Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2

This article was subsequently deleted (and protected against recreation) due to the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (closed by User:Mikkalai)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

For the prior VFD discussion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, now a redirect to this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica.

The decision was to delete basing on nonnotability. The page has been recreated without undeletion procedure. No new proof of notability is provided. Therefore the page is candidate for speedy deletion, and I am labelling it as such. mikka (t) 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- But this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. That page was recreated as a redirect. Perhaps that's the one you want to speedy? --Badlydrawnjeff 02:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - A trick with changing a single letter will not go. It is still a candidate for speedy. mikka (t) 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's your grudge mikkalai? Did ED write an article about you? It's your VfD, and then you put in on the speedy delete track? And in the meantime you keep editing it. I'm beginning to question the good faith of this nomination. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I put it on CSD according to the rules. I love this website. I love humour. I myself created an article about humor, which was under VfD, by the way (Russian joke). The real problem with rules is that one is very reluctant to follow them if it is against their likes. This is exaclty the case. I nice website, but sorry folks. 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is my habit to work on improving articles even if they are VfD. I even have a case I voted a page for deletion, then edited it ([1]), and this helped it to survive VfD, even though I was very insistent about its deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Muliebrity). (I am not bragging; I am writing this in hope to prove that I am impartial in the issues of deletion.) mikka (t) 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del. non-notable. original research. mikka (t) 00:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
moderate keep, wikicruft CAPS LOCK 00:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- no matter what cruft, it does not pass very basic criteria. mikka (t) 00:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Keep - assumes Wiki takes other websites as arty topics. When I checked this, someone had vandalized by inserting an attack as the bottom third of the arty. I moved that to talk. Fabartus 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a web guide. Alexa rank 249,325 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If this is kept, avoid self-references needs to be applied. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I hate to reference Google as Google isn't exactly an unbiased source, but if it's got a pagerank of 4/10, that means it's of interest to a significant number of people.
- Like many others, unsigned vote by Almafeta. Hedley 02:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Few Wikis matter and this one doesn't. Hedley 02:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep More notable than half a dozen other wikis that have pages on wikipedia. This page has been in a stable state for quite a while before being vandalized at a stretch today. I'd probably just go back and revert the whole thing. SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I noted on May 15 that Encyclopædia Dramatica had over a million page views. Since then, there have been another 200,000 page views. There seems enough public interest to merit inclusion. The Wikipedia self-reference is easy to remove if that's considered a problem. --Aussieintn 03:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the link to the Wikipedia article (Wikipedia:Avoid self references). It seems to me that the other mention of Wikipedia should stay because it is historical and explanatory, and would make sense in other contexts (e.g., a mirror, a fork or in print). --Aussieintn 12:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note:User's 9th edit, most of the other 8 are to the page in question.
Keep. Looks notable enough to warrant an article. 23skidoo 15:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If this is being deleted for whatever reason, I'm curious as to what level of notability it has to reach, given the ever-growing amount of articles and ever-rising Google rank. In my mind, even I couldn't really justify having it on WP 6 months ago, or even arguably 3. Now, though, I think it's reached a level of notability that is consistent with other arguable keeps. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- has source and verifiable. Flcelloguy 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still don't see where the supposed self-reference was. There never was a self-reference. There is a relationship between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Dramatica, so there's no way and no need not to make Wikipedia talk about itself in this case. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- [2]. Linking to a particular user of Wikipedia and using the "User:" syntax to refer to the user is a self-reference; it was there when I made my vote. Note that I did not use this as an argument for deletion, only as a suggestion for article improvement in the event of a consensus to keep. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - What's wrong with the self-reference? I don't care about the guideline about self-references. In this case, the guideline should not be applied, because it's important to mention User:Girlvinyl to show that there's a relationship between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Dramatica. After all, it's User:Girlvinyl who created the Encyclopedia Dramatica. The article should mention that the Encyclopedia Dramatica was, at least initially, created by the user to criticize Wikipedia as a result of flame wars in the talk pages. That's an important aspect about the Encyclopedia Dramatica that should not be left out, even if Wikipedia users don't like the criticism of their encyclopedia. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - Sure, Girlvinyl should be mentioned, but not Wikilinked or referred to as User:Girlvinyl. Ignore the guideline all you like, but "these references complicate forking and the use of Wikipedia articles by others" certainly applies here. A Wikipedia mirror will not necessarily have a User:Girlvinyl to link to. User space should never be linked to by article space. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      - Why should we care about sites that copy the Wikipedia articles? If those sites copy the article, and they don't have the User:Girlvinyl article, because they don't have a User: namespace, then that's the problem of those sites, but not the problem of Wikipedia users. In my opinion, the hyperlink to the User: namespace should also be added. I don't see why we should change that just because other sites copy the Wikipedia article. Those sites should just eliminate the hyperlink if they don't have a User: namespace. Besides, if those sites create forks from Wikipedia, it's their problem, and not a problem for us Wikipedia users. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        Then we should agree to disagree. I think it's a good guideline – mirroring Wikipedia is a Good Thing™ and it should be as painless as possible. If you feel that strongly about it, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 18:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        Hey, I like that "we should agree to disagree" oxymoron. If what you don't like is mentioning User:Girlvinyl as User:Girlvinyl, then we can just leave out the name of the namespace User: by adding a vertical bar after User:Girlvinyl, so that only Girlvinyl appears. It would look like this: Girlvinyl. I mean, if that's what you don't like about it.
        
        I don't see why removing the hyperlinks would be a "pain" to other Web sites that copy the pages. If they have computer programs that can copy Wikipedia articles en masse, then they could just as easily have a computer program that removes the broken User: hyperlinks automatically. It's their problem if they can't automate the process. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        The appropriate place to discuss this issue is at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references. 22:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If there are entries for Something Awful, Portal of Evil, and Fark, no reason why there shouldn't be one for ED. -hx 2/06/05 etc etc

Keep. I think it has become sufficiently notable. Masked Angel 19:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's 14th edit

I am totally baffled: now an internet thing may be judged notable with so small number of google hits? Also, how can it be anything but original research if no solid independent references are present? I have nothing against the site: I like jokes and humor very much, but people, isn't your judgement skewed here? mikka (t) 20:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what would it need to achieve to make you believe otherwise? What size Google rank? What kind of information? --Badlydrawnjeff 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It needs an information from an independent authoritative source. You cannot just open an arbitrary webpage, and write a wikipedia article to describe what you see there. Wikipedia in not catalog of websites. I can write a separate article about each linden tree along Unter den Linden. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources: the main reason is that wikipedia is not in the business of peer review and correctness of information in an article cannot be guaranteed by article's author: this proof is relayed to outside sources.. mikka (t) 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - So if I insert information from, say, places that reference ED, your opinion changes? --Badlydrawnjeff 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete on the same grounds as before. It's growing faster than I expected, but still not noteworthy enough for an article. 5000 Google hits for an "internet phenomenon" isn't much, and the Alexa rank is around 250,000. Come back in a few years. --Carnildo 21:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So how many Google hits are worthy enough for you? We've kept many other phenomenons with lower Google ranks, as you well know. --Badlydrawnjeff 02:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 5000? I get 8,940 using "encyclopediadramatica" and 6580 for two words, and even above 6000 using the Æ symbol. I essentially re-wrote the Unpedia (or whatever it is) article replacing Unpedia with ED. Putting Unpedia on VfD would be begging the point but it sure shows some bias towards "approved" wikipedia satires. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. So, how did this go from VFD to Speedy? hydnjo talk 22:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please read the top of this page. mikka (t) 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why they want to delete this article in the first place? It makes no sense to me. "Non-notability"? What kind of garbage is that? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOT and WP:VAIN. R adiant _* 11:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. — Phil Welch 23:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:59, June 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 02:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 02:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. — Insta ntnood 05:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nothing gives me a reason to change the previous vote. Vegaswikian 05:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. R adiant _* 11:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as before. Or speedy it even. —Xezbeth 11:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and rewrite, observing NPOV. We may not like it, but it is a part of our Internet community, and we as Wikipedians cannot ignore what we don't like Antares33712 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC).
- Who says we don't like it? But me liking my girlfriend is not a reason to write a wikipedia article about her. mikka (t) 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Is she as notable as ED? --Badlydrawnjeff 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Which ED?... Of course, she does not have a million views, but plenty, I assure you. mikka (t) 18:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Please, Wikipedia has a GNAA article. ED has way more relevancy. --Weev 22:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Disregarded. User's sole contribution. mikka (t) 22:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's debatable. Anyhoo, GNAA has been nominated four times, but (unfortunately, IMO) survived every time. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 22:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It doesn't hurt anything by being here, as long as it is a NPOV, I don't see why it can't stay. It's just an entry about another wiki. See Antares33712's comment above. How much space is it taking up on the server, is it enough to warrant it's deletion?--Azathar 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think it's probably just notable enough, as long as it's kept NPOV. Nightwatch 17:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, looks notable. Grue 12:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems popular enough but some things in the article should be removed because of NPOV

--Jats 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Appears notable Falphin 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Appears? Google search results for "encyclopedia dramatica" fit into a single screen. mikka (t) 02:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ping Pong Ball Theory

Looks like a clever vanity page. Not enough information to verify. Joke137 00:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Searches on google are mimimal - 25 hits, and most of them, except mirrors of Wikipedia itself, are not relevant to black holes. -- Natalinasmpf 01:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, theory makes no sense as well. Might have been writen by somebody with no grasp of how black holes function. humblefool ® 02:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and refer to peer review. I've skimmed this before, and someone should be able to destubify it.
- Vote by Almafeta. Hedley 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly vanity, possibly original research, doesn't matter anyway. Hedley 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep as Stub|Physics with a Clean since is a little terse, and so unclear. Author cites reference (Book) so an appropriate scientific lit. search should generate a corrobatory paper (or five) for easy article elaboration/expansion. This is exactly the kind of new sci-theory arty that meets notable status, since only cosmologists and theoretical physicists would otherwise become familiar with the general knowledge this effort attempts to sketch for those of us in the land of the blind (with scant cosmological accumen). This years wikistub could lead to next years top sci-fi story because someone saw such an arty. Wiki could do worse things! Fabartus 05:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be true if it weren't made-up. No Andrew W Ross has published a paper in particle or astrophysics since abstracts started being stored in the spires and ads databases, around fifteen years ago. I could only find one paper, unrelated and from 1984, with ping pong in the title. No luck finding the book on Amazon. Google scholar doesn't turn up a thing. Joke137 13:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. Wikipedia is not a repository for ideas or original research. It is an encyclopedia. --Xcali 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence this theory exists in earnest. Google only brings back content that references back to Wikipedia, so there's no established presence of it at all on the web. Ross has no books/articles for sale on Amazon, which would be atypical for an established physical sciences academic promoting a theory. A search of physics websites yielded two references to his name...one in association with a physics hoax affair called Sokal's Hoax and another in an online physics newsletter Virtual Physics. Both disparage Ross' academic competence (and we cannot be sure this is even the Andrew Ross being referenced in the article). Unless somebody can show a verifiable sources that this is legitimate, I'm afraid it appears to be bogus.Tobycat 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is garbage, folks. No journal citation given, and the phrase "black hole's quantum structure" used in this context is rank nonsense. -- Decumanus 06:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence. May as well take a look at Trip Ross while we're at it. Looks like vanity and by the same anon that did this one. hydnjo talk 15:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly hoax theory. Also probably vanity. Nestea 17:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 18:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 21:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. — Phil Welch 23:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverified and probably nonsense. --Etacar11 23:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)d
Delete - Tεx τ urε 18:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chap lap

Mon-notable derogatory neologism. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 00:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 01:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedily delete this as disruption of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 05:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - or move to bad jokes pages. Non-notable: Practice not widespread enough to be culturally significant, slang dicdef if anything; non-encylopedic and unprofessional tone. Fabartus 05:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
speedy --Xcali 06:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
speedy --Dvyost 07:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Jamyskis 10:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence. hydnjo talk 15:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete- non-verifiable. Flcelloguy 17:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:59, June 3, 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 23:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Edison high school now moved to Edison High School, Huntington Beach

School stub. Precedent that high schools need to start out as an article showing notability, no school stubs. CAPS LOCK 00:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ unless quickly expanded, btw. CAPS LOCK 00:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Change to Keep, established notability due to famouse graduates. 01:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)CAPS LOCK
Delete, google search doesn't reveal anything immediately noteworthy. --Barfooz (talk) 00:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Refer to WP:SCH and stob clogging VfD with pointless school nominations. Expand or merge school stubs, don't delete them. --BaronLarf 01:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- WP:SCH is not policy, and there is no indication that there is even a consensus of Wikipedia members who approve of it. Don't point to that page as if it were some proof of notability. RickK 22:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well it's true that you don't like it and it isn't policy, but it's being cited a lot, which I guess makes it a guideline. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - It's only a guideline because you put the guideline header on it, replacing the notpolicy header I put on it. Just citing it does not make it a guideline, nor is it a valid usage to cite it as a reason why a school should not be listed on VfD. Rick K 23:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - The more it's cited, the wider the support the guideline will have. If there's something in the guideline you think is inappropriate, let's work on it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - And how do those of us who oppose this "guideline" "uncite" it so that it is not used as a policy? Rick K 23:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - Sorry I can't make sense of that at all. What do you mean? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - And as to whether to list schools for deletion, well I should have thought that the manifest reluctance of Wikipedia to delete articles about schools would be deterrence enough, and that is all the guideline does, to reflect our collective experience on this issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - And all of us who stopped voting on schools because there was supposed to be a consensus, and all we got was this non-policy that the school inclusionists oppose a vote on? Rick K 23:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - You can always go back to WP:SCH and we'll thrash out any remaining differences. I don't think a vote is appropriate; even Neutrality gave up on that one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - I have stopped discussing it on WP:SCH because you are not using good faith in order to "trash out" anything, but are merely trying to ram your opinion down the throat of everybody else. I have refrained from voting on schools while this was being hashed out, but it appears there is no more hashing out to be done with people who's sole modus operandi is to demand that their opinion carry sway and claim they have consensus support although there is no such thing. Rick K 21:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I used WP:SCH to sum up my points instead of making my arguments for the 100th time, in an attempt to prevent this VfD for becoming the umpteenth battleground over schools. I'm not pointing to the page to prove notability; secondary schools are inherently notable, and should not need to prove their notability. Nowhere in my vote did I claim it was a policy. Cheers. --BaronLarf 04:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. DS1953 02:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair | Talk 02:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Disambig. There's also an Edison High School in Fresno, California,[3] which is ranked #329 on Newsweek's 2005 list of the Best High Schools in America. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:35, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Keep as is, now that it's been moved. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:34, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep although article title doesn't look right unless its "Edison High School". Hedley 02:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Disambig and Move to Edison High School (Huntington Beach, California). When will editors learn to be bold and merge? Disambig page in place, there is also a same name school in New Jersey. Vegaswikian 02:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, disambiguate and expand. —RaD Man (talk) 03:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep school articles. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep for reasons. --Un focused 03:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Edison High School (Huntington Beach, California). Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Delete. Is not encylopedia and will never be encylopedic. Neutrality^talk 04:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic part of the sum of all knowledge. Kappa 04:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - There must be 7,790,345,123.2 Edison High Schools in the United Kingdom, and that squared in the USA. Logic compels the name must then become a disambigulationpage at best. The humble one line article is OK, but is Wiki going to make an honest attempt to list every High School in the country in the spirit of fair play? If the answer to that is Yes, then save the hassles later, turn it into a disambigulation stub with a reference to this High School along the lines of naming rulers like Edison III High School of New Mexico (or whatever state that was). It will save time later, and set a precedent for handling the other 7,790,345,122+. Fabartus 05:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. There are precisely seven, not 7.7-billion, Edison high schools in the United States and each of them are notable in their own right. --Bahn Mi 00:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable School. User:GRider/Schoolwatch. Klonimus 05:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No vote but please refrain from nominating high schools for deletion unless you have a very good reason (e.g. it doesn't exist). All verified high schools will be kept, see Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes_for_deletion_archive. Also, remember that VfD is not meant to be emergency expansion of articles, even though it often is. Sjakkalle 07:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools. James F. (talk) 09:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I wish people would stop their vendetta against schools in Wikipedia. It was agreed that schools should no longer be nominated for VfD, let's keep to this. Jamyskis 10:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge||Keep per wikipedia:schools — RJH 16:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It "was agreed?" By whom? See Schoolwatch? That's dishonest. Significant and notable Burger Kings are proper topics, and so are significant and notable schools. Being a school only means that it is a functional box full of students. That is not sufficient, and I wish people would stop their hysterical and irrational screaming about the sin of deleting substubs with "school" in their title. A substub should go. A non-notable topic should go. A substub on a non-notable school should go. There's an end on't. Geogre 18:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Huntington Beach, California --TimPope 19:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the appropriate geographical article to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Deletionists vote merge, not inclusionists.Oliver Chettle 18:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please since it has been established these schools are notable Yuckfoo 21:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment cite! Vegaswikian 05:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 03:06, June 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 04:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or, at the very least, merge. – ugen64 04:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep What baronlarf said above, in short: WP:SCH. If you disagree let's talk in the talk section there, or even make your own wikiproject against schools. Also if you see a school is in need of keep votes please contact me, enough wasting time on trying to delete schools, I'd hoped this would be a resolved issue by now. --ShaunMacPherson 05:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No Account
Delete or (second choice) Redirect and Merge into Huntington Beach Union High School District or Huntington Beach, California until this runt grows up. BlankVerse ∅ 14:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to tackle CAPSLOCK's tactics here. He states as his justification: "Precedent that high schools need to start out as an article showing notability, no school stubs." To put it baldly, there is no such precedent--Wikipedia routinely refuses to delete stubs for quite normal high schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Rick K 21:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is no such "precedent". It is just a fabrication by deletionists attempting to get more school articles deleted. Oliver Chettle 18:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; what's next, grade schools? kindergartens? Bill 02:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions. --Centauri 08:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 17:28, 10 Jun 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 - should be merged into some other abortion page - SimonP 23:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Human life begins at conception

