Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 18

< May 17	May 19 >

May 18

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Invisible Existence, speedy'd but recreated as Invisible existence

Band vanity. I wish them the best, but for now delete. Gazpacho 00:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete - David Gerard 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
couldn't find anything about them on Google, but they are pretty huge in the city they are from...just not nationally Stancel 01:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to have been speedied as "vanity", following the removal of the VfD notice by the IP who created the article originally. History:

Deletion log
   * 13:03, 18 May 2005 Golbez deleted "Invisible Existence?" (vanity)
Page history
   * 12:54, 18 May 2005 . . Ravenhull (Vanity edit. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium for up and coming bands. Earn your entry with success (and I wish you luck with your endevours))
   * 12:52, 18 May 2005 . . 24.70.95.203 ()
   * 12:51, 18 May 2005 . . 24.70.95.203 ()
   * 12:51, 18 May 2005 . . 24.70.95.203 ()
   * 10:11, 18 May 2005 . . Gazpacho ()
   * 10:09, 18 May 2005 . . 24.70.95.203 ()

Gazpacho's edit flagged it for VfD, the next edit removed the VfD notice, Ravenhull subsequently flagged it for speedy, and Golbez then deleted it. Unless someone asks here or on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion for it to be undeleted, I'm not inclined to, as it's in many ways the article's creator who has brought this upon themselves, and I don't think this article is all that important in itself. But it's a clear breach of speedy delete policy IMO. No vote. Andrewa 10:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have a point, but since the article wouldn't survive VfD anyway I don't really want to drag it through VfU mechanics. But if it happens more than once, we should bring it up with the deletor. R adiant _* 11:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Andrewa's right. For my part, I've seen a lot of CSD's given as "vanity." Vanity isn't a speedy criterion. I haven't always (to my shame) gone to the nominating author and explained this, but folks need to know that things that violate the deletion policy don't usually qualify as speedies. Geogre 11:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been recreated at Invisible existence. Should I speedy it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Re-creation of a voted deleted page is a CSD. —msh210 21:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I know... I was just apprehensive given the fact that the status of the original deletion was still being debated to some degree here. Should we just wait until this deletion passes normally after the week, and delete then? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    - Delete both, but wait until the VfD period expires before deleting or redeleting either. The VfD notice on Invisible existence now points to this discussion; I mightn't have done it quite that way but it can work. It only becomes a CSD as recreated material after a valid deletion, and we haven't had that yet. I'm still not proposing to undelete Invisible Existence, but I couldn't object to it happening even without going through VfU, as the deletion was not according to the proper process. MWOT. Andrewa 01:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stock band vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -SimonP 00:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wesla Lee

No google hits, article full of NPOV violations, article even says this person doesn't have an album. CryptoDerk 00:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not surprisingly, no listing on AMG; article on its own terms clearly establishes that this is a mere vanity page about a nonnotable musician. Postdlf 02:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zellin 03:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough evidence to pass WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as last guy. --metta, The Sunborn 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to pass the WP:MUSIC notability test. Master Thief Garrett 10:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - information has been added to teh BK article, so might as well be redirected - SimonP 00:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

List of countries with Burger King restaurants

I do not agree with the ineptly named List of countries that McDonalds franchises their restaurants in either, but at least that chain represents the capitalist archetype. Surely we do not need these pointless lists for every shop, restaurant, manufacturer etc. that operates in more than one nation. This list is not only non-encyclopedic but it also serves no obvious purpose. Rje 00:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - My enthusiasm for Wikipedia dims with each pointless article like this. I would also vote for deleting the list of countries with McDonalds franchises. That's most countries in the world (unfortunately). Jez 00:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stancel 01:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BK does not have anything like the cult opposition that McD's has. Gazpacho 02:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add list of countries to Burger King article and then delete this. Postdlf 02:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this article was probably created to make a point about the McDonalds list. --Arcadian 02:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the entire list then merge it into the Burger King article - SimonP 03:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
If this stays, I'll create a "List of countries with Lick's Burger restaurants". (Hint: it's Canada.) Delete. Ground Zero 03:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Quale 05:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvilPhoenix 06:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, one more vote for the "good guys". --metta, The Sