delete rather than vfd) --cesarb 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haley welby

[edit]

Aside from improper title capitalization, this looks like a vanity page. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 by Golbez (vanity) --cesarb 00:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda johnson

[edit]

Apparent vanity page related to Haley welby. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steakhousian

[edit]

This is a made-up word. Google returns no hits. While it might be useful to have an adjectival form of "steakhouse" in the English language, we don't currently have one and so this article does not reflect reality. Delete. Moncrief 22:10, May 16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD, vanity). Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Steinmetz

[edit]

apparent vanity page --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Main accomplishment seems to be authoring Harry Potter fancruft, which could result in millions of new entries if deemed encyclopedic, and being the niece of a purportedly-published author, which, even if true, would be grounds for articles on nieces of John Updike, Norman Mailer, Phillip Roth, etc., which could result in tens of thousands of equally non-encyclopedic entries. Rlquall 02:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 - kept - SimonP 01:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aztec Pyramids

[edit]

No links to this article, content looks as if it were slapped together in a couple of seconds. The external links might worth merging into another article. -- llywrch 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

4minutes33

[edit]

Bandity. Three Google hits (one of them a faceparty.com entry for one of their members), no entries at allmusic or artistdirect. RickK 23:24, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Barrington High School

[edit]

Current content is "Barrington High School is a high school in Barrington, Illinois." Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:51, May 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Air Middle School

[edit]

non-noteable school, little information, not encyclopedia material. Coolgamer 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - consensus - SimonP 01:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bel Air Middle School

[edit]

Not in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California—which possibly would make it notable—but in Bel Air, Maryland. Non-notable two-line middle school substub—delete. Neutralitytalk 22:59, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bellemoor School

[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 23:03, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bergen County Academies

[edit]

Absolutely no context. Establish notability before the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I live in Illinois and had never heard of this school, but checked on Google and quickly found:

  • Teams from Bergen County Academies took 8 of the top 12 spots in the 2003 Superbowl of High School Calculus, competing with 191 teams from around the U.S. In 2004, the school fielded 3 teams, all finishing in the top 10.
  • Nine students were listed as semi-finalists in 2005 U.S. Physics Teams (compared to 3 students from New Trier High School and 3 students from the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy which, by almost anyone's standards, are notable high schools)

Although I may be late to this argument since I know it has been a bone of contention in the past, I don't understand how wikipedians can find that every campaign in Dungeons & Dragons, every minor character in any Star Wars episode and every ship in the U.S. Navy merits an article but that high schools are "not notable." Although the guidelines for deletion say that a person who is the subject of a biographical article should have notability, I don't think that does or should extend to a high school, particularly one that obviously participates on an equal footing with schools that I know are among the very top tier in Illinois. I agree that there needs to be more work on this article, but at least there is some information here, which is more than can be said for a lot of stubs. But I don't think it is right to keep vfd'ing every article on a high school and putting the burden on the authors to establish notability. DS1953 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes, the author does have the burden to establish notability. Neutralitytalk 01:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how wikipedians can find that every campaign in Dungeons & Dragons, every minor character in any Star Wars episode and every ship in the U.S. Navy merits an article but that high schools are "not notable." I don't understand why I keep hearing this argument. I have yet to encounter a single Wikipedian who would vote to delete a high school article, but keep any of the examples you mention. android↔talk 03:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

68.160.115.2 15:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley Carroll School

[edit]

Private school of 800 students. Demonstrate notability or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:20, May 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 - redirected - SimonP 01:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Kearney Field

[edit]

This isn't even about a school. It's about a non-notable athletic field at a non-notable school. Delete with extreme prejudice. Neutralitytalk 23:25, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:42, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Quinn High School

[edit]

Content is "Bishop Quinn High School is a small, private Catholic high school in Northern California founded in 1997." Notability not established; delete. Neutralitytalk 23:28, May 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 - kept - SimonP 01:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brassall State Primary School

[edit]

Content is "Brassall State Primary School is one of the oldest primary schools in Queensland. First opened in 1894." Notability not established; demonstrate notability by the end of the five-day period or delete. Neutralitytalk 23:31, May 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 - kpet - SimonP 01:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Buffalo Grove High School

[edit]

Non-notable; delete. Neutralitytalk 23:35, May 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 speedy deleted by Neutrality (Trawswikied.) --cesarb 00:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trendwhore

[edit]

This is a dictionary entry that has since been transwikied. Unless it can be merged with fashions or trends or something like that, it should be deleted. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:45, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jinan Incident

[edit]

This page should be deleted. This page may infringe human rights, because this page is not based on a neutral position. China and Japan disagree about understanding of history between both countries, and Japan has been proposing China to hold debates on this historical problem.

(nominated by User:60.36.98.230). Grutness...wha?
See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gazpacho
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_16&oldid=1234127044"