Article is a slogan, non-encyclopedic, and can be deleted as POV in accordance with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents DanP 00:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep; article is not a slogan, it is about a slogan and the meaning of the slogan. It is encyclopedic. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Pro-choice or wherever. mikka (t) 01:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as JarlaxleArtemis, but clean up
- The above vote was by me CAPS LOCK 01:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge as a subchapter of Pro-life. Alternately, at least change the title to Slogan: Human life begins at conception. (I see that alternate title is already a redirect.) 23skidoo 01:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge this and A woman's right to choose into an article on Abortion debate slogans. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep. If you click on the category "Political slogans" you'll find that there are already 35 slogans that are categorized. In that context, I would keep both this slogan and A woman's right to choose as separate articles, although BD2412's suggestion to merge them (and presumably leave the current articles as redirects) is not a bad second choice. DS1953 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per what BD2412 said -CunningLinguist 02:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't Merge Redirect to suggested arty on Abortion controversy slogans, or keep as is. (Otherwise searches won't find it; search engine scans titles, as those of us working historical battle revisions can easily demonstrate.) As an arty is professional, and presents both sides. Fabartus 05:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge implies redirect. So the googles will find it. Merge. R adiant _* 11:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as is, especially if we keep A woman's right to choose as is. Nateji77 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pro-life will provide context. Sjakkalle 07:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Abortion. Jamyskis 10:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Political slogan which is widespread enough to be notable. --Scimitar 14:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep — notable political/religious viewpoint/slogan. — RJH 16:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Revolución 16:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Are you folks imagining things? The article is inherently POV, and the title is a declarative statement. We would not have an article called History Is Bunk or Religion is the opiate of the masses or Pretending to extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing. The article simply cannot be kept under this title. A merge would be ok, but, let's face it, this vote is showing so many socks, so many people not paying attention to the policy, that I'm not in favor of anything that preserves this title as a redirect, as it will soon be recreated in all its gory. Geogre 18:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Et tu, Geogre? I hate the phrase "this article is inherently POV". Hate hate hate hate hate it. To see you use it is the last straw, really. You know what articles are inherently POV? None. Individual words can be POV, sure. "Horrible" cannot be used in any neutral context unless attributed. Individual phrases can be POV, absolutely. List of celebrities who suck would, if it lived up to its title, make for a POV article, so the title can reasonably be called POV. Heck, I'd give you that an article with that title would probably get POV content as well. But articles can be moved trivially, and are cleaned up in the POV department as a matter of standard operating procedure. The word inherently implies a finality that seems completely at odds with the wiki nature.
In general, merging a slogan article with the article that provides its context is certainly preferable to keeping it separate, as that invites misunderstanding. Technically, we should put quotes around phrases used as titles; I suppose we do not because it makes linking rather unintuitive, and makes for awkward titles. But rallying the delete votes with the appeal to fear that what has a POV title now must be eradicated lest it spawns more POV, going so far as to imply even a redirect will be beyond our capacities to manage: now that is what I call defeatist.
Oh, and opiate of the masses, eh? I give you, sir, opium of the people, which is admittedly not a declarative statement, a horrible excuse for an article, and not meant to bolster my argument—but just for completeness. JRM · Talk 23:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Et me, JRM. Let's put it this way: this title is a statement. It is a sentence, not a clipping, and not a slogan. It is a sentence frequently uttered by the Roman Catholic Church in its campaign against birth control and by the anti-abortion legality people in their arguments against allowing anyone to choose what they would not. It is not, though, a slogan that is a descriptor, like "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Including this title is to bear a POV statement, not a topic. That's why it has to go. The title itself is an expression of POV, and a highly controversial one. As for whether I think someone, somewhere might RC patrol only this article and never miss when it has been reverted to a proselytizing matter, I do not think that we should have to do so simply to avoid the agony of a move, merge, or deletion. Geogre 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I do not oppose a move or merge at all. The status as separate article isn't sacrosanct to me. A deletion is another matter, especially on grounds of what we should or should not be required to do. We aren't required to do anything; that's why it's a wiki. This sort of "minimal threshold" argument for what criteria articles should meet in order to not be judged "too burdensome to bear" will never leave the realm of personal opinion. And while I respect yours, I'm equally adamant in not applying such criteria. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibility the collective of Wikipedia editors can bear has not reached its maximum by far. JRM · Talk 16:05, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete!. Extremely POV!!! Rick K 19:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see a lot of socks here, but I have re-evaluated my decision, and agree that the title makes the article inherently POV. However I find the Extremely POV! statement by RickK interesting, given that he didn't see fit to put a similar statement on the article below, and the contents of either article are, respectfully, not terribly POV in either case. I also would like some verification of the sockpuppet charge, as I don't see any sockpuppets, and sockpuppets generally pop up to serve the purposes of radical users who have some personal affinity for the article. I don't see any of that here. --Scimitar 20:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article title will lead to an inherently POV article. --Carnildo 21:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pro-life. carmeld1 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. as suggested above. M412k 22:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. — Phil Welch 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, as per my long but I hope coherent rant above. JRM · Talk 23:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep. This is a notable political slogan, and the article has criticism in it. There is no POV. See [Better dead than red]].-LtNOWIS 03:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Morality and legality of abortion or Pro-life. It's already stated in both. --Idont Havaname 07:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with pro-life. No reason why the slogan deserves a separate article. Kaibabsquirrel 04:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Abortion debate slogans ~~~~ 16:55, 4 Jun 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, could be merged somewhere - SimonP 23:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

A woman's right to choose

Article is a slogan, non-encyclopedic, and can be deleted as POV in accordance with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents DanP 00:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article is about the slogan, not arguing in favour of it. Frjwoolley 01:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple meanings. mikka (t) 01:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Frjwoolley but Clean up CAPS LOCK 01:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge this and Human life begins at conception into an article on Abortion debate slogans. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep. If you click on the category "Political slogans" you'll find that there are already 35 slogans that are categorized. In that context, I would keep both this slogan and Human life begins at conception as separate articles, although BD2412's suggestion to merge them (and presumably leave the current articles as redirects) is not a bad second choice. DS1953 02:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nateji77 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per BDA, or at least rename; this is not an encyclopedic title. R adiant _* 10:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Abortion, if the more fanatical elements of the pro-life movement aren't going to decide to vandalise it. Jamyskis 10:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Political slogan which is widespread enough to be notable. --Scimitar 14:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep — page is at least as notable as the "Right to life" political slogan page. — RJH 16:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would support a merge of both this and Right to life into Abortion, except that #1: this is not a declarative statement, but rather a principle invoked by one side of a debate, #2: this can be about the development of this thought. If the article were titled A woman has a right to choose, I'd agree with the nominator and vote to delete, but it isn't; therefore, keep. Geogre 18:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 19:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV, per the reasons cited in the Life Begins at Conception VfD. The title carries a strong emotional connotation, and cannot be anything but POV. In my opinion, this is regardless of whether the article is declarative or not, as is also the case at the previously cited VfD. --Scimitar 20:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pro Choice, a strategy consistent with that of merging the "life begins at conception" article into Right to Life carmeld1 22:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. — Phil Welch 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, and not POV. POV, inflammatory topics can be depicted fairly in encyclopedias.-LtNOWIS 03:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Morality and legality of abortion or Pro-choice. It's already stated in both. --Idont Havaname 07:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as disambiguation It is about a slogan but most of the content belongs in other topics, which can be pointed to from this one. --Douglas 21:46, 3 Jun 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 23:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

56 Blows

I have a hard time converting this into a well-written Wikipedia article. Delete if none of you can within a week. Georgia guy 00:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Speedy, nonsense!—User:CAPS LOCK
Delete; It's utter nonsense. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, it can't be converted into a well-written article because it doesn't make any sense in the first place. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. Below is the content (removed, cince the page restored by another guy), if someone disagrees with deletion, I am happy to restore. But now the page occupies the place of a real 56 blows. mikka (t) 01:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedily restored and redirected to Contemporary music. A little Googling for "John Cage" "56 Blows" gets 38 Google hits, of which at least two are notable, and he is mentioned in this article. Denni☯ 01:15, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Better redirect to Contemporary classical music, where it is at least mentioned. And it has only tangential relation to John Cage. mikka (t) 01:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The 56 blows entry is a complete joke. Simply delete it. I say the person who wrote it was high because it wasn't even John Cage who wrote 56 Blows.
Delete I first thought it was a HS attempt at a book... but the arty has no consistancy. I almost catagorized as Nonsense, but I'm too new. Someone with more experience needs to weild a non-Damocles' Sword on this. Fabartus 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless rewritten. --Scimitar 14:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I thought I knew John Cage's music pretty well, but this is no more than a hallucination. If there is something from Cage's canon that I don't know about that bears this title, this article sure as shootin' doesn't tell us about it. No rewrite preserving this history. Delete it and start again, if there is anything valid to say. Geogre 19:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 21:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete again. — Phil Welch 23:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 03:07, June 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Satanic Reds Social Realists

Non-notable, nonsense, Wikipedia is Not a Cult (Cabal or otherwise). User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 00:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expand CAPS LOCK 00:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is either utter nonsense, or really need rewriting. Frjwoolley 01:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete.nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 01:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any secret society with a geocities page is one that we don't have to worry about deleting. humblefool ® 02:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense/hoax, also this page is very similar to another page on VfD: Dark Doctrine Satanism -CunningLinguist 03:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like someone is hoping to build a mailing list getting us to follow links. Badly written nonsense if other motive. Cert. non-encyc. Fabartus 06:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Rick K 19:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and bury in the desert - Tεx τ urε 18:18, 8 Jun 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, could be merged - SimonP 23:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Canon XL-2

Advertising Alabamaboy 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clean up Advertising but I think the camera does deserve an entry. CAPS LOCK 00:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe we can single out this article for deletion because of the precedents that we've set with other articles. See Canon PowerShot A75, for example. That being said, I'd like to delete a good number of these product entries. Number one, most are hardly notable, and number two, almost all of the products we list are gadget/technology-oriented. I don't think Wikipedia needs to become a shopping mall, but without deleting all the rest of the cruft, what can we do? Weakest of keeps --Barfooz (talk) 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason not to have an article here, as long as it is NPOV and not a sales pitch. After all, a Honda Prelude is nothing more than a product to be bought and sold. --Un focused 03:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comment sorry guys, didn't mean this to be advertising.--Madkayaker 03:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable, important topic to camera users. Kappa 06:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable camera. Klonimus 06:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. I can't imagine a company as huge as Canon Inc. spamming on here. Sounds like fancruft, but a lot of this could be salvaged to turn it into a nice, clean, NPOV article. Jamyskis 11:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Invalid anon user vote. Too advertising-y now, but can be salvaged. After all, we have an article on the Texas Instruments TI-30.
- This user just created the above article he references. (one of only three edits) - Tεx τ urε 20:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 20:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into one article for each series of cameras. Vegaswikian 05:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge sounds good. R adiant _* 11:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup or merge. Either would be appropriate. Kel-nage 11:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge by line/series (IE start with Canon products--if that gets too big, Canon printers and Canon cameras--if that gets too big, then Canon SureShot cameras and Canons PowerShot cameras, and so on...). Having separate articles for each camera model number is like having separate articles for 1998 Honda Prelude with 250hp 6-cyl. engine with 4-speed automatic transmission, 2001 Honda Prelude with 180hp 4-cyl. engine with 5-speed manual transmission, etc. 24.19.145.84 04:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) (User:Niteowlneils, still not logged in)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Space mixing theory

The reference at the bottom of the page promises to lead to a journal site. If so then it is an odd journal: it has only one article. A legitimate journal that publishes an article which lays out the principles of "space mixing theory" would hardly be called the "journal of space mixing theory": a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. The article is not published in any known journal, nor does it have any citations. It should be classed as an intellectual vanity page. Bambaiah 10:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; completing nomination. --cesarb 00:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of this article, and I'm suspicious, but I'm not so sure it is delete material. The journal exists (has an ISSN) and has two articles, not one [4]. The editor is in the physics department at Purdue [5] but what he does there I don't know and it is suspicious that his article does not give a Purdue affilliation. I believe this is "alternative physics". Ahah, we already mention the subject at Anti-gravity. Should be clarified but kept. --Zero 13:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that he is a grad student, but it's strange that he doesn't have his own web site with links to this paper. michael 03:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment that reference in Anti-gravity is no coincidence. That reference was added the same day that the Space mixing theory article was written...by the same contributor. The fact that there is a reference made in Anti-gravity unfortunately cannot tell us anything about the veracity of the topic.Tobycat 06:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is original research. For something like this, there should be a number of articles on this topic in places like arxiv.org or citeseer, and/or there should be articles on this topic published in peer-reviewed philosophy journals. Wikipedia articles should be on topics that lots of people are talking about, and not as a means of promoting one individuals new research. (However, I do envision the day when WP could open doors to orig. research; however, the number of basic physics/math pages would need to be 50x detailed than they are today. WP does not yet adequately cover basic topics). linas 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I get about 800 google hits for "space mixing" and 1130 for "space mixing theory" [6], so this seems to be significant enough for an article here. --MarSch 16:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
rewrite into something coherent. Right now the article is gibberish, but there is a published model known as "space mixing theory" out there, which is notable enough to be in Wikipedia if I'm remembering which one it is correctly. I may take a stab at this in my copious free time if the article survives VfD. --Christopher Thomas 19:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why wait until after VFD? Editors are encouraged to edit articles, with only a few restrictions for technical reasons, to improve them whilst VFD discussions are in progress. You have the opportunity to get 4 "original research" and 1 "unverifiable nonsense" votes struck through here. Uncle G 16:50, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  - Because if the VfD passes, it saves me the trouble of having to wrap my mind around yet another pseudoscientific pet theory, and of searching out valid external references. If I thought it was likely I'd find them, I'd do it, but it's not looking like much turned up when other users searched. --Christopher Thomas 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep it passes the alltheweb test. CAPS LOCK 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete Unverifiable. Original research. Online journal as a reference is laughable. mikka (t) 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I looked at the hits on both the Google and the Yahoo search engines and they all seem to be either related to this very article in Wikipedia or to an apparent press release sent out about the site in the external link. With one except: there is a link to the site at Zeal.com contributed by an editor "tom_m". It is just a coincidence that the eidtor of the journal is Tom Matz? I don't know but this doesn't seem to have much support out there. DS1953 02:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete Original research/hoax. I can't find any independent mention of this online (google only yields references to author's website and wikipedia mirrors). Article doesn't make sense; the paper itself looks like a hoax (full of "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" type statements). michael 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. More non-notable crankery. Quale 04:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as woowoocruft. (Nonverifiable vanity nonsense.) DreamGuy 05:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is heavy philosophical topic, well written, and couched a tad too professionally leading easily leading to some of the above conculions to delete w/o a careful read. Needs clean in a sense needs dumbed down some for a popular article which action should also result in an expansion into a better length. Fabartus 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete it seems that this is a theory subcribed to by a handful of people at best. Most of the google results seem to be directories/listings of protosciences to which anyone could add anything. If its rewritten and widespread acceptance is verified, I could be persuaded to change my vote. --Xcali 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Just because the word theory is in the title doesn't make it real science. In the absence of peer-reviewed academic journals, I don't see how this can be anything but original research.Tobycat 06:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Crackpottery. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional delete. The article makes sense, but my only problem is the 'original research' one. So, if someone can add a reference from any kind of respected scientific journal (and not one specifically about space-mixing), my vote will change to keep. --Scimitar 14:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Elaborate and amusing, but ultimately non-notable original research. –Joke137 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that many of you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be true, respectable, or good science to be included. We have articles about flat-earthers, perpetual motion machines, and all sort of crackpot things. You have to apply accepted deletion standards, not scientific standards. --Zero 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that many of us are not missing the point. WP isn't a collection of every crackpot "theory", and WP has no duty to help promote obscure nonsense. Notable crankery is encyclopedic just as nearly any notable subject is, but non-notable crankery should be squashed. Original research + non-notable crankery + vanity = not encyclopedic. Quale 19:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - My understanding was that it wasn't quite either of these. If the crackpottery in question is Notable, then it's significant enough to be catalogued (in an appropriately short, encyclopedic, and NPOV article). If someone could reasonably be expected to come to Wikipedia asking what "space mixing theory" is, then keep it. If it's obscure enough that nobody would bother, then I don't see why it would be included. This was one of the main points of contention for harmonics theory (now on its second VfD, after I'd thought I could take a break from the drama involved). Of course, both of the viewpoints expressed here came up there too. --Christopher Thomas 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I think I understand where you're coming from, although I don't completely agree. Suppose for a moment, that there is only a single source for a particular crank theory. This may be the case with Space Mixing Theory as the Space Mixing Journal seems to be the only source, and there seems to be only a single proponent (thus the charge of vanity). There's nothing that WP can add to simply reporting what that single source says or else it automatically becomes original research. I know you are knowledgable enough to apply accepted physics to a crank theory and point out some of the problems. But unless you have an external reference that does this debunking, you simply can't do this without falling into original research. In the case of Space Mixing, I have no idea why anyone would come to WP hoping to find out about this as The Space Mixing Journal is the sum total of the world knowledge in this "field". Unless there are other references to this crankery, WP simply can't add to what the Space Mixing Journal says in any way without doing original research. As far as I see it, this leaves two options. Parrot the nonsense proposed by the cranks, or just ignore it as non-notable crankery as does all of the physics community and almost all of the rest of the world. Notable crackpottery should be reported in WP, but since it's notable, there will be more to say about it than simply echoing the crackpot's nonsense. I hope this makes my views on deleting this and other non-notable crackpottery more clear even if we don't agree on these points. I do appreciate your efforts trying to reduce the amount of pseudo-scientific nonsense in WP. The crank articles created by others that you edit/rewrite aiming for NPOV are much improved by your hard work. Quale 02:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - I feel that in the type of case you object to (if I understand your viewpoint correctly), it would be straightforward enough to delete such articles based on their being non-notable. If a crackpot theory has created enough of a stir to be notable, then arguments for and against will have been made by many people. Not necessarily in reviewed journals, but in enough places that a NPOV article shouldn't count as "original work". For HT, the rebutting material can be found quite readily, mostly in the form of factual articles or texts on the relevant topics (ask on the HT VfD page or talk page for a list, as it's off-topic here). --Christopher Thomas 04:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Under the heading of "Physics" this is original research by far margin, compare scholar.google.com, the pre-print servers, or citebase. It may have minor but signifant followship in philosophy, as this area isn't so easy to decide using online sources, but the author should be required to demonstrate this in the article. It's not the reader's task to proof verifiability and relevance. Delete unless reworded and verified as philosophical topic. --Pjacobi 21:22, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Leave a note on my talk page if this turns out to be anything more than original research. — Phil Welch 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original reserch - Tεx τ urε 18:17, 8 Jun 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 irrelavent, the article was speedy deleted by Ugen64. bainer (talk) 01:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Balina

Unitelligable, looks like it was written by a child Tydaj 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SuperGigaMegaUltraStrong Speedy, patent nonsense. CAPS LOCK 01:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Pogo

Not notable. Basically just a fantasy. Delete. JeremyA 01:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Micronations are kind of interesting but they aren't inherently notable CAPS LOCK 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep As they say in Poganese, "Judge otras as tu want ellos to treat tu". Mjvan12Uswer 01:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's 6th edit. Rick K 19:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete micronation fantasy/hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all micronations. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Areas seeking legitimate succession are of interest, even if only to those in the area. Almafeta 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There's no indication that this "nation" is actually seeking secession, or that it is anything but a fantasy or a hoax. "nation of pogo", "pogo independence party", and the latter's misspelled variant yield no Google hits. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At least pretend that the main method of transport is the pogo stick. Hedley 02:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is still something that will help our archives. The name shouldn't matter. georgeh78 3:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above user's only contributions are to this VfD. 03:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)CAPS LOCK
- Err, come again? AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sealand is notable. This is not. WhereTF is it? SchmuckyTheCat 03:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can make out from the article, it is by a river in the USA. Given the US has a large number of rivers, this doesn't really narrow it down that much! Thryduulf 16:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Before User:Mjvan12 (see above) rewrote it, the article said it's in Oswego, Illinois. Rick K 19:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - No one has given any proof that this even exists. --Barfooz (talk) 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It only exists in some guy's mind. --Xcali 06:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable micronation. Sjakkalle 07:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic. They didn't even bother saying where it is. --bainer (talk) 09:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Declaring your bedroom an independent nation is not notable to an encyclopedia, although it might be to your psychiatrist. Average Earthman 10:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. John Cross 14:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Thryduulf 16:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all micronations, especially those whose sole purpose is to try to make their nonnotable conlang notable. Rick K 19:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not all micronations, just most of them, and certainly this one. If Google hasn't heard of it, it's got to go. We aren't a secessionist web host. --Idont Havaname 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be notable enough if it recieved 203 votes in the US presidental election. You 21:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- This "fact" has not been verified. One would expect "pogo independence party" to yield at least a few Google hits if it were true. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It did not appear on any state's ballot. [7] --Metropolitan90 01:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- And how did it manage to return 203 votes when "it has a population that rarely exceeds seven"? --Douglas 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. — Phil Welch 23:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete definitely not notable. --Etacar11 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I have voted for micronations in the past but this one is not sufficiently notable. Umm... is it at all notable? - Tεx τ urε 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to the funny farm page I can't recall what that page is called but since this is clearly a hoax page with some literary merit, it belongs on the joke archive. --Douglas 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Thryduulf 22:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense and move to BJAODN. Aecis 22:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Wetman 23:37, 10 Jun 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 23:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Satanism

Non-notable neologism. What isn't covered by Satanism? User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 01:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Satanism 01:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)CAPS LOCK
Merge drini ☎ 01:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I merged this article with Satanism User:Admiral Roo
Completely and utterly erase FredrikM 19:18, 13 Jun 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 23:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Poetree

Non-notable. Google search (5th result) [8] --Barfooz (talk) 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect -- to poetry. Possible mispelling. - Longhair | Talk 01:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we redirect an uncommon misspelling? There are 6,844 times more results for "poetry" on Google than "poetree" and we shouldn't make redirects for misspellings at all in my opinion --Barfooz (talk) 04:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Would you suggest we redirect every possible misspelling of everything, Longhair? --Xcali 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Probable or common misspellings have been acceptable redirects for a very long time. That said, my vote is to delete this highly unlikely spelling. Denni ☯ 00:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. No redirect. --bainer (talk) 09:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. — Phil Welch 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no redirect - Tεx τ urε 18:09, 8 Jun 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 23:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

2008 Republican National Convention

For the parallel VFD discussion of 2008 Democratic National Convention, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Democratic National Convention.

Future event and opinion Alabamaboy 01:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

((Keep))It will be an increasingly useful page as time goes on and events become clearer. It will increase participation in Wikipedia and lead to enhanced production of other articles as their need becomes apparent.User:Zulitz/Zulitiz 21:38, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unless you somehow know that the convention will not occur as planned. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:24, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Ah, but are you certain it will occur as planned? ;-) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In its current form, the entire article is speculation, and is not even about the convention but about possible candidates fielded by the GOP for the election. I'd consider changing my vote if the article is rewritten to include verifiable facts about the planning of the convention, but there's not much to say about it. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge for the reasons stated by Android at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Democratic National Convention. And keep out the speculation. DS1953 02:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, so details as they come out can be put onto the page, instead of the page continuing to come up for a VfD as the page is re-created but with New Detail X added. Almafeta 04:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not a crystall ball. It's way too far out to be considering this. How about we let the USA get through the 2006 election first? --Xcali 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This ardent Democrat notes that political conventions are given examples of exceptions to crystal ball policy. This important, certain future event is already being discussed, and discussion will not abate. Xoloz 06:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculative content diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia because it is opinion and conjecture rather than fact-based. Without facts, POV inherently becomes a problem. Tobycat 06:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, political conventions are generally excepted from the rule, but there is nothing in this article that is not either pure speculation or completely irrelavent. --bainer (talk) 08:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as crystal ball article. Jamyskis 11:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but Add Stub+Sub-Catagories with an attention or clean. For example,I'm sure the RNC knows where the convention is scheduled - that sort of housekeeping is usually part of the previous national convention backroom deal making.Fabartus 14:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- this is a scheduled event that is (highly) prominent. However, propose adding {{cleanup}} and make it more encyclopedic. Flcelloguy 17:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speculation. Rick K 19:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all crystal ball articles. This convention will only occur if the party in power does not criminalize the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't bet on it. Geogre 19:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I disagree. They'll still keep the Dems around to maintain the illusion of democracy. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:08, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 21:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article speaks for itself. Come back when you have actual information. — Phil Welch 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I suspect there is a process for selecting a host city plus a process for electing delegates which is verifiable now. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete but restart later. Again, although there will be a convention, there is no information at this time about the 2008 RNC; it is too early, we don't know the speakers, the venue or city. I am a Democrat and although there are rumors and preparations about certain candidates, I believe it is inappropriate to write a page for a nominating convention when there are no candidates. Plus, it is too early to write a page this early anyway and the current page appears to be uncited speculation (though well-intentioned) like the 2012 election page. I recommend this page be restarted from scratch in the future (say, after the 2006 midterms) after we have more info and I am open to compromise. --Blue387 08:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think that this article should stay provided people are warned that the content is about predicted/ scheduled future events are therefore speculative. I intend to create Template:Future for this purpose, this could work in much the same way as Template:Current John Cross 16:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote on the parallel VFD discussion, completely rewrite this article, similar to the first version of Super Bowl XLIV [9]. We know that the event will occur in Aug 2008, thus the Crystal Ball rule should allow this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with Zzyzx11, the article should be rewritten in that style. Falphin 21:31, 5 Jun 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 23:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Ramon

Speedied twice, but should be here (unfortunately). Denni ☯ 01:32, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Delete. Yeah, I guess it should be here (the second reincarnation had just enough context), but the outcome is inevitable. Obvious vanity, and all the more reason to expand the speedy criteria to include such articles. (Incidentally, Denni, I'm not sure how your nomination jives with your comment on the author's talk page. You may want to clarify.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, Android. My advice to Datapencil was in error. Denni ☯ 00:40, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Userfy if possible, otherwise delete --Xcali 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wiki is not an www.Name_directory. Non-notable. Fabartus 06:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, vanity, etc.... Tobycat 06:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity -- JamesTeterenko 17:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would normally have speedy userfied this, but he already has a User page, so I vote delete. Rick K 19:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Userfiy. This belongs on a userpage. You 21:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy --Etacar11 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have Speedy Deleted this as a user test. User has a user page and this was an obvious test. - Tεx τ urε 18:23, 8 Jun 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

Backward baseball

No notability outside of the kids who invented it. Denni ☯ 01:42, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

We play it in worcester massachusetts. Also this article has relevance as it provides information on how to play an american childhood game that has become very popular in massachusetts among baseball players.
- Added by User:65.96.4.208. humblefool ® 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I grew up around Worcester, I've never heard of this. Delete. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, nope, delete. humblefool ® 02:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Google for ""backward baseball" yields mostly references to wearing one's cap backwards. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable.--The Grza 02:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable -CunningLinguist 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry, it's really not encyclopedic. It could concievably get a mention in Sandlot ball, if we had a list of baseball variations, etc., but it doesn't merit its own article. func (talk) 03:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete because ambidextrous players have too much of an advantage. No seriously, not notable. --Un focused 03:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I was disappointed this wasn't going to be about Australian rules baseball (batter runs to third base after hitting the ball).--Decumanus 05:25, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete Non notable game. Interesting concept though. Sjakkalle 07:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless it becomes famous and played on a state level at least. Right now, it's promotion/vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the lack of nobility. Nestea 17:08, 2 Jun 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 23:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

David N. Snyder, Ph.D.

8 Google hits for "David N. Snider" buddhist. Fairly much non-notable. Denni ☯ 01:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Note: David Snyder, Ph.D. is also up for deletion. - Nat Kraus e 19:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"David N. Synder" doesn't have much more luck (about 23, mainly genaology sites). Delete. Hedley 02:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn --Xcali 05:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep As an unpublished author, I'm loath to chop such an arty. No dog in this hunt.Fabartus 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, "David N. Snyder" gets 40, and quite a few of them are about this guy. Still though, not notable, delete. --platypeanArchcow 06:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and most authors who use 'Ph.D.' in their title haven't got a doctorate from a recognised university anyway. Average Earthman 10:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unpublished and therefore not notable author. Anyone can write a book and distribute it. Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above CDC (talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Unpublished is only the start of it. 99% of published authors are not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, and pretty much all of them (if that's all they are) are. Encyclopedias are not the phone book, not even Amazon.com. Geogre 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE. At this point, all "delete" votes were removed by 24.127.147.7. --Carnildo 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 23:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep The comments made above for deletion have no basis or evidence. This person has a Ph.D. from a recognised university, The Univ. of Texas, which by itself is still not sufficient, but his work in the Buddhist world is enormous, but you would probably need to be Buddhist to know that. That is why he is listed ONLY in the Buddhist section of Wikipedia. He makes no money from tens of thousands of book sales, but if you are not Buddhist, I know that may not mean much to you. Again, that is why he should ONLY be listed in the Buddhist section.Maitreya11 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit. --Carnildo 19:38, 3 Jun 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 23:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Emergency Services Team

No idea where this is coming from. Also reads like copyrighted material. Denni ☯ 02:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

deleted as a copyright violation after listing period on WP:CP--Duk 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smells Like Team Copyvio. [10] Uncle G 02:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
If it smells like copyvio, it probably is copyvio. Even if it wasn't, it still smells bad. Delete --Xcali 06:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't make head or tail or this, and it stinks of copyvio. Jamyskis 11:05, 2 Jun 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 23:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hithpael

Dicdef. Denni ☯ 02:15, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Delete. Its a copyvio of a definitions website. Hedley 02:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. VERY random. humblefool ® 02:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it's a copyvio, put the {{copyvio}} tag on it; it shouldn't be here. If it's not a copyvio, merge with Hebrew grammar#Verb classes. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jamyskis 11:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mr Bound 12:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Noteworthy topic, but delete as copyvio. - Mustafaa 17:28, 2 Jun 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 00:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hyperfertility

Dicdef. Denni ☯ 02:17, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Actually two dicdefs; hyper and fertility. Brilliant! Delete. humblefool® 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And two Copyvios, to boot. The article helpfully tells us what the copyrighted source was (indirectly, the AHD). Uncle G 02:55, 2005 Jun 2 (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 00:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Nass

Obscure modern classical composer. Is modern classical a jumbo shrimp? 242 google hits. Seems unimportant. His site. humblefool ® 02:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- I assume you meant Jumbo shrimp? —Wahoofive (talk) 19:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Looking through "Daniel Nass" composer on google, it seems that he has some notability. My knowledge of modern classical music is weak, but I don't feel comfortable deleting him at this time. --Scimitar 14:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. The guy's a grad student, for crying out loud. Those google hits are just representative of a certain flair for self-promotion. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity (but quite understated vanity). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After the fact: I would like to point out that Daniel Nass the composer did not write that article. My name is also Daniel Nass and I wrote that article after finding out about him via Google. So it wasn't a vanity article.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 14:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stella (television show)

An article on a television show that has yet to be shown. -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Unless it never does actually appear. - Douglas
Keep If doesn't get aired after June 28th then I think it is pretty much a delete but it seems like its on the track to be on the air because of the promotional stuff. --Chill Pill Bill 02:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its not a crystal ball job because its four weeks away. Many confirmed future events have articles - Eurovision Song Contest 2006, for example. Hedley 02:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If we delete it now, it will just be restored when it goes to air. Besides, there are verifiable facts about it now such as starting date, cast etc. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable without the use of crystal balls. Kappa 04:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The show is only a few weeks from starting. That's not a case of Wikipedia being a crystal ball since there are probably already commercials airing for it. Will need expanding once it's on, though. 23skidoo 15:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Until it happens and proves itself notable, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Not every show is encyclopedic. The show has to exist, not be anticipated, and it has to prove itself. This has nothing going for it, no matter how much you as a reader are looking forward to it. Geogre 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The predictions that this will be notable enough for an encyclopedia article are just that. It could bomb and be pulled after the first episode airs. --Carnildo 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If it did get cancelled after one episode, that would make it even more notable. (See List of television shows canceled after one episode). And is there even a single Comedy Central series of the last five years which would get VfD'd? And if not, isn't being a series on Comedy Central sufficent to establish notablility? Two of the three creators already had their own Wikipedia entries. Their previous project (The State) already had an entry. And the featured interview in the July 30, 2003 AV Club of the Onion was dedicated to the Stella stage show, so this thing is notable even without the TV show. --Arcadian 04:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, since it seems nearly ready (possibly entirely ready) to air. You 21:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
keep even if it does not air it is still notable Yuckfoo 21:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Those of you who think notability is a problematic standard should bookmark this one too... ESkog 02:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment how close to an event do you need to be before the crystal ball rule does not apply? Vegaswikian 05:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Promos are being shown on Comedy Central every day, now, so they are promoting it. Given the status of The State and the Stella show itself, it's definitely notable, even if it folds after an episode. Worst case scenario, it can be merged eventually with The State or an article on the Stella troupe itself, but that would be crystal-balling. As it is right now, it should stay. --khaosworks 18:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It would be silly to delete it now and then re-write it later. It seems like such a non-controversy. --Wasabe3543 13:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are articles for movies that have to yet to be filmed and for TV pilots that never got picked up, so why not for a TV show that is presumably complete? --feitclub 17:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MTV Presents: The NextGen Xbox Reveiled

It's a real TV program but the proper name of the program is "MTV Presents: The Next Generation Xbox Revealed" (Image:Mtv-xbox-360-unveiling.JPG). All the information about the informercial is located in the Xbox 360's "Marketing" section. Redirect isn't necessary because an article probably wouldn't link "MTV Presents: The NextGen Xbox Reveiled" in the future. The Elijah Wood article use to link "MTV Presents: The NextGen Xbox Reveiled" but I corrected the name/spelling and link it to the Xbox 360 article. In addition, the creator hardly did any research because MTV likes to reair old television programs and the program originally aired on the assigned time. --Chill Pill Bill 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urg, user need to spellcheck (not that I don't often). Delete as incorrectly titled and will never (or perhaps correctly should never) be linked to at this title, as well as duplicate content. humblefool ® 02:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, information already at Xbox 360. K1Bond007 04:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate content. --bainer (talk) 08:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Duplication. Title typo. Nestea 17:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Reveal AND revile those responsible. — Phil Welch 23:36, 2 Jun 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 00:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of famous Holocaust survivors

Not encyclopedic

Delete - Millions of people did not die in the holocaust. This list is far too vague by nature and - at worst - can end up being a list of almost everyone in the world who was alive in 1946. --Douglas
- How is this vague? Merely being alive in 1946 doesn't mean you survived the Holocaust – managing to survive encarceration in a Nazi concentration camp, or to escape from ~~Germany~~ Nazi-controlled territory before you were so imprisoned does. Of those that did, some are notable, and we have an interesting list. Keep, but suggest a move to List of notable Holocaust survivors. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - It is vague in that it is not restricted to those who 'survived a Nazi concentration camp' (if it were, the title should say so) nor is it simply those who managed 'to escape from Germany before you were so imprisoned'. Even if those definitions are taken, it is questionable as to whether someone who was not incarcerated would have been. Why only restrict it to anyone who escaped from Germany - what about those who escaped from other countries the Nazis overran during 30s and 40s? Why only those who escaped from countries that were overrun - what about countries that would have been overrun if the Nazis had not been stopped by force (UK, Africa, Russia, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, USA ...)? --Douglas 12:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Alright, let's change Germany to Nazi-controlled territories, which is what I should have said in the first place. Regarding countries that would have been overrun, that's absurd. The Nazis had a clearly definable sphere of influence during WW2, at least AFAIK. We could play this what-if game with just about any historical event to make any discussion vague and pointless. It seems to me your beef is with the title of the article and not the content. To me, "Holocaust survivors" connotes a clear meaning; to you, it does not. Perhaps a compromise would be to include a detailed explanation for criteria for inclusion in the list at the beginning of the article. List of people who escaped Nazi concentration camps, managed to survive in such camps long enough to await rescue by Allied forces, or were able to escape Nazi-controlled territory before being encarcerated is a rather unwieldy article title.
      - LOL, I agree with the unwieldiness of that title! However, I still think that including those who were able to escape Nazi-controlled territory before being incarcerated is far too vague and could include almost anyone who got out of the way - since they were almost targets just because they wanted to escape. Such a definition would include, for example, Albert Einstein and dozens (hundreds?) of other 'notable' scientists as well as thousands of political, military and society 'notables'. The Nazis sphere of influence is not so clear to define in terms of Holocaust implementation: in some regions (e.g. Norway, Channel Islands), they never quite achieved the political/military/social environment necessary even though they 'occupied' the land while in other areas (e.g. Spain and to some extent Italy) they had quite a lot of influence without occupation. This is not to say, however, that there is not a generally-accepted map of what territories were at some time Nazi-controlled. I also see no moral, ethical or encyclopedic reason to include those who avoided incarceration by fleeing and exclude those who avoided incarceration by fighting. --Douglas 15:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        I'll defer to your greater knowledge of the general topic. Would a list limited to those that survived and/or escaped from concentration camps be more keep-able? I would imagine that the list would be mostly populated with people of this sort, anyway (although I do note that at least one person on the list currently was never sent to a camp). AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        A list of people who were once in a concentration camp and survived would be restricted and have some meaning. In this case, it should be Renamed and edited to comply: I would suggest the name of "List of notable people to survive a Nazi Concentration Camp." --Douglas 23:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Your point about playing the what-if game with historical events is, to me, exactly WHY to delete rather than keep this list. This list IS about 'what if': what if these people had been captured, maybe they would be dead. --Douglas 15:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        I'm really not getting your point here. If, say, Mr. Jones hadn't gotten on your hypothetical sinking ship from your analogy below, maybe he wouldn't have drowned. The fact is, though, he's (hypothetically) dead, and that other people who were not on the ship, but potentially could have been on it, are not (leaving aside those that were on the ship but managed to not die). We can make a list of those that survived and one of those that died; what happened before the ship sank is rather irrelevant. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        But presumably Mr Jones DID get on the ship. From the single, identifiable incident he can be said to have survived or died as fact. The Holocaust is not such a single, identifiable incident. --Douglas 23:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Holocaust victims is probably relevant here. Uncle G 02:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- It is partially relevant but at least someone who died as a direct result of Nazi activity is much more identifiable, with the only possible grey area being whether that was the cause of death (for example, there were no doubt a few people incarcerated who were already near dead from other causes). --Douglas 12:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - a Holocaust survivor is surely not anyone who happened not to die during WWII, and the list is restricted to famous (agreed that it should be moved to "notable") persons. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:15, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
When I originally saw this article a couple of hours ago I moved it to its current title from "List of holocaust survivors" but I agree that notable is a better word. Keep. Also, Douglas, isn't it inherently obvious that a list of survivors of a horrific event is only going to be comprised of people who were directly affected by that event? --Barfooz (talk) 04:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, clearly not obvious - see above comment by AиDя01D. Surviving the Holocaust isn't like surviving a sinking ship, where you are either on the ship at the time or not. The Holocaust was a political/social program intended to cover all parts of the world that Nazis intended to take over. --Douglas 12:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, though both this and List of famous Holocaust victims need to be renamed as "notable," with "famous" as redirects. Nateji77 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, redirect as well. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep as list of notable Holocaust survivors. Verifiable list for encyclopedic topic. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Note that this is a list of famous survivors. Notable list. Sjakkalle 07:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A useful list Dvyost 07:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Nateji77. Karol 07:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, though it should probably be "notable" rather than "famous" in the title. Every Holocaust survivor who has a Wikipedia entry should be on this list.--Pharos 08:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- At least this definition of "notable" or "famous" (whichever) will keep the list down but my objection to this list still stands in that identifying someone as a one-time member of a concentration camp is one thing but identifying them as having not been put to death by the Nazis is a totally different issue. --Douglas 12:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Notable and keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Direct subjects of the holocaust who survived it are notable by a long shot. Jamyskis 11:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but define survivor as a survivor of the camps. Hornplease 17:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are many people (eg Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi) for whom being a Holocaust survivor is a major component of their fame. But move to "notable". - Mustafaa 17:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, same vote as before. Title is POV, article is impossible to maintain. Rick K 19:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as POV. Who defines famous? What constitutes a holocaust survivor? Is it limited to Jews, or are Gypsies, gays, political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses and the like also included? Is it limited to Germany or other occupied territories? Is it limited to those captured and placed in the camps or does it include those who managed to elude capture? A nice idea, but in my personal opinion, there are too many problems. --Scimitar 21:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, list subject is too vague to maintain. --Carnildo 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this please it is not impossible Yuckfoo 21:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Annotate the list. — Phil Welch 23:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I've now done this and added some qualifications. If you ask me, a Jew hiding out in someone's attic until the Nazis were gone counts as a Holocaust survivor, although if you want to go to the talk page we can debate and qualify this further. — Phil Welch 23:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. this list will never be hard to maintain, because the "famous," or if you prefer "notable," qualifier will always limit it to a relatively small number regardless of how one defines "Holocaust" and "survivor." carmeld1 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment my personal definition of a holocaust victim would not require having been in or died in the camps, that is, both Anne Frank and Walter Benjamin should be included (as they are on List of famous Holocaust victims). even if benjamin (suicide at a checkpoint) is debatable, i think most people would consider frank a holocaust victim. (and Rroma, blacks, communists, homosexuals, etc. would be included on these lists if deemed notable). Nateji77 12:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. One of the minor difficulties I see with this list that I've not highlighted is that people such as Albert Einstein, T.Wonja Michael, Anne Frank etc. belong on both the List of famous Holocaust victims and this list. That doesn't invalidate either but does highlight the vague definitions - of this list, especially. --Douglas 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Famous" is an inherently POV term, and even notability is arguable. I cannot see how an encyclopedic list can be created under such circumstances. Denni☯ 00:55, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- "Notability" is just the criterion for having an article on a particular subject in Wikipedia. Listing all Holocaust survivors who have articles means that there is no more "judgement" involved than is normally used in simply deciding whether a subject is important enough to merit its own article in the first place.--Pharos 01:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Extremely notable topic. Why is this even listed for VfD? Kaibabsquirrel 04:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per RickK, Scimitar, and Denni. Use a category if this information is desired. Then you can leave "famous" out of it because it will include only those who have WP articles. Quale 09:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, categories are not a substitute for annotated lists. Kappa 21:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I brought forth the deletion page for List of Holocaust victims, and agreed with its name change to List of Famous Holocaust victims. Jendeyoung 05:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -Its purpose is to exalt famous survivors of the holocaust. There is nothing wrong with that.
- It is not an encyclopedia's job to exalt anything. That is the job of propoganda. Exhalting something is a reason for edit or removal is it is inherently not NPOV. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Douglas 00:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dark Alliance

Normally we delete secret societies because their secrecy makes them unverifiable. In this case there is one twist that might make a difference: the comment that many prominent people have been accused of being members; the accusations would be verifiable. However, there are no examples of accused prominent people in the article currently. Google gets swamped with alternate meanings for "Dark Alliance" when I try to check so I can't prove this is a commonly referenced secret 'society'. If we can't document the accusations of membership in this organization then it should be deleted. RJFJR 02:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable, likely hoax. I don't believe even such accusations would be encyclopedic. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Nearly every google hit for "Dark alliance" + freemasonry is for websites dealing with a series of articles on crack cocaine done by the San Jose Mercury News entitled 'Dark Alliance' or for websites dealing with conspiracy theories. The only website I could find that in any way dealt with a group of Freemasons called Dark Alliance is this: http://www.media.org.hk/messageboard/asp/ctv001/title1.asp?Page=3 however it is in Cantonese so I dont know what it says. Im almost 100% this is a hoax. -CunningLinguist 03:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Article is too vague ("many high profile individuals") and does not assert notability. michael 03:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. --Xcali 05:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. --bainer (talk) 08:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete yep, unverifiable. --Etacar11 23:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete maybe someday if it become famous we can include it. Pufferfish101 04:11, 8 Jun 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 - all deleted - SimonP 00:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Bexar County, TX and similar articles (see below)

Note: By request, this discussion now includes the similar articles: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cameron County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Collin County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Dallas County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Denton County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Harris County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Mills County, TX; Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Tarrant County, TX; and Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Travis County, TX.

Texan Wikipedians' listing has been overhauled, county listings now obsolete. Shem 02:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 02:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all related. A suggestion: put these all to one vote to avoid clutter. If you're not sure how, I'm sure someone could arrange it for you. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
If it's procedure and Wikipedia business, just go ask an admin to do it! humblefool® 02:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If I knew a sysop I could casually ask favours of, I would have. Such ain't the case; if someone more familiar can slap these into one vote as Android's asked, they're welcome to. I'm not one to usually mess with the more intricate parts of Wikipedia protocol, but made an exception for the Texan Wikipedians' listing. And thanks, both of y'all. Shem 03:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - If these don't get speedied relatively soon (Hey! Admins! Over here!), I'll do the consolidation, unless someone else beats me to it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - Appreciated. Shem 03:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (The articles, I mean.) --Xcali 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all, since there already is a Texas listing. By the way, you don't need to be an admin to join VfDs together, you just make the others redirect to one main one, and edit the title of that main one. --bainer (talk) 08:43, 2 Jun 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 00:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Simone Lehmann

Vanity Denni ☯ 02:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Delete this rather random bio. humblefool ® 02:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity page -CunningLinguist 03:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy vanity --Xcali 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete looks more like what belongs on a User Page, if anywhere. --Douglas 12:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it isn't a 'random' bio- not quite. According to a Nasa/Lockheed Martin Site:
- Names: Karin Bergh, Karen Borski, Brett Bray, Alicia Foerster, Karen Lawrence, Corey Maender, Jessica Meir, Elkin Romero, Gwenn Sandoz, Dea Taylor, Simone Thomas, Jacqui vanTwest, Penny Wilkinson, Kiley WrenCompany: Lockheed Martin Space OperationsJob: Experiment Support Scientist (ESS). As ESSs, we support, coordinate, and implement human space life science experiments performed on ISS. We provide discipline expertise to our experiments including science requirements definition and management; serving as the science liaison between NASA and the Principal Investigator; supporting on-console real-time mission activities; training crewmembers; and managing experiment documentation.
- Further search reveals this: [11]
- In other words, possible nepotism at NASA. That said, I think this safely fails the notability test, though I would argue an article on her husband wouldn't be out of place. Delete --Scimitar 15:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. An astronaut's spouse isn't inherently notable. --Etacar11 23:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Dark Doctrine Satanism

I'm not sure about this one. It looks a lot like vanity and/or promotion, (the word "we" appears in the article). Google hits:

"Dark Doctrine Satanism" 1 hit
"Dark Doctrine" Satanism 139 hits
"Dark Doctrine" 768 hits, most of them not concerning satanism

func (talk) 03:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Not only does it look/read like vanity, and get very few google hits but a lot of the information in it seems hoaxed/nonsensical. While according to google there is such a thing as "The Satan Shop" nothing related to said shop having to do with any Schwarzenegger ornaments or "UBS gay dolls" comes up on Google -CunningLinguist 03:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Further comment: This page is similar to another page recently listed on VfD: Satanic Reds Social Realists -CunningLinguist 03:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like same folks to me; somebody look at the user/ip creating these. Delete. humblefool ® 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - infernocruft... I mean vanity nonnotable unverifiable nonsense. DreamGuy 04:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Xcali 05:54, 2 Jun 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 00:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Njj

Non notable. According to Google, "Njj"+"Tollerton" = "No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found." and "Njj"+"juggling" = "1 - 10 of about 16 for Njj juggling" but no juggling company related web pages. --Chill Pill Bill 03:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Does not assert notability. michael 03:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete There are very few, if any, juggling groups that become notable in a year's time. --Xcali 05:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep. sjorford →•← 14:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prophet Yahweh

Flavour of the month cook with a commercial twist ("...Prophet Yahweh may be reached at 1-IAM-THE-BOMB ($5.95 per minute)..."). Just another scam, not notable. --W(t) 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Keep - I see no reason for it to be deleted... it's informative and objective. His claims may be dubious, but Wiki should remain objective. Vitriol 19:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- You gotta be joking me? Why would we delete an article that has such pertinence especially at a time when it is all the rage on blogs and in genuine ufology circles (for the better or the worst)? Do you realize how many conspiracy theory articles we have on Wikipedia? Whoever wanted to delete this must have some sort of personal vendetta or deep seated anger with this individual and event. Please read about what this feature is truly for. -M4dch1ld 1:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- Where exactly do you see any commercial twist? Especially any of the kind you have noted (call-in psychic line)? He has appeared on many major news media outlets, has a considerable online presence and has by all accounts "summoned a UFO on TV". True, that may seem fantastical or out-of-this-world, but if one puts away ones opinion on such matters, there is no doubt that he was a part of some sort of unusual event which was captures on television (by respectable news media) and which has garnered much debate and interest online. -CunningLinguist 03:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- It has enough exposure in the paranormal world that basic info is useful. Chris Rodgers 04:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep- Weyes, read "Problems that may require deletion" on the Deletion policy page. This dude being a cook (or not) isn't a valid reason for deletion. As for being "not notable": the plain fact that some people took the time to create the article shows that this subject is notable to some. To think that you can decide for them whether or not it is notable or not is both arrogant and ignorant.
Keep. Notable. + Events still developing. + Media Exposure. --Da 'Sco Mon 04:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree, just because he may be a nutjob does not mean that this should be deletable. That, and it's gotten media coverage. As long as the article stays away from being too POV'd, I don't see what's wrong. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Watch the video. I think you mean "kook" BTW. --Barfooz (talk) 05:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I hear he makes a mean Burger; Should not be up for a VFD. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Even kooky burger-flipping prophets can become prominent ;-). Shem 10:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - A fried pointed his website out to me, and this page helped me find out what the Prophet is actually about Stephen 11:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Barely Keep - but needs major cleanup. I'm tempted too write an article about the nut-job in my neighborhood, but he hasn't bamboozled the news crews yet. :) Wikibofh 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - very informative page about a person who obviously is receiving media coverage. - Quirk 17:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. KTNV's website makes no mention of this supposed UFO sighting. RickK 19:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The video of KTNV's newscast is there for viewing. As I have heard it, they have gotten so much traffic to their site, and people calling the station seeking information on Yahweh that they have decided to distance themselves from Yahweh and only will report if there are more UFO sightings.-Da 'Sco Mon 20:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Can you post a link to the video? RickK 21:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - 1 Its at the bottom of the article, as are various blogs of people who saw the event on television and online -CunningLinguist 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with some severe cleanup for verifiability. ESkog 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP, very notable, gets over a thousand google hits and, has been reported about in several magazines, websites, radio and TV shows. Do you even understand why we delete articles?--The_stuart 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep what more can I add axcept for my vote? --Technogiddo 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely Keep. -- — I. Neschek | talk 14:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's no reason this page should be deleted. --Mjp797 17:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep. sjorford →•← 14:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nieman Foundation for Journalism

This was on Speedy Delete, most likely because it had a misspelled title, it used to read Nieman Foundation for Jounrnalism. However, after reviewing the page, it seems notable enough and well-written enough to keep, so I moved it to this current title, with Journalism spelled correctly. I think it should be kept, Google returns 6,710 hits when in quotations and it seems highly notable, but I decided to put it through VfD since it WAS on Speedy Delete CunningLinguist 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Almafeta 04:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Never should have been on Speedy Delete for a misspelling. It's easy to move articles. Keep --Barfooz (talk) 04:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm the original misspeller. I explain there why I made the page as part of the Howard Simons bio, after writing him up to fill a missing link on W. Mark Felt. Once this is saved from oblivion, it should be merged with The Nieman Foundation for Journalism, which I made by accident as well. Merging is beyond my meager skills. Jokestress 04:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, the articles are identical if I'm not mistaken, correct? Therefore there is no need to merge, one article should be deleted. Since there is no need for the 'The' article in front of the name, people should vote keep on this article and ill nominate the other article for deletion. -CunningLinguist 05:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - That's right, I made the changes later to Nieman Fellowship, not this article, and then I was going to link the parentheticals in the Curator list. Then I decided I better leave it alone till it all got fixed. Jokestress 06:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this and perhaps the other title could be a redirect. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and redirect the other title. -- BD2412 ^talk 07:57, 2005 Jun 2 (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 00:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dye cmta

Like most memes, this one is almost completely unheard of in the mainstream world, its existance being known only by those extremely immersed in Internet culture. According to Google, "Your search - "Dye cmta" - did not match any documents." Chill Pill Bill 03:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity michael 04:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Barfooz (talk) 04:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable, noverifiable, vanity neologism. DreamGuy 04:58, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete 24.76.141.128 05:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete make it die. --Xcali 05:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dye lete. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:57, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
"However, with continued usage, it may eventually find its way into the English language." Let me know when that happens. Till then. delete. — Phil Welch 00:04, 3 Jun 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 00:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

25 Years of Beauty

Vanity. --W(t) 04:42, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Vanity. But written just sneakily enough to avoid a speedy. Delete --Barfooz (talk) 05:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Why should we give points for creativity? A pile of poo referred to as "a large amount of that which helps roses to grow" still stinks. --Xcali 05:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. This doesn't appear to fall within the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete obviously vanity Bluemoose 09:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:54, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete and ban this user, how many of these does he have to create before someone does something?!? - Jersyko talk 22:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- He's been blocked for 96 hours for his latest Fructose Addiction article, after he promised he would stop posting POV material. This is his third block. Next time will be 8 days. Rick K 22:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment An album of 9 songs dedicated to one girl in his computer science class? That poor girl . . . - Jersyko talk 02:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete argh not again. Vanity. --Kiand 19:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep good song, good performance, good article, andrew, go easy on the s.d.s. issue!!! Agata Bugaj 08:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users first and only contribution to the Wikipedia. --Kiand 09:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the subject of song in the article. I'm willing to bet this user, as well as the next 4, are all sockpuppets. - Jersyko talk 15:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've been informed by Agata (a real-life friend of mine) that this user isn't her, but is some account created using her name. --NeuronExMachina 00:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! Good work 68.170.0.238 14:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article author. --Kiand 14:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Andrew wrote a good song and performed it for us. Richard Morrison 14:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users first and only contibution to the Wikipedia. --Kiand 14:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Same reason as Richard. Dan Smith 2 14:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users first and only contibution to the Wikipedia. --Kiand 14:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep article sounds OK with me ...Thomas H Johnson 14:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users first and only contibution to the Wikipedia. --Kiand 14:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, in view of the user's only other edit, most likely a sockpuppet of Andrew Lin (the article's author, aka 68.170.0.238) - Jersyko talk 15:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as soon as possible. Aecis 14:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete sheer vanity. Karia 18:05, Jun 13, 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 00:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of serial killers by number of victims

Articles need to be verifiable, and this chart is inherently unverifiable and impossible to list. Bathory, for instance, has been suggested to have killed anywhere from 0 to 600 people, the 600 figure listed here is pure folklore. Also, a ranking by number of deaths is inherently a ghoulish scorecard mentality that should not be endorsed by this encyclopedia. The existence of this article can only cause problems. DreamGuy 04:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Agree completely with DreamGuy -CunningLinguist 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. AlexTiefling 09:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Some of the historical cases are questionable - not to mention that at least some may be based of fraudulent accusations or folktale-enhanced body counts - sometimes law enforcement cannot find all the victims or prove all the kills, sometimes the killer may claim more victims that he actually killed and so on. Unverifiable, rumormonger bait - Skysmith 10:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but perhaps clarify - the victim count would do better to be split into lower and upper bounds (perhaps 'confirmed' (by agencies) and 'assumed' (i.e. folklore)). The fact that figures are hard to relate to is no worse than on something like List of metropolitan areas by population, where the figures are also very debatable and difficult to compare. The ghoulishness argument is invalid: a global encyclopedia cannot pander to the squeamishness of any individual or group. --Douglas 13:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. --Scimitar 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and tag for verification and cleanup. We should purge the ones we're not sure of, but the # of victims for many killers is verifiable. We should also add in a lead, noting that the list isn't comprehensive due to lack of verifiable totals for some killers. Meelar (talk) 15:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's no point to tagging it for verification when verification is inherently impossible. That defeats the entire purpose of putting the tag there. DreamGuy 17:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Verification is not inherently impossible; for example, John Wayne Gacy mentions exactly 33 victims. What I'm arguing is that this page should include only killers with verifiable victim counts, and include a lead at the top saying that there exist other killers such as X, Y, or Z who may have more. Meelar (talk) 21:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Which is what my Keep vote indicates. Keep only those who are verifiable. -- Longhair | Talk 21:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you only keep those that are actually verifiable it'll will be a tiny list missing most of the names most people would expect to see when they went here. I can;t see how that would be useful either. DreamGuy 11:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. agree with Meelar and don't forget to include American serial killers. Mgm|^(talk) 15:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. AFAIK, and I've done some reading on the subject, "# of victims" is often unverifiable; bodies are never found, mass graves contain an unknown number of victims, killers lie about the number of victims (both reducing and exaggerating the count), law enforcement officials sometimes credit deaths/missing persons to serial killers simply to "close" the case (and are sometimes later proved wrong). "Number of victims" is often a best guess done by collating proven victims w/claimed victims w/missing person reports w/alleged travels of the killer w/possible victims. Much less exact than "population of metropolitan areas." Soundguy99 16:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- verifiable list. - Longhair | Talk 18:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. Even for a serial killer as famous and well-researched as Jack the Ripper, the number of victims is not known. --Carnildo 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete inherently unverifiable. Serial killers have lots of reasons to lie -- to minimize their crime and possibly get off with a lesser sentence, or to make exaggerated claims to increase their reputation. No body count for any serial killer should be considered firmly established. carmeld1 00:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not verifiable. Also, trivia != encyclopedic. R adiant _* 11:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Douglas and Meelar. -- Lochaber 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete In accord with Soundguy99. Denni ☯ 01:00, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep useful information. Grue 12:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ghoulish and in the worst possible taste. Content is not censored on wikipedia, and rightly so, but that doesn't mean we have present the information in such a low and base way (thats what tabloids and other forms of muckracking media are for). We already have a list of serial killers, and a category, we don't need this. Sabine's Sunbird 15:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. -Sean Curtin 01:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree that Wikipedia should not endorse kill-scores. Also, not much chance of accuracy, which would be an excuse for the article. Decius 02:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep if only to demonstrate how little is known about these things. Add explanatory paragraph, and have a table for reputed an another for "known". Also indicate that this is murder rather than killing we are talking about. Rich Farmbrough 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete because the list is largely incomplete and inaccurate. Matjlav 01:56, 11 Jun 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 00:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adaptation of the CNS to thermodynamic changes: temperature and pressure

This article never addresses what its title says it will address. All of the content is based off of this one sentence: "Adaptive mechanisms to extreme temperatures and pressures have been observed in areas of the brain, like the hippocampus." I can find nowhere that is appropriate to place this information, and I don't think there's anything useful in here, or that this topic needs an article. --Barfooz (talk) 05:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Barfooz. --Xcali 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Seems like the title and abstract of a scientific paper. –Joke137 15:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Bad title. Content belongs someplace else. GregorB 22:02, Jun 2, 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 00:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Alt x

This minor instruction is too trivial to have its own page. Besides, I don't think it is even right. If correct, it certainly isn't universally true but instead applies to a specific application/environment. Tobycat 05:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is right for wikipedia. Citizen Premier 05:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ... if one is using a web browser that supports Javascript, if one has enabled Javascript, and if one has not altered the behaviour by customizing the skin with one's own Javascript ... Uncle G 10:41, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  - ...and also if you're not one of the 10-15% of us who have option keys rather than alt keys! Grutness...wha? 11:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should have been speedily deleted in my book. --Barfooz (talk) 05:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as Barfooz says. Not factual in that it applies in such a limited context. --Xcali 05:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. AFAIK it only works on Wikipedia. Is there somewhere this could fit in the Help namespace? the wub (talk) 08:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 11:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No content, not relevant speedy Oracleoftruth 22:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Garbage. Postdlf 22:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge it should be added to an article about wikipedia hotkeys or it should be deleted if the is no page--Jats 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete No content worth keeping. Falphin 18:10, 8 Jun 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 - should be merged - SimonP 00:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Death sticks

Extreme Star Wars fan cruft. Google search [12] brings up 18 results. Barfooz (talk) 05:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give the article a death stick. Delete --Xcali 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment it was taken from [Star Wars wiki], which is a more appropriate venue for this level of detail. Nateji77 05:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Too obscure for its own article. If appropriate at all, it belongs as content within another more major Star Wars topic. Tobycat 05:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere or Keep this item from the fictional star wars universe. Kappa 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the appropriate list of Star Wars nuncio. (yes, I know nuncio doesn't mean that, but it's almost 4:00AM here). -- BD2412 ^talk 07:59, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. All that Revenge of the Sith hype has led to a Return of the Fancruft. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm generally in favour of keeping most Star Wars-cruft, but I was going to say merge into Spice (Star Wars). The only problem was that this article doesn't exist, and spice is far more notable within the Star Wars universe. Unless there is a fictional narcotic substances article somewhere, delete. --Scimitar 15:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's merge it with Death stick to get rid of the faulty page title. Somehow I remember Death stick surviving a VFD debate. Is it just my imagination? Mgm|^(talk) 15:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sub-trivial fancruft. --Carnildo 21:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Stick and change this to a redirect.--M412k 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death stick maybe we'll get a reasonable article out of the two of them. -- Lochaber 13:12, 3 Jun 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 00:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tristan Louis

Delete. A vanity article, going through the normal, unnotible life of a blogger and his blog. Written by the blogger himself/herself. 24.76.141.128 05:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notice the redirect from the user account of TNLNYC who originated this article. --Barfooz (talk) 05:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Redirect removed because of note below (by DenisMoskowitz)
Userfy back to TNLNYC --Xcali 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy, and post a cheerful lecture on his talk page. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep, (of course, I'm the user so I'm biased but this is based on the fact that I still meet the wikipedia criteria for biography:more on my talk page) - TNLNYC 12:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do support Userfying the article. Honestly, this thing reads like incredible vanity. Terms like "well known" are tossed around quite alot, even though this was written by the person in question and so seems very biased. 24.76.141.128 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Edited page to make it less biased... However, it's hard not to be since I'm the subject. --TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy unless the unverifiable claims are removed and the references to the verifiable ones establish a modicum of notability. My threshold is low, but this article doesn't give one much to go on. Dystopos 22:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Removed all non-verifiable claims from page--TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep While it could be considered vanity, I think the author makes a good argument for why to keep it. It's a tough call between Userfy and Keep but, considering Dystopos comment, I'll go against the prevailing opinion and support the author on this one. --208.131.51.19 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks like the links point to verifiable claims. --63.111.163.13 22:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment on above 63.111.163.13 has, if you check his/her contributions, only contribs to the article in question. They are biased, and possibly Tristan himself. 02:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Response to comments Checked my IP (I did indeed go to edit some stuff - mainly removals to make it more compliant with what people were asking to do here) but it doesn't look like mine (and I know I didn't add a Keep... I'd like you all to Keep it (or Userfy it, at worst) but not so badly that I would try to rig the vote (I figure it would be too easy to find out :) )--TNLNYC 23:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
UserFy He doesn't seem important enough to keep as an entry but has made some contributions so I would hesitate to delete. Plus, extra points for being willing to be honest and redirect his user page instead of creating a separate one. --70.19.92.21 14:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ouch, that one hurts my ego (not important :) ) --TNLNYC 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comment I would ask that he not redirect his user page to this one - it complicates looking at his contributions, getting to his talk page, etc. No opinion either way on deletion. DenisMoskowitz 20:15, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- response to comment: Done. Redirect removed. --TNLNYC 22:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy. Really, man; why even have us waste time discussing whether to keep the article in the main namespace... (no insult intended for you yourself, TNLNYC---I just do my wikiduty voicing my opinion on the WKP article as such). --Wernher 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- response: Wernher, I guess the issue is that, technically, the page does meet the criterias listed for inclusion. Maybe the criteria should be changed? --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep During the Internet bubble, the guy's opinion could make or break companies. I remember meeting him once at the Internet World conference and people like Jerry Yang of Yahoo! were clamoring after him to endorse their products. My, how the mighty have fallen but still someone who deserves a footnote in history --68.116.184.131 16:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- response: Actually, I'd say this is not enough of a reason (damn, why am I arguing against inclusion here :) ) --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep unless you want to remove the following entries: Jason Kottke, Juan Cole, Ana Marie Cox, Anil Dash, J. Bradford DeLong, Hossein Derakhshan, Betsy Devine, Mark Frauenfelder, Philip Greenspun, Joshua Harris, Hugh Hewitt, Meg Hourihan, Dave Hyatt, Joi Ito, etc... who have had about as little an impact as this guy did (I could add more people but I don't have the time... maybe we should rethink the whole Bloggers category as it doesn't really give the long view. --70.19.111.5 12:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- response: I would agree with some (as I started writing the entry based on the fact that those people had entries). However, I'm not sure deleting them would be the right idea. --TNLNYC 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment again, nearly all the "keeps" are from nearly contribution-less anons. Specifically, one has only contributions to the article in question, one has contributions to December 28 and 29, and one has contributions to December 30. It seems fishy, and I hate to say things like that. (I also agree that most or all of the blogs mentioned in the vote above be deleted ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep from someone who isn't a contribution-less anon, and would like to point out that there are many articles on Wikipedia that people do not edit, but would not like to see deleted and thus vote if the issue comes up. --ElfWord 07:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Hence I'm staying out of voting, I don't really care all that much about this article, but have no opinion against it either. The anons are still suspicious in my mind, as two were editing the same set of articles, one only had edited the one in question, and one or more apparenly have something to do with Bloghate. None had simply edited nothing, or unrelated things, and it just struck me as odd -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
~~Userfy~~ Keep I just did a minor edit on it, after hearing that there was an entry in contention (on a mailing list). He was a minor character in the development of several web formats back in the early days of the W3C (circa 1995) ~~but I don't think he deserves a full article in the wiki space~~ but considering some of the feedback I've seen, I'm changing my vote (many people credit him with the 3 column look adopted by so many news websites). --Spainhour ~~03:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ --Spainhour 18:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete He's only a blogger. I think none of the bloggers should go in. Let's face it, they don't contribute much --Bloghate 05:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delist. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [13] [14] —RaD Man (talk) 08:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - not because he's a blogger, but because he's General Manager and publisher of iWorld. Also, keep listed on VFD - do not assume this is vandalism. Radiant_>|< 12:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: When a someone creates a user account named Bloghate and runs it immediately to VfD in order to nominate and delete blogger-related articles, it is safe to assume it is bad faith. What planet do you live on? —RaD Man (talk) 15:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep -FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Revision3 Studios

Tagged for a speedy as recreation of previously VFDed content. However the content of the original article was

Revision3 Studios is the company behind the videozines Systm (http://www.systm.org) and thebroken (http://www.thebroken.org). Kevin Rose, a former personality of TechTV (now G4 (television)) is one of the members of this company. Jay Adelson, former Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Equinix, Inc. (http://www.equinix.com), was recently named chairman and CEO of Revision3 Studios.

(with some links which I have not added here) This article is much larger. However, I don't really think the company is notable, so I will say delete. The original VFD discussion is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whereas Google previously had a somewhat embarrassing total of zero hits, it now has 149. Ah, but it shows just six hits as representative of the whole lot, and these are blog entries, publicity announcements/puffs, etc. I'm underwhelmed. Delete. -- Hoary 07:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete once again... how many companies are registered across the globe? Come and get yourself immortalized on the web for free. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia--0001 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I created this article to merge information from Systm and thebroken. Formerly, the article for Systm was VfD'd, and called a "merge and redirect". It was redirected to Kevin Rose at the time, but that makes no sense, because he is only one-fifth of the team behind the series. Even if you don't think the company itself is notable, this article should exist for its information on Systm and thebroken, which are notable. --taestell 18:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An article should exist with information about Systm, either here or the recently deleted Systm article. --Knio 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Kevin Rose. --Mrmiscellanious 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An important company that produces many popular videozines with a very large audience. --Salvag 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm tempted to say that media companies presently producing content are definitionally worth an article if someone writes one. It can be very difficult to find NPOV information about media companies. --TreyHarris 17:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Salvag. —Mar ka ci 2005-06-22 T 17:47 Z
Keep. This article has info that does not belong in the Kevin Rose article. Personally I would say split into Systm but that page was already VFD'd and lost. Possibly merge The Broken into it, but definitely keep. --TexasDex 18:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Hoary. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 22:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Taking into consideration Hoary's view, I'm also considering the fact that this is needed in lieu with other articles. Hence, I'll sit on the fence, and maybe a bit to the side, with a weak keep. -- Natalinasmpf 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article has different information and refers to both Systm and thebroken which Kevin Rose is only a part of. --AyrtonSenna
Keep per taestell. --Randy 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, company has created Systm and thebroken, both of which seem to have a large number of viewers.--Matteh (talk) 03:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Systm and The Broken are notable and have a large viewing audience. I see no reason for deletion. It is not advertising. — Peter McGinley 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article was initally referred to the Kevin Rose article. Since Rose is not a whole or even a majority of the crew behind the studio, merging the two would be an inaccuracy. I see no reason to delete the article. Keep - Razer64 06:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This VfD has been up for eight days now... two-thirds (12 out of 18) of the votes are "keep"... --65.185.15.125 28 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)
Keep Systm got deleted and merge with Kevin Rose, however, this is a better place for it. I would further suggest that The Broken gets merged with this. Falcorian June 29, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
Keep. With the high numbers of reported systm downloads, this company has a decent impression. --Sepht 4:45, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) ...added at 03:47, June 29, 2005 by 68.121.166.105
- Sepht, under whose name this vote was made (strangely, at the top, right in the middle of the preface by Sjakkalle), has a single contribution so far. -- Hoary June 29, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
Keep This is quite a popular company. In fact I logged on to Wikipedia today just to look up Revision3 MrHate June 30, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
Okay... This VfD is 10 days old now, and 70% (14 of 20) of the votes are "keep"... --taestell June 30, 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Keep I've checked out the videos from systm and would rate them as well produced and equivalent to standard television. I am also familiar with 2 of the guys from TV shows they have been a part of in the past. I vote for keeping the site. June 30, 2005 ........... comment added at 00:34, 1 July 2005 by 65.35.88.234

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as redirect. sjorford →•← 14:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism

This is identical to Nieman Foundation for Journalism article. The other article is on VfD because it was salvaged from Speedy Delete despite its obvious notableness. However, despite whether the other article is kept or deleted, this one should be deleted CunningLinguist 05:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete agreed. --Xcali 05:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agreed. Jokestress 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to the other one, if it's kept. Someone might look it up this way. -- BD2412 ^talk 07:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Nobrainer RedirectFabartus 14:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Urgent Comment: Alright, I was an idiot and shouldve put up a simple redirect at first, but I didnt. I now have gone back and redirected this page to the correct source. I urge people to vote KEEP now, please. -CunningLinguist 06:49, 4 Jun 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 - should be merged - SimonP 00:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Pillsbury

Artist with only claim to fame seeming to be a marriage to another artists. 25 total Google hits, not all relevant. Delete --Xcali 05:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN Nateji77 05:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merge per kappa Nateji77 12:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merge with husband John Linton Roberson. Kappa 07:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 07:55, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. I don't suggest merge because it's not clear to me that John Linton Roberson isn't vanity. There is an extreme amount of detail yet there are no sources. It's the best written vanity I've seen, but given its style, it really looks to me like John wrote an article on himself, and his ex-wife, and possibly a few minor studios. Quale 01:56, 7 Jun 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 00:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rain Coat Corporation

Vestigial remains of a "hoax". Delete. 24.17.17.26 06:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simple comment: I have restored the article text. Please don't remove it if you make another VFD, we need to see it to vote. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete...and the restored content is clearly bogus information. Hoax it is! The links go to blogs. Tobycat 07:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete; but clear hoaxes should be speedied. Mozzerati 18:13, 2005 Jun 4 (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 - should be merged - SimonP 00:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Citadel (A Song of Ice and Fire)

Minor aspect of a minor topic that seems to have been made into an extremely crude article. I don't really know what to make of this, so here's a google search [15] to try and help sort things out, but I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Barfooz (talk) 07:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge it somewhere or keep, verifiable fictional thing from notable source. Kappa 09:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Correction: minor aspect of a very popular series of novels, A Song of Ice and Fire. Merge this into List of places in A Song of Ice and Fire, and do the same with all other articles Wikilinked from there, unless they are too large to merge. I'll tackle this project myself if that's the consensus. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 13:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously, but also merge in this case I think. I am not sure about Android's suggestion; itm ight work in this instance but I dont see it happening for places with more information about them in the books. Hornplease 17:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 22:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, that's a bad target for a merge, since most of the other links are contentless. The bluelinks in List of places in A Song of Ice and Fire are:
- Bear Island – a disambig page that doesn't even mention ASoIaF
- Casterly Rock → House Lannister
- The Eyrie → House Arryn
- King's Landing → Westeros
- Riverrun → House Tully
- Sunspear → House Martell
- The Wall (A Song of Ice and Fire) → Westeros (previously had some content)
- Westeros is a long article about one of two main continents in the series (the other being unnamed and not used much as yet)
- Winterfell → Westeros
- Valyria → Westeros, which is a bad redirect, since Valyria is on the unnamed eastern continent
These should all be Merged into Westeros, which could then use a rename to List of places in A Song of Ice and Fire. Places that have plenty to write about them can, of course, be spun off into their own articles. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 13:14, 3 Jun 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

Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others

This page is a duplicate of Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. I created this page, now propose for deletion, in error. This is a case for quick deletion. Zingi 07:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to vfd this, I've made it a redirect. --nixie 07:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep article rewritten in English. sjorford →•← 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Axel Gyllenkrok

~~This page has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for 14 days without having been translated from Swedish.~~ Physchim62 07:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I have translated the page. --Fred-Chess 09:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, looks like Vfd did the trick, thanks Fred chessplayer Kappa
Speedy keep, no longer any reason to delete. Mgm|^(talk) 15:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Behalten. Retenir. Houden. Tenere. Etc. R adiant _* 11:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn as the article has been translated and categorized. It's nice to be able to take things off VfD once in a while! Physchim62 11:31, 3 Jun 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, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Funeral Age

Bandcruft with 597 google hits. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:42, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

So if a band can be found on Google then it isn't worth inclusion in Wikipedia? Do they have to pass some sort of test of cultural relevance or something? I just wrote the article and I'm confused as to why it's suddenly up for deletion. --JWhiton

See the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. The band in question doesn't appear to meet them. --Carnildo 22:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and promotion of non-notable group. Does not meet any of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC Tobycat 04:34, 3 Jun 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, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tox Uthat

STTNG is the second best TV series of all time, but we still don't need a summary of every technology mentioned only once in the series. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:47, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Delete, trekcruft. Memory Alpha exists for a reason. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Gambit (Star Trek), the only episode in which this artifact appears or is mentioned. This delete vote is from a devoted fan. Xoloz 10:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Device isn't even described, so no point in a merger. — RJH 16:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not because I don't think that this deserves mention in Wikipedia but because it is not an article at all. "The Tox Uthat is a device exists in the Star Trek universe." I doesn't describe the device, its function or significance. This is not an article at all. --M412k 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Memory Alpha, nuff said. And it's actually Captain's Holiday that features this device. ;) --Etacar11 00:20, 3 Jun 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 00:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kimberly L. Browne

Complete fiction. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mawbea, North Sodor for more of the same. Postdlf 07:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fiction. -- RHaworth 07:58, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete, fiction. --bainer (talk) 08:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Timewasting hoax AlexTiefling 08:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fiction, and biased.
- How is this article biased? I'm not even going to entertain the notion that it is fiction, as I votated for M. Browne.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was irrelavent, the article was speedy deleted by Burgundavia. bainer (talk) 09:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rAERRKLREKLEKGKLER

Patent neologism. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 08:04, 2005 Jun 2 (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 00:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Poispakkoruotsi

This article has been a stub for two years. Only two pages link to it. I doubt this is anything more than a topic in a dissatisfied group, and does not need a separate page. --Fred-Chess 08:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a stub for a long time is not a reason to delete. Keep -- Thv 08:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

~~Whilst short, this article appears to the point and on a subject deserving of note. Keep, on the basis that the term would be what would be searched for. --Simon Cursitor 11:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ Deleted; vote revoked; per Finnish comment below --Simon Cursitor 06:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can not find any English pages about poispakkoruotsi on google.com, except for pages derived from wikipedia. --Fred-Chess 12:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep the finn-cruft! Seriously though, the stub seems notable.
- Delete per Finn below --Scimitar 15:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Mandatory Swedish. Delete per Captain Disdain. Salleman 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As a Finn, I'm familiar with this. Let me to give you guys some information: There used to be a www.poispakkoruotsi.com where people could sign a petition to remove mandatory studies of Swedish from schools. (They were aiming to get 15,000 names, but ended up with 8,401 -- they closed the petition in August 2003.) The petition was delivered to the powers that be. In any case, it's gone now -- the site's for sale. Seriously, this is not notable at all. I wouldn't even redirect it anywhere; it just isn't something that's likely to be a relevant entry point of research on Wikipedia for anyone. I mean, it's not even notable in Finland (the topic of there being an ongoing argument against mandatory studying of Swedish is, obviously, but "poispakkoruotsi" itself was just a really minor campaign with no impact; there have been -- and undoubtedly will be -- numerous other petitions of similar scale), let alone on the international scale Wikipedia operates on. It just isn't notable enough -- it isn't likely to be a term used by anyone researching the subject, either.
Delete as I defer to the Finn. However, I'd ask that he rewrite a small stub of information for the Mandatory Swedish asticle so that this article does not get created again since there is no mention of this petition. Vegaswikian 05:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose I could, but actually, I'd rather not. I don't really see any chance of this article being recreated -- it was originally created when the petition was still in existence, presumably by someone who was involved with it or felt strongly about it. (Even then, it was pretty much a vanity page; I'd say it was created not to provide information but to advertise the campaign.) Point is, the petition was already closed and delivered almost two years ago; there's no impetus for anyone to recreate the article now. Like I said, it's not the only such petition ever created and there will undoubtedly be many others... but unless one of them actually proves to be significant enough to have an impact on national policy or is of note in some other way, I'd rather not mention any one of them by name just so as to not afford any one of them status that they really don't deserve. However, I'd be happy to write in a mention of there having been numerous petitions and other similar undertakings to pressure the decisionmakers on this issue, but that none of them have been successful; that's true and not an insignificant phenomenon in itself, even though the particular campaigns have been less than noteworthy. -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Added the following to the mandatory Swedish page: "There have been numerous petitions and other similar campaigns undertaken by citizens to pressure the lawmakers, but to date, they have had no significant impact on the established policy and have not attained a great deal of momentum. Thus, while the ongoing national debate is often heated and passionate, it has yet to reach a point where there is enough opposition to mandatory Swedish to force the government to consider a change of policy." Oh, and I also removed the link to the poispakkoruotsi article. -- Captain Disdain 11:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mandatory Swedish covers this topic already, efforts should go to improving that article. jni 17:05, 3 Jun 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 00:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Willie York

Non-notable homeless person. —Xezbeth 10:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete — colorful but not notable. — RJH 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know wikipedia is not paper, but I really don't see any merit in an article about homeless people, unless they've done something noteworthy. I'd speedy it as extremely short, but since it's on VFD. A simple Delete will do. Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:28, 3 Jun 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 00:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sherry Sylvester

Not Notable. Only 594 Google Hits. See Texas Media Watch for background discussion. Xoloz 10:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to call this one. She appears to be somewhat locally notable in Texas, and has an extensive background in the news trade. Is there a criteria for reporters that is comparable to professors? Pass — RJH 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks notable enough, and just because someone doesn't win the Google lottery doesn't mean they aren't notable. Might be worth checking to make sure this isn't the CNN correspondent of the same name. If it's a different person (which I assume to be the case) suggest doing some sort of DAB with the article title. 23skidoo 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO - permits print & screen personalities w/ more than 5,000 circulations. San Antonio Express News exceeded this by far. Rangerdude 08:11, 14 Jun 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 00:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Keith Wood

Vanity. About some random 18 year old who decided he wanted an article about himself. MyNameIsNotBob 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Curious NPOV if the attribution is correct. Probably delete as vanity, but query whether the subject should be blamed. --Simon Cursitor 11:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Kappa 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, appears not to be a notable individual John Cross 14:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The top two google results suggest this person is self-publishing on the web, though I can't verify this, because my computer is denied access to them. Unless he's been published by a traditional publisher, I'd say delete. "Little/nothing is know" is always a bad phrase in an article. Write what you know, not what you don't know. Mgm|^(talk) 20:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. And writing something is unknown about yourself is just silly. --Etacar11 00:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Homosexual nn buttsex. And writing spoeonasn is Ublowen buttsex yourself is just silly. --
Keep Joe Wood used to have a website at www.joewood.knows.it before being ordered by a Canadian court to remove it for controversial views. He has surely been seen by more than 5K people and thus passes the WP:Bio test for notability. 00:59, 12 Jun 2005
Delete. Most of the material (and the above comment) are by a known vandal who is inserting his fiction into Wikipedia articles. Shantavira 17:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 7 "delete" votes to 13 "keep" votes (one vandal and one troll discounted). A few of the "keep" voters added comments that indicate that they do not yet understand the meaning or purpose of Wikipedia:verifiable but there still is clearly no concensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon Pearl and Diamond and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

A yet to be released Pokémon game. Much of this article appears to be speculation from a fansite forum. JamesBurns 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--JamesBurns nominated Pokémon Diamond and Pearl separately. "Speculation for an unreleased game. ... JamesBurns 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)" I have merged this here as the same action should be taken for both. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 12:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, WP is not a crystal ball. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Of vital importance -RicKKK 10:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This was User:RicKKK's first ever edit. JamesBurns 10:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User:RicKKK was blocked for violating policy by choosing a username that is the name of a well known Wikipedia user (RickK). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep assuming it's accurate. Pokemon games are notable. Everyking 11:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tough one. The games really are to be published, and being official Pokémon titles, we know that they will very much be notable. However, looking at the biggest video gaming sites, practically nothing is known about the games except that they will be released on the Nintendo DS. I'm going to have to say delete, as I know that they'll be resurrected as soon as more details are available by a more honest Pokémon fan. Jamyskis 12:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would be a valid topic real soon now, but current content is speculation. Weak keep but cut all nonverifiable text. Radiant_* 12:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Done, although there isn't much left over. Even the official Pokémon site doesn't have anything to say about the games. Jamyskis 12:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - - Is this the official American site? Just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean it is nt real. Coro Coro is a better source of information on the games. Sonic Mew 21:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Split into two articles, Pokémon Pearl and Pokémon Diamond. They're definitely notable, and almost certain to be released, but why have them as one article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- They are going to be practically the same game, so they are better off together. See: Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pokémon Gold and Silver. Splitting would be silly as at this point it would be the same topic duplicated. Sonic Mew 13:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete - At the moment this clearly a Crytsal Ball article, but by the time this vfd is done, more information will probabily be avalible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KeepJapan has a habit of unleasing info at any moment. A lot of people will find this notable, as it is of current interest. So while this will be rewritten in november, its status at the moment is notable enough to keep. The crystal ball theory shouldn't not be placed on everything unreleased, (such as it is for the next-gen consoles. People want to know about them, so they are not up for deletion.) Sonic Mew 13:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Important Comment: I have just realised that everyone has been voting for a different topic to the one up for deletion. Pokémon Pearl and Diamond is up for deletion. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, (the official order,) is already an existing topic which is much more detailed. So I vote to Speedy delete Pokémon Pearl and Diamond and, (for reasons I posted above,) Keep Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Sonic Mew 13:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, one should be redirected to the other. But the other topic you pointed us to is still a crystal ball article, and the sites to which the article link only prove what I said earlier - nothing is known about the games yet. My edit of Pokémon Pearl and Diamond is about as NPOV and current as it'll get. Jamyskis 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serebii don't update those pages. Note that it even calls Munchlax by its Japanese name 'Gonbe'. It is also a secondary source, as opposed to the magazine scans of Coro Coro, which do prove it. I'm only leaving it because it will be really useful when the games are released. Sonic Mew 14:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and keep that one, to prevent info being added in the wrong places. the wub (talk) 14:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above due to newly found info. --InShaneee 15:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — a pre-announcement stub with no real content. If the page were more substantial it might be worth saving, but not at the moment. It can be created again once the games are out, if they ever appear. — RJH 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Almafeta 18:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a minute..You can't put this up twice! It was already up for vfd yesterday, why put it up again? Besides, none is speculation. It is all fact. Look at the Coro Coro magazine scans. This is confirmed information! Munchlax has even appeared in a game and the animé. I vote to delete this vfd as it is already on June 1st. Sonic Mew 13:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is the same discussion, moved here. R adiant _* 14:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The game will be notable, and it will be released (look at the extent of secondary information). You can see it coming without resorting to a crystal ball. --Scimitar 15:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete - I don't think we need two articles on one game. Also, I'm removing the link to this delesion from the "Diamond and Pearl article. Joizashmo 16:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)~~
- Keep - The game is comming out soon. Until that time, this is all we know about it. Joizashmo 16:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep redirect Pearl and Diamond to Diamond and Pearl. K1Bond007 18:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (but redirect Pearl and Diamond to Diamond and Pearl). These are games that have been officially announced by Nindendo, folks. Give your Pokemon vendetta a rest, already. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please this is no better than attacking schools Yuckfoo 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP, The game will eventually come out and get an article anyway. --GVOLTT 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete speculation -> notability not established, games cruft. Megan1967 03:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Does anyone actually look at the Coro Coro scans? I would have thought notability would be established by the word 'Pokémon'! Anything else would be crystalballery. Wikipedia is not paper!. So 'cruft' should not be a reason for deletion, especially as the previous games in the series, (see template on page,) have done so well! These are notable! Sonic Mew 20:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not perhaps of vital global importance, but notable enough for wikipedia. Kappa 21:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. Leanne 10:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Did you read my response to the last person who said that? Sonic Mew 11:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

When will the deletion notice will be deleted? Wikilord 16:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 00:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of Bahamian musicians

(Formerly located at BSMusicMusicians.) Of the eight names listed, four are red links, one (Exuma) is an article about a group of islands, two (Blind Blake and Visage) are musicians/bands which are NOT from Bahamas, and only one (Baha Men) is an actual Bahamian group. Unless completely rewritten, delete as a useless list. - Mike Rosoft 11:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, red links are useful. Kappa 12:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete. There is no evidence any of the other groups listed are notable, therefore currently it's a list of one. --Scimitar 15:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't expect an article on musicians from the Bahamas to get a lot of attention very soon. Fix the links and make sure it's visible to list expanders. Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Kappa and Mgm. -- Jonel 16:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful. Rick K 19:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up. Useful list. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 3 Jun 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 00:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Steve Ullinger

The main claim to notability appears to be being arrested for disorderly conduct. I don't think that's enough to merit inclusion here, although I could be wrong. I think this should be deleted... Sjakkalle 11:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Sjakkalle's assessment. Kappa 12:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Happens every day, - see COPS. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:17, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete If anybody ever brings up that line about notability not being a requirement for Wikipedia, this might be a good article to remind them of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- But if we want to remind people of, and refer people to, this article, we cannot delete it can we? :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The text could be moved off of the main namespace (user page, this page, relevant WP:whatever pages) so as to preserve it as such an example. However, only the first sentence ("Steve Ullinger is a guy from Kent, OH who was arrested by the police for disorderly conduct") is verifiable. -- Jonel 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. Wikibofh 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - do I get a Wikipedia article if I get arrested for disorderly conduct? :) Thue | talk 20:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nn, and page was recently blanked. --Idont Havaname 23:20, 3 Jun 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 00:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Todd Brendan Fahey

I honestly don't know quite what to make of this one. An internet kook? Legit author? Please help decide. He gets a fair number of google hits, but they tend to be either self-promotion, a bunch of self-referential blogs, mentions of what seems to be a vanity-press book he wrote on kook websites, notices alleging that he has engaged in libel, or mirrors of his "article" here, which has been the target of repeated vandalism. To me, it looks as though it doesn't add up to much. I would say delete unless someone makes a compelling argument otherwise. In any case the article needs a lot of work if it is to be kept - much of the information seems unverifiable. Fawcett5 13:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undecided at the moment. The book is real... at least, it's on Amazon and has reviews, but the Amazon sales rank is well under the 1 million mark. What I'd like to know is whether it was legitimately published or was it vanity-press (Far Gone Books doesn't sound like one) or self-published? Does anybody know that with a reasonable amount of certainty? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Far Gone Books is a publisher created by the author. Sales rank is 1,111,784 on Amazon, and ~~it's a copyvio.~~ The anon's are defending it via removing copyvio and vfd notices, which also pushes me towards delete.. Non-encyclopedic. Non-notable. Wikibofh 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the copyvio notice. Biography.ms turns out to be a GFDL non-compliant wikipedia mirror. Fawcett5 14:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah...nice catch. I'll need to remember that for the future. No impact on my vote. :) Wikibofh 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as it seems to be a POV piece, possibly from the man himself. Not-notable. Kel-nage 14:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, Mr. Fahey is "uknown". I've heard claims that he has authored two other books, but no-one seems to know what they are. I am in agreement with Kel-nage; this space would be better spent on more informative articles and not self-aggrandizement. Peace.--Venerable Bede 14:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. He is a legitimate freelance writer, but this article seems like another example of "shameless self-promotion" (to quote his website). Furthermore, the information presented seems unverifiable, and don't read to much into that "professor of English" claim in South Korea. It may mean he teaches English to Koreans, and you don't need a masters degree to do that. --Scimitar 15:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete!! I'm still laughing at that entry. To remove such delight from the web would be a crime against humanity. Surely, TBF is the messiah!!

Vote by User:Polichinello. 2 total edits. Smells like Sockpuppet. Wikibofh 16:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no!! I've been outed as a "sockpuppet" for Todd Brendan Fahey! The horror. The horror. I might wind up like Hercules!--Polichinello.

Delete. --Calton | Talk 16:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Soi Cowboy | No one needs to read another Hunter Thompson wannabe without any talent, other than shameless self promotion. Paranoic drool from a disturbed mind. A cursory read of the man's postings and interviews reveals a very disturbed mind, as well as one with severe delusions of grandeur.
Weak Delete I think this is more promotion (either self or someone who really likes him) than anything, but I'm willing ot be convinced otherwise. --Xcali 16:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion CDC (talk) 18:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why the constant vandalism from this page's beginning?
Delete. I'm sorry that Mr. Fahey has emotional issues, but that doesn't give him the right to use Wikipedia as part of his self-esteem therapy. Non-encyclopedic. Non-notable. Self-promoting vanity. 69.41.173.145 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:45, 3 Jun 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 00:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Feeder Gigs 1996 and Feeder Gigs 1995

Whilst Feeder are a noticable band in the UK, storing information on all their gigs is going too far, IMO. No other band I can think of has such a record on Wiki, and I can see no good reason for there to be one. So for these reasons, I see this as non-encyclopaedic --Kel-nage 00:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: vfd for Feeder Gigs 1995 now redirects here. I can see no logic behind keeping them both --Kel-nage 00:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gig schedules belong on overpriced T-shirts, not Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) 14:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gigs from 10 years ago? Small notability problem. --Scimitar 15:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, they haven't been notable in the US since 1995-1996. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - This isn't really about how notable the band are, more their gigs and when they were. I can't imagine anyone looking through this who didn't first look at a fansite. As I said originally, non-encyclopaedic. Kel-nage 18:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 00:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary list really however if someone wants to create some kind of omnibus article about their gigs then I'd keep that. -- Lochaber 13:18, 3 Jun 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 00:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sapana Thomas

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page was incorrectly speedy deleted as vanity. That is not a legitimate criterion. So here it must rest. BTW, delete. Denni ☯ 01:10, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete, Denni, please quit wasting everybody's time and clogging up VfD by undeleting pages which will obviously be deleted. RickK 05:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- When the speedy criteria are changed to include vanity pages, I will stop removing speedy tags and listing the articles here. Speedy is not an appropriate means of dealing with vanity articles. VfD is. My entries take up only a small percentage of VfD - how is that "clogging up VfD"? Denni ☯ 20:09, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete this vanity page. Should not have been undeleted to begin with. jni 11:32, 4 Jun 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 00:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Farhad Timuri

Vanity. ~~Delete~~. Qwghlm 14:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't realise it had been created by a new user, so I change to Userfy. Qwghlm 06:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Userfy. Wikibofh 14:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy nn --Xcali 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy vanity. --Etacar11 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfied. This is a new user, so be gentle in your deletion. Denni ☯ 01:18, 2005 Jun 4 (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 00:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Arnold Perey

Vanity. Created by its subject, Arnold Perey. Userfy or delete. Jonathunder 14:47, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Userfy Wikibofh 14:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep published anthropologist. The article is NPOV enough to be kept. --Scimitar 15:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Just about anybody with a Ph.D. has a few publications. It's tough to get out of grad school these days without a few articles under one's belt. I had two by graduation day in addition to my dissertation. Having/not having publications shouldn't be the only criterion for academic notability, otherwise most Ph.D.s would merit their own page. That said, I don't know enought about this particular field to assess the notability of Arnold Perey. Tobycat 04:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment; Perey appears to be more significant as a leader of the Aesthetic Realism movement than as an academic scholar in the field of anthropology. -Willmcw 05:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's already on user:Arnold Perey. Clear vanity. CDThieme 19:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No Account
Keep, notable enough. I mean, if some guy who ended up 4th in local elections gets kept, this article should be kept too. Grue 12:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't establish that the subject passes the average professor test. Does not actually appear in those Who's Who books, at least according to the Marquis Who's Who database I searched which includes 20 different Who's Who publications. Gamaliel 15:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I screwed up and typed the name in wrong. My apologies. He's in there. The obvious vanity aspect still motivates me to vote weak delete, however. Gamaliel 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Vanity article - IMHO, active contributors on Wikipedia should be clearly encyclopedic, any borderline ones shoudl be out. Trödel|talk 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, adequately NPOV, verifiable and significant. Kappa 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep NPOV, he's done new work, it is verifiable and should be included. [( User: Nildawn )]
I hate to point this out since I had this done to me when I was new and voted on VfD (and I really thought it was totally unfair - but now I see the wisdom of it) - but this person had only two edits prior to this vote and both were related to the subject above on the Aesthetic Realism page here & here.
Keep. Needs a little de-vanitizing (no "Dr." Perey), but is nowhere nearly as bad as most vanity articles. Notability is admittedly borderline but I see the academic work plus significant role in Aesthetic Realism. JamesMLane 21:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy: to quote Talk:Arnold Perey: "This is my talk page." - Nunh-huh 00:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. Neither his academic career nor his role at the very small Aesthetic Realism Foundation seem sufficient. -Willmcw 00:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep, rewritten and everybody including the vfd nominator agrees it should be kept. Thue | talk 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USACAPOC

Probable joke; at least very POV Frjwoolley 14:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Real organization [16]. Article is clearly POV attack, but that could be fixed. Wikibofh 15:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and neuter. :) — RJH 15:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've rewritten it. It isn't perfect, but I think it's keepable. --Scimitar 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: You conflicted me while re-writing. I agree yours is much better. :) Wikibofh 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry about that. Thanks for adding on that other stuff, my version was a little thin on numbers and links. --Scimitar 16:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well heck, I agree now, too. Looks like a good article. Keep. Frjwoolley 16:10, 2 Jun 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 00:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Spheres of Chaos

Article comes across as advertising and seems to be not noticable Kel-nage 14:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep I guess. Is shareware notable? Game is widely referenced with reviews and game cheats. That probably makes it at least slightly notable. It also runs on Windows; not just a Linux game. — RJH 15:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'd take the case similar to books... published software (and games) are notable, self-published software is not - and that includes most shareware, it's far too easy to write it and stick it on the web somewhere and get a dozen users. Delete as such. R adiant _* 11:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm going to agree with Kel-nage on this. I think it's an advertisement. How notable is "130,000 pixels"? That's not even VGA quality. Most of what I saw on the Google hits were mirrors of a download network. --Xcali 16:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisment for a non-notable game. --Carnildo 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abstaining. Subject is notable enough for an entry, but this is a far cry from being up to Wikipedia's standards. Almafeta 06:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a games compendium, games guide or otherwise. Only influential or commercially successful games are worth detailing. Obviously shareware games are trickier to measure, but I don't believe that this one is bundled in any major Linux distributions. Average Earthman 09:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, very well known. Well, I thought that it was, when I was playing it quite often yonks ago, as were loads of others at school etc.. Maybe it was just me, but... James F. (talk)
Keep per assertions of notability from Almafeta and James F. Kappa 20:57, 7 Jun 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 00:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Blood Libel (story)

The author is a friend, so my bias would naturally flow the other direction; however, an article on a short story which basically consists of a retelling of the short story isn't particularly encyclopedic; the story itself isn't particularly notable; it's hard to see that anything more than "read the story" can be made of this. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as the story doesn't seem to be notable. We don't have articles on any story ever written, just as we don't have articles on any person who ever

lived. Thue | talk 20:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Thue. carmeld1 01:22, 3 Jun 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 00:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Josh estrada

Vanity, nonnotable Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

While the first version of this page was a candidate for speedy, the rewritten version, while vanity, is not. Vanity, unfortunately, is not a criterion for speedy delete. It must pass through VfD. (BTW, delete) Denni ☯ 01:23, 2005 Jun 4 (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 00:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dragonmage

Non-notable. Text is Dragonmage is a famous character in the world of Final Fantasy 11 on the Titan server. RJFJR 15:58, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. The sooner the better. —Xezbeth 16:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all MMORPG and RPG player characters. This could easily be a Speedy under criterion #1. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, not notable, cruft, etc. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:45, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete, no specific claim to fame, probably not notable. Thue | talk 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, playing a game isn't encyclopedic material. Speedy under criterion one if possible. Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete [[User:-Ril-|Denni☯ 01:30, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)]] 21:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, speedy fans. This is not deletable under criterion 1, because it's not patent nonsense. It's thin-on-the-ground vanity, but we can delete it here. Denni☯ 01:30, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  - I (and presumably MGM too) was referring to article criterion #1 ("very short articles with little or no context") not general criterion #1 (patent nonsense). I'm pretty certain it would quality, and in fact it's even shorter than the example given under criterion #1... "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.". Which, of course, is about Tony Wilson. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, Jun 4, 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 00:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Samantha Nicole Land

Vanity. --Lee Hunter 16:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. —Xezbeth 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, vanity. No such show, no such character, no such actress, as far as Google and IMDB can tell. Frjwoolley 16:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5th Heaven has been deleted before as a hoax wordplay on 7th Heaven. It's not a real show and therefore this article can't be real either. Also, shows that don't list on the IMDB are likely non-existent. Strong delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. And complaining about your sibling is a topic better suited for LiveJournal or Xanga, not here. --Idont Havaname 21:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax/vanity. --Etacar11 00:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fro Joe Koolaid

Likely vanity/advertisement. Google gives about a half dozen hits each for either "Fro Joe Koolaid" or "Dr Dyno Show" if you factor out wikipedia mirrors and his own sites. --Xcali 16:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Appears to be a character on a minor webcast. Wikibofh 16:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Ephemera not encyclopedic. Geogre 18:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol the internet

Articles says it's not notable. Delete as forum vanity.--InShaneee 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. Vanity. Delete -- The Anome 16:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as forumcruft. Hedley 16:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Forumcruft. Nestea 17:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure vanity and lame. Sarg 18:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable - DavidWBrooks 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising/vanity. ("Nothing really gets done" could imply an attack too). Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already listed. Borders on patent nonsense too. --Idont Havaname 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And here I thought that it would be about the 4chan meme. humblefool ® 02:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not noteable/unimportant/ bad advertising No Clue 05:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity entry --Wetman 05:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Updated page on June 8th do not delete
- Unsigned comment by User:24.82.3.215. — JIP | Talk 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Above comment was vandalised by the same user, who changed the IP address. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, forum vanity. — JIP | Talk 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wayne bergeron

Article about a jazz trumpet player. Has an allmusic entry, but only gets credits on other people's albums. Article was originally a vehicle for advertising. Gets 5000 google hits. Originally put up for speedy. Notable? No vote from me; I just moved it here. Meelar (talk) 16:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 16:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uncertain. Over 5,000 google hits (which I know, isn't an accepted criteria) and most of those seem to be attributions for performances. I would like to see some music heads comment. Wikibofh 18:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now listed as copyvio. — Phil Welch 00:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Janine Tulkens

College student vanity/nonsense. Fawcett5 16:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 16:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete- yeah, seems like vanity to me. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just someone having a laugh. Deb 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke. Thue | talk 20:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't seem to be a joke, just a vanity page. --Idont Havaname 21:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke. "Bakes pro bono" is a joke. Twenty year-olds who direct a physics research group would be verifiable in google. Samw 17:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Delete.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CharterSkool

Apparently a website forum for kids complaining about their charter school. Fawcett5 16:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 17:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Fits the Speedy criteria for an article that is only a see also or redirect somewhere else. Same for the Charterskool redirect/article/link. Wikibofh 17:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For the same reasons and with the same comments as my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Charterskool. Sarg 18:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- [Quoted CSD criteria removed by AиDя01D TALK EMAIL; better to link directly to them and un-clutter this discussion]
Correction, there is no reason to speedily delete the article. However, there are several reasons to delete this article, including WP:NOT (advertising), WP:VAIN, and the nice little notice that says Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business whenever you create a new article. Delete. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 20:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The section I believe applies for speedy is "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link.". These articles are only a link to the forum a description of the forum, and little else. If the experienced users and admins disagree with this interpretation, feel free to let me know. Wikibofh 20:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete You are correct Android79. It should be deleted, but not as a speedy deletion, just a normal deletion. Go ahead when ready admin.

Vote by User:R6MaY89 Wikibofh 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Delete, minor internet forum, not notable. Thue | talk 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable schoolcruft and quite POV. --Idont Havaname 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Charter School of Wilmington. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect torn on which one is the best. Vegaswikian 06:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charterskool

As above. Fawcett5 16:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete this as it does not conflict with Wikipedia's policies. --R6MaY89 17:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Please don't remove the VfD notice. Wikibofh 17:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Fits the Speedy criteria for an article that is only a see also or redirect somewhere else. Same for the CharterSkool redirect/article/link. Wikibofh 17:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising and a libel page, possibly speedy delete but definite regular delete. Geogre 18:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another vanity article. It might deserve a mention at Charter School of Wilmington if it could be verified by another source than the article's author. Sarg 18:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a minor internet forum. Thue | talk 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Carnildo 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Charter School of Wilmington. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Charter school. No Account

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper pacifico cocktail

Neologism, prank, not notable, original research, and/or unverifiable. Zero hits. Niteowlneils 17:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1 jigger of Citron, 1 Beer, 1 big shot of Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Wikibofh 18:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I mixed Guinness and whisky once. The result was not suitable material for an encyclopedia, and neither is this. Delete neologism/private joke. sjorford →•← 18:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable vanity. I just created the "No Google Hits" cocktail. It has... yeah, you guessed, no Google hits! Sarg 18:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, no google hits. Thue | talk 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Doesn't Wikibooks have a cocktail recipe book? Does it accept original research? — Phil Welch 00:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FTMME

Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge any useful content with Tengwar. Sarg 18:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Duk 19:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete No original research, bad title format. I'm not sure about the copyvio, the author says he grants permission, but how can we be sure he's really the author of the geocities document (which, by the way, has a (c) note, not free) drini ☎ 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe (IANAL) that it's fine to reserve all rights on one copy and GFDL another copy of one's own work, as long as you don't incorporate later changes to the GFDL version by others into the non-GFDL version. It's just dual-licensing. Of course, it's pretty much impossible to prove that an illegal copy is made of the non-GFDL version instead of a legal copy of the GFDL version, but it allows an author to later release a work previously published with all rights reserved without having to go around changing the copyright notice on old copies. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, and possibly a copyvio. --Carnildo 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. (Possible copyvio as well). Mgm|^(talk) 00:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Note: also mistitled. Mgm|^(talk) 00:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research, bad title, essay/proposal. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 3 Jun 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. – ugen64 01:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kaseidramon (Digimon)

This is not even a "real" Digimon. It's someone's fanmade Digimon, not even an official Digimon. Delete. Shining Celebi 18:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Although it could be mentioned in the Digimon article, since the rumour of its existance has generated quite some uproar in the fanbase. Also, note that the exact same text is present in some websites. It could be a copyvio, but I'm not sure. Could someone check? Sarg 18:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is same as material that was previously on Kaseidramon. Which has now 28 deleted edits (it was recreated 3 times after being deleted and this is the fourth.) I'll speedy it according to policy. Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Igor Skoglund

Vanity. Yes, there is the book, but a quick Amazon search shows us that it's "published" by Authorhouse, a self-publishing company - that is, they'll publish basically anything for a fee. So that hardly makes one encyclopedic. Google finds a lot of self-promotion and nonsense. CDC (talk) 18:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete authors of vanity press only books (unless by some miracle they make it into the NYTimes bestseller list or something similar) Average Earthman 19:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 20:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Average Earthman. Mgm|^(talk) 21:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KieliX

Software advertisement. Rl 18:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, only 109 google hits, which is very little for a computer science item on The Internet, indicates it is not notable. Thue | talk 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aryeh

Hebrew dicdef. Delete. Mustafaa 19:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, dicdef. Thue | talk 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cube pranks

A substub about a type of practical joke in the office involving people's cubicles. Nominated for speedy, but doesn't fit WP:CSD. Meelar (talk) 19:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a recognized phrase in actual use? If not, delete. As this entry stands now it is useless but perhaps with the addition of some examples the article would be more informative, at which time it could be moved to the cubicle page. EDM

Delete, no usefull info currently. It is not clear this is encyclopedic, and unless it is expanded I don't see why we should use our time arguing about this substub. Thue | talk 20:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Even if it is a recognized phrase (and I'm not saying it is--I've never heard of it), this is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article.Gary D Robson 21:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. In any case, I fail to see how this would be anything other than just pranks or practical jokes. --Xcali 23:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a notable topic. — Phil Welch 00:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Omniphasism

Neologism - "Your search - Williams, Oregon, Omniphasism - did not match any documents." -- BD2412 ^talk 20:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Delete: neologism and original research. Thue | talk 20:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. You 21:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Notability not shown. Samw 12:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nick wojciak

Vanity article Randolph 20:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy patent vanity. --Xcali 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I completed this vfd process after I found it half completed by another registered wikipedia user. --Randolph 20:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion (yet). There is no evidence that this article is a hoax or a prank. There is also no evidence that this person is remotely notable. Therefore, it must pass through VfD before a timely delete. Denni ☯ 01:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like vanity. jni 11:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hit By An Ambulance

Band vanity. Their only recording is 13 songs DIY on a tape deck. Quale 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like they fail WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanity. --Idont Havaname 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. Plus they think that Johnny Cash wrote Hurt... --Etacar11 00:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, cos they aint all dat bad they just wanted 2 get noticed, sorry we didnt follow your facist rules,YOU ARE ALL NERDS

Delete vanity Serodio 05:49, 11 Jun 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 both deleted. – ugen64 01:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Giguere and Make Easy Money with Google

Vanity. Spamming Wikipedia with links to his book. Rick K 20:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - and I took out the spamming links. - DavidWBrooks 20:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clear vanity page. –DeweyQ 20:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising and spam. Vanity and spam. Advertising, vanity, and spam. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If these pages deserve to be on Wikipedia, someone else will make them eventually. You 20:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Clean. Go ahead and delete the book article (although I'll note that there are many other computer books listed in the Wikipedia) but leave my bio in as the author of four printed books. EricGiguere 20:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and delete. Don't create articles about yourself, please. humblefool ® 02:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quick Delete The original poster retracted the article. So, just delete it already.
Quick Delete Yes, please delete the pages, I retract them completely.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Result of "debate": speedy deletion. Phils 10:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proxymed

An ad for some company, quite simply. Phils 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Not much to discuss. Salleman 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 01:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yamaha YFZ450

Wikipedia is not a catalogue advertisement, it's spam and copyvio. Delete drini ☎ 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, verifiable and there are plenty of legitimate articles here about cars and bikes. However if it's a copyvio it'll need to be re-written, that said the paragraphs seem alright, it's just the list that copyvio right? -- Lochaber 13:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Um...I don't think this is a copyvio. The "specs" are from another (multiple) sites, but specs are specs. I can't locate the introductory paragraphs on any other site. I'm not sure that there is a problem here, and we do indeed have lots of car and bike articles. func (talk) 21:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wai (water)

Unexpandable dicdef. Delete. Mustafaa 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, foreign language dictdef. Rick K 21:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Eh. Merge with water. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:15, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Why? Do you really think there should be a section in Water which indicates the word for water in every language? Then why not the same thing for every other word in the encyclopedia? RickK 66.60.159.190 16:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete, "all words in all languages" is for wiktionary. Kappa 20:50, 7 Jun 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. – ugen64 01:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Hido

Another article about another non-notable person by an anon editor who's been making a lot of non-notable vanity pages in the last few days. "Aaron Hido" gets only 4 Google results. Delete. --Idont Havaname 21:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy patent vanity --Xcali 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have speedied this article as per Article criterion #1 (Very short articles with little or no context). Unfortunately, vanity is not an appropriate criterion for speedy. Denni ☯ 01:45, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of countries receiving snowfall

Ludicrous list. Rick K 21:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Interesting, and potentially comprehensive. Keep. Meelar (talk) 21:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I second the last voter. Keep You 21:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
keep please it does not make sense to erase it Yuckfoo 21:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is simply a list of countries under two sections: At sea level and only at elevated regions. I can only fathom interest in this if it was an ordered list like perhaps by average snowfall but this article only anticipates listing countries that get snow. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. The page seems interesting, although it is currently flawed and needs rearrangement. Strangely, it lists many countries under "snows at sea level", even though the lowest point in the country is way above sea level. Martg76 22:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I can't see how this is possibly encyclopedic. Why not just put a list of the lowest temperature ever recorded in a country? --Xcali 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a distinctly weird list; much too specific. We have almanac-like data, sure, but wouldn't more general articles on precipitation levels per country be more appropriate? This yes/no list is too niche-ey. Since this information is readily available, I don't feel too bad in voting to delete this. JRM · Talk 23:55, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Delete. Weird. — Phil Welch 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, impossible to maintain. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very weak keep this is interesting and should be verifiable. Although I think 'sea level' may well mean 'typically ground level'. Also I'm a bit worried by the comment 'A subjective list'. --Doc (?) 01:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopedic list. List of countries by average annual snowfall might be useful, but I'm not sure of that. Also I'm a bit amused by the comment 'A subjective list', and think that it's quite an improvement over the original version ('A perceptive list' - [17])! -- Jonel
Keep but only barely. This is information about climate, and in my opinion this pushes this just over my bar for being encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonencyclopedic in this form, but I like Jonel's idea if it's verifiable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into snow and delete - Skysmith 08:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. A verified List of countries by average annual snowfall might be useful with citations, this is not. Average Earthman 10:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable and unencyclopedic. R adiant _* 11:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, A very interesting list, and may be very comprehensive if some improvements are added. (User:70.92.183.70)
Delete, not just because it's subtrivial, but because the criterion is too loose. What does "receiving snowfall" mean? Every winter? Once in a while? And who verifies whether snowfall has been received or not? Snow has been known to fall in some of the warmest countries on Earth, and I bet it might even have fallen at night in Saudi Arabia when no one was around to see. I'm in Average Earthman's corner on this. Denni ☯ 01:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep. Why not? Kaibabsquirrel 04:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For all the reasons mentioned above? If you have counterarguments, that would be great. JRM · Talk 12:28, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
"Why not?", in this case, being roughly the equivalent of a shrug. This is arguably a silly, frivolous VfD. It's verifiable information, encyclopedic, and may be useful. Kaibabsquirrel 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you a registered member of the AIW yet? JRM · Talk 16:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Can't say I'm really a hardcore inclusionist :) I've cast many delete votes, mostly on non-notable fan cruft and hopelessly POV titles. Guess I'm AIW material on "trivia" lists and the like though :) Kaibabsquirrel 18:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with snow. ~~~~ 16:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete do not merge, meaningless Mozzerati 18:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
delete beyond pointless Sabine's Sunbird 21:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; agree with users Jonel and Denni HollyAm 05:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Grue 12:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Snow and redirect. The Steve 00:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as idiotic, but encyclopedic. Karol 06:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and verify for accuracy, so that the "subjective" bit at the bottom can be removed. Some may find it trivial, but it's objective, verifiable, and notable information. See also WINP. Blackcats 10:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sean billig

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Yup. --Xcali 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Downloaded over 100,000 times!" That has to count for something. OnwardToGolgotha 00:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skye McMahon

Hoax. One Google hit for "Skye McMahon", and it isn't for this person. Mark Jindrak's article on imdb makes no mention of a wife (and there is no imdb entry for Skye McMahon.) Jindrak's official website at http://www.mark-jindrak.net/ says he's divorced, although admittedly it was last updated in October. Though one would think that something so notable as a wedding would have caused him to update his bio. I don't know how notable it is to mention this, but his bio has this interesting Q&A:

"What's the craziest thing you've ever done outside of wrestling?

"Gotten married."

Rick K 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - (fictional) vanity. McPhail 22:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sounds like a hoax. -- Lochaber 13:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Hoax -- Paulley 20:54, 3 Jun 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 --cesarb 22:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Devaney Elementary

Articles are not generally accepted on primary schools. You 21:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Only content is "DeVaney Elementary" which make it a speedy candidate and I've tagged it, we don't need to fight over this one. Kappa 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy --Xcali 21:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lyssa Woolverton

Delete - vanity of a non notable A curate's egg 18:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please use the steps mentioned in How to list pages for deletion. We didn't get a link back to the page the way you added it, so we couldn't easily go and check the entry. I'm fixing this one. drini ☎ 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't me - I'd just marked it "cleanup" as someone else at the same time added the vfd - I just entered a comment first! A curate's egg 13:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The GWL is a fictitious organization, and there is no known documentation on Lyssa Woolverton, indicating that she does not exist. This is garbage. Otto Moll 5:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/hoax. --Etacar11 01:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of all cities in the United States

voting for deletion, reason: lists are not very useful

A gigantic article. Is it useful in any way?? I'm pretty sure someone who wants to search for an American city would probably want to:

Use a list of cities in the state the city is known to be in
Use a dis-ambiguation page if the city name is known but wants to know the state
Simply type it in in the URL

I suggest that this be deleted if no one can explain how this is a meaningful article. Georgia guy 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No apparent usefulness, plus the "article" (it's actually just a giant list) doesn't really set criteria as to what constitutes a city. Duplicates information in the various state articles. 23skidoo 22:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are already articles for List of cities in {{{state}}} for each state, so this gargantuan article is unnecessary. Maybe it could be just re-written to link to the lists for each state, to establish an easy hierarchy or articles. --M412k 22:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 712 kilobytes. Wikipedia:Article size recommends splitting up these sorts of articles, but as M4 points out, that's been done. — Phil Welch 00:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons above. Nestea 01:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Not needed. "List of cities in <state>" works much better. K1Bond007 03:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An "A" for effort in creating this, but the Category:Cities in the United States makes this article redundant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — redundant, per Sjakkalle. — RJH 14:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — redundant, per RJH. — phantombantam 10:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Entirely useless page that serves basically no benefit to a Wikipedia user that is trying to find the article of a specific United States community. Phoenix2 02:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete – Dewet 15:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Refactor into index of List of cities in {{{state}}} lists (ie what M412k said). Niteowlneils 15:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible to maintain - I note at least two errors in the "Washington" section, but at 60+ seconds to load the page, I'm not about to try fixing it -- and redundant with Category:Cities in the United States and with the by-state lists. --Carnildo 22:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article should be deleted because this is useless: The list is too large. See list of cities for a separate state for a full list. That's too much to maintain! --RonH 23:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (transwikied by someone else). – ugen64 01:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ignominious

Dictionary definition, already transwikied, not an encyclopedic concept, no potential that I can see. Kappa 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete You 21:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete transwiki'd dictdef. Wikibofh 22:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef already transwikied. Besides, Kappa never nominates articles for deletion which should not be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Sorry, Kappa.) The adjective→noun redirect would be to ignominy. We don't have that. But we do have something else. Redirect to shame. Uncle G 19:51, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- I (mildly) oppose redirection to places that don't mention the word in question. Kappa 20:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carolina Circle Mall

A generic mall, and a defunct one at that. You decide. Fawcett5 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Let's see how far this can be expanded before deleting it. — Phil Welch 00:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, random malls are not encyclopaedic. Article fails to establish notability. --bainer (talk) 00:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting defunct mall article. -- Decumanus 01:14, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete I don't consider operating malls to be inherently notable, so having an article on a defunct one is ridiculous. carmeld1 01:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I was going to suggest merging with the mall owner's article, except the mall is closed. The other option, if someone wants to do the work, is to create something about this on the city article under redevelopment. Vegaswikian 06:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe make a mention in Greensboro, North Carolina but definitely delete - Skysmith 08:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't think of a reason to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I can. Non-notable mall, no notable tenants, non-notable owner, non-notable location. Sorry, Tony, this is not a high school. Delete. Denni ☯ 01:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete, I don't see anything about this mall that isn't covered in the main article on Mall. R adiant _* 11:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --SPUI (talk) 11:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with all delete reasons given above. Quale 10:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, important to the history of its local area. Kappa 20:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Loveies

This is another hoax dicdef, as far as I can tell. It was mistakenly tagged with "Move to Wiktionary," but shouldn't. It should be deleted. Incidentally, it was created by User:Loveies, who has a grand total of five edits as of now. --Dmcdevit 21:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Phil Welch 00:27, 3 Jun 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. – ugen64 01:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tanga News

Unverifiable... content is "Tanga News is the news show of Tanga.". It's had tags for a while, all it's doing is wasting people's time trying figure out whether it means Tanga in Tanzania or Tanga (Portugal). Kappa 21:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete'. If it's notable someone will come back and create a proper article eventually. — Phil Welch 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as having no context. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Criterion #1 speediable. Done. Denni ☯ 01:58, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 01:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Camp Lo

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 22:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep 69 000 Google hits and a listing at RollingStone.com have to count for something. Certainly more notable than some of the high schools we keep. Denni ☯ 02:02, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (but redirected instead by me). – ugen64 01:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pesco-vegetarian

Dicdef. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 22:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Information is mentioned in Vegetarianism but should be elaborated there while this article is deleted. Hence, merge into Vegetarianism if you can even call it that. In fact, I'll go do that now. --M412k 22:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that; this is wholly mentioned in Pesco/pollo vegetarianism. Delete.--M412k 22:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete should be pisco, and is already discussed in the vegetarianism article--nixie 22:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. – ugen64 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neyo

Non-notable Starwarscruft. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters. --bainer (talk) 00:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, clone commanders are notable. According to Google, a real character.-LtNOWIS 04:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

TripRoss

This nomination got lost in the works. I am simply completing the process. No vote. Denni ☯ 02:05, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gamers Cantina

Non notable web forum, article as it stands now is an ad. Fawcett5 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy forumcruft. ad. --Xcali 22:22, 2 Jun 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. – ugen64 01:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kenneth Burgener

Non-notable admin of the non-notable weblog above. Fawcett5 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy --Xcali 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as short with no content. Mgm|^(talk) 22:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Gamers Cantina cannot legitimately be speedied. However, this article can, and has been. Denni ☯ 02:09, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. – ugen64 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flavor Essence

Not encyclopedic, probable hoax. I didn't see any google hits referring to "flavor essence" as a brand of anything. This user is known for creating such articles and needs to be blocked. Jersyko talk 22:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's a translation from Japanese, or possibly Chinese. Redirect to Ajinomoto, since "flavor essence" is the same as "essence of taste". But don't block this user. Kappa 22:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concur I think thats an Ajinomoto trademark. Assuming we ever start documenting Food Science then this ought to be redirected to Flavor Chemistry. Klonimus 10:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redir as above. I don't personally see grounds for blocking here, but if you do please bring up the matter at WP:AN/I. Radiant_* 11:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238. - Jersyko talk 15:23, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep!!! Good article.
- I've removed the font tags. When will you ever learn that writing at size 8 won't increase the weight of your vote? You've tried it at size 10, but it was reverted, and rightly so. Do you seriously think it won't be reverted when you cast your vote at size 8? Aecis 14:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original author probably confused over the EU weasel term for MSG ("Flavour Enhancer") on packaging.... its Lincruft, anyway. --Kiand 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sticking with my "translation from Japanese, or possible Chinese" theory. Kappa 13:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WA Catering

Hobby (from interview: "For now, Simon adds, "the money is good. But we can't live off of it."") for a couple high school kids. Nice to see young people doing something constructive, but 'laudable' != 'notable'. Large number of hits from a simple google due to "wa" being a common abbrev. for the US state of WAshington, Western Australia, etc.--limit it to "WA Catering" safeserv and you only get one hit (their site), "WA Catering" levitt only gets two hits, etc. Niteowlneils 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. Delete. — Phil Welch 00:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Mentioned in the Boston Globe, which is nice and all, but it is still advertising. --bainer (talk) 00:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eh, Userfy if at all possible. Otherwise, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:46, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Creator is an anon. Can't userfy. Delete. Rick K 05:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BDNIT

The page admits it is a neologism. Fawcett5 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya. Delete. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gypsy Dave

Non-notable, possible hoax as majority of Google hits for "Gypsy Dave" are a lyric in a song. User:Luigi30 (Ταλ&kappa) 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy patent vanity --Xcali 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey man, I'm Gypsy Dave and I can prove I exist. Unsigned comment by 162.119.232.105.
  - I exist, too, but that doesn't mean I deserve an article.--Xcali 22:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy patent vanity. If you're "very important person in the history of rock and roll." you wouldn't need to prove you exist. Also, if that's the case, the link to your music wouldn't be needed. Stores would stock your CDs. Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Gypsy Dave AKA Edward Boggles doesn't believe in selling music.

5 Google hits for "Edward Boggles", none of which are a person. User:Luigi30 (Ταλ&kappa) 00:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Gypsies don't deserve to live, let alone have Wikipedia articles devoted to themselves. - Otto Moll (Talk) 23:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ouch. I'd try to phrase attempts at humor in ways that are a little less prone to misunderstanding. I might have been a gypsy, you insensitive clod! You're worse than Hitler! JRM · Talk 23:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Keep Gypsy Dave is featured in many interviews with the band Moroccan.
Left unsigned by 162.119.232.105. JRM · Talk 00:09, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Speedy Another anonymous edit by Gypsy Dave himself. Nuke this vanity page ASAP. Rlw (Talk) 00:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Disco Stu doesn't advertise! — Phil Welch 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this - and the image as well - see also the article on Edward boggles --Doc (?) 08:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Say goodbye. Is it verifiable? Looks like it could be fiction or substance-induced fantasy. --WCFrancis 15:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not speediable - it is not patent nonsense, a self-evident hoax or prank, or an article with little content. It must therefore pass VfD. However, it is worth noting that a Google search for "Gypsy Dave" "Lindsay Romig" nets de nada. Delete Denni ☯ 02:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Feel free to delete it. I created this page and didn't realize how strict your rules are. FYI, nothing I stated was untrue, but I really don't mind if you delete it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HYPSMC

Same reasons explained on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS drini ☎ 22:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 22:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless good sources are provided showing that this combination is actually in widespread use. A newspaper story... a quotation from a college guide... something like that. A factoid like this cannot stand on the sole authority of Wikipedia editors. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Not that it matters, but an article entitled HYPSMC that explains the initialism HYPMC does not give me much confidence in the care or thoroughness behind the article. Rather odd. HYPS suggests Stanford is among the top four universities, but HYPMC suggests that it isn't among the top five. Perhaps we need articles on HYPM, HYPCM, HYSPMC, YHPCMS, etc. to take account of the full range of opinion on these matters. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, the creator of HYPS gave it links to HYPSM and HYPSMC right from the start. See this, too. And we have hyps as well. A Google search convinces me that there's a Wiktionary article HYPSMC to be had here, expanding the initialism, establishing use, and giving the origin if it can be determined. The silly edit war here convinces me that there's nothing encyclopaedic to be had here whilst still retaining the NPOV. As per Func, Redirect to ~~Ivy League~~. Uncle G 00:07, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  - ... to wherever HYP (universities) ends up. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2 for details. Uncle G 02:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Delete this and all other permutations of the letters C, H, M, P, S, and Y that refer to a similar concept. (Why didn't they spell it CHYMPS?) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and the variations. Hell, delete Chimps just to be sure we get them all. :) I also think this one is a joke entry playing off the other ones. Wikibofh 20:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSM. —Lowellian (talk) 23:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as my vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS --Carnildo 01:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no one considers these the best LACs. A AWSP - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona article should instead be created.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of months by year: 1900-1999

Lots of redlinks, not useful. Edward 22:38, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

What? Delete --Doc (?) 00:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is a separate VfD entry necessary for each of the related articles: List_of_months_by_year:_1600-1699, List_of_months_by_year:_1700-1799, List_of_months_by_year:_1800-1899, List of months by year: 2000-2005? --Tabor 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Evidently, there is a parent article too, List_of_months_by_year --Tabor 00:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all related. Simply not necessary, especially given the fact it's almost all redlinks. 23skidoo 00:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hoo boy. Delete this and all similar pages – I don't think we need a calendar that's 98% redlinks, and I really hope this was done with a spreadsheet or other automated process and not by hand. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NeoJustin 02:35 June 3, 2004
Delete. Insanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete only after cleanup. This page should be only red links. If you look at the others, you will see they are mostly redirects for dates that are not linked correctly in the source article. I cleaned up May 1914, July 1944 and April 1945, which need to be deleted, and are now redirects without any links here except for the page we are discusing. Maybe we can finish the cleanup. Vegaswikian 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you have got to be kidding. Delete pointless list-cruft. This article and all the related articles. I'm beginning to think we need a WikiList sister project so all the list-obsessives who show up here periodically can go list everything everywhere by every criteria and the rest of us can actually edit articles. Soundguy99 06:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By Jove! Delete this and all related - rather unnecessary list to say the least, as if number and names of months would change every year. Many lists were supposed to be superceded by the Category system but it appears some potential contributors rather have more of them. - Skysmith 08:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — no useful content. — RJH 14:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yikes! Someone went to a whole lot of work for no apparent benefit. Gently delete this entirely pointless article, and its brethren. Denni ☯ 02:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep. Neutrality^talk 02:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Seems like overkill to me, too, but it should be noted that there actually seem to be Month Year entries in existence for all the cells in the List of months by year: 2000-2005 table. I think an overall discussion of whether this sort of 'breakdown or re-hashing or WhateverYouWantToCallIt of the almanac-style info Wikipedia has' is, useful/desireable/appropriate/worth-maintaining, etc., before we delete a bunch of stuff that has been created for some month/year combinations while keeping others. (Niteowlneils--forgot to login) 24.19.145.84 04:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bite Pokémon

I'm normally all for supporting the expansion of pokémon pages, what with all the information available out there. However, I can't support a page based around a new pokémon category the author just made up. Almafeta 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is a limit on these things, and that's about mile past it. Kel-nage 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the Poke-fan-cruft. --Scimitar 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And what the hell are Sagger and Criptia? I've been a Pokemon fan for years and I've never heard of either of those. Ketsuban (is better than you) 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gotta delete them all, Pokécruft. [/parody] Nestea 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I choose you, Delete-a-chu! -- BD2412 ^talk 02:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete Poke-cruft should not be a reason for deletion. Being a ridiculous article with no truth what-so-ever is. Sonic Mew 11:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some say rhetorical device

Ignoring the fact that it should be at "Some say (rhetorical device)", that it doesn't describe its topic and that it violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (all of which are fixable) this article says nothing weasel word doesn't already say. I question that the phrase "some say" should merit a separate article. Redirects are cheap and I prefer them to VfD, but redirecting this is clearly inappropriate. JRM · Talk 23:01, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Some say this article should be deleted. I'm one of 'em. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:44, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

delete. Interesting point about "OutFoxed" could be incorporated into the weasel word article. carmeld1 02:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 02:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Troll Metal

"Troll Metal" is not a valid category of Heavy Metal music. The information currently present on the page is insufficient to provide enough motive to identify "Troll Metal" as a genre. The only band mentioned that consistently deals with "troll themes" is Finntroll (most of the page's content consists of information on Finntroll), and one band cannot warrant its own genre. The other bands listed, for example Ancient, have sparse relation to "troll themes" in their works (in Ancient's case, only one EP is vaguely described as "dealing with troll themes"), rendering the "genre" completely insubstantial. This article should be deleted. OnwardToGolgotha 23:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, neologism. --bainer (talk) 00:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I have to admit, this article is remarkably funny in its absurdity:

"Finntroll's album covers represent trolls with very different physical appearances. One looks strong and tall and is green, one other is more elfic, his skin is gray-blue and he has pointy nose and ears, one other looks like a dwarf and others are smaller, strong, green, with big noses and pointy-hairy ears. Troll metal is often related to forest metal, since trolls live in forests and we can hear sounds of the forest in various songs."

It must have been written either by someone really inept or, ironically a troll who probably won a bet with his buddies as to how long it would remain undetected. OnwardToGolgotha 06:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 23:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is neither a vote to keep nor delete, simply an observation - alas, despite the ridiculousness of the genre, it's not imaginary. I can't voice for all the bands, but Mortiis and Arckanum are quite regrettably real. And yes, they do in fact dress up like trolls for performances.
Keep The article needs rewriting but I dont see why it should be deleted? Neologism? Imaginary genre? "Troll metal" returns 11,900 hits on Google, almost all of them dealing with the musical genre. Seems quite notable to me. -CunningLinguist 06:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article definitely needs to be cleaned up - but it shouldn't be deleted - a lot of metal genres are defined by the topics that they sing about (viking metal, battle metal etc) - if troll metal is deleted then these pages should also go.Gil-Galad
- Yes, you're right they should go. Thanks for mentioning it. Maybe instead they should all be merged to a page called Metal subgenres, but there's so little useful information on ANY of them (except some dubious lists of bands) that it's silly to have all those separate articles.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, funny but true! Grue 12:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Goblin metal and forest metal are not really valid genres, according to Google. But this one is, even though it's a joke and often used in a joke context. By the way, the lister for this VfD, OnwardToGolgotha, was banned permanently a couple of days ago for sandbox vandalism. --Idont Havaname 02:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with all of the keepers above. Salleman 23:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rosie and b

I don't think this page warrants inclusion in the Wiki. Although they have their own website, the page name seems to differ from the actual band name. Craigy (talk) 23:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No allmusic.com entry, 2 Google hits for "rosie and b", although as Craigy has pointed out, it's hard to tell what name this band actually goes by. Delete also The music, which is tagged for CSD, and watch out for The future and The band members, which are redlinked from this article. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Note. Moogleyb made the following comment on this page's talk page: "The name of the page differs from the name of the band merely because I didn't know how to stop it redirecting back to the Rhythm and Blues page. This is a valid subject." Eric119 02:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeleteSasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Those red links are certainly generic. I've already deleted The band members twice. Rick K 05:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and delete the images too, as per Android79--nixie 14:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jedz

I can't verify this (but then I'm using Google and not the Force). Even if the term is in use - I suspect this definition may be too specific --Doc (?) 00:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Neologism with no basis, save for some Star Wars nerd's imagination. OnwardToGolgotha 00:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Imaginary. — Phil Welch 00:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Term, populerised over two to three years. Similar subculture to 'nerd,' but with essential differances. Common use on the Sunshine Coast area. Don't know about other loactions. Jubeanation 00:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. Rick K 05:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Although it seems to be an actual Polish word. No relavent Google results in top 10. --bainer (talk) 00:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What a load of... humblefool ® 02:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete NeoJustin 02:36 June 3, 2004

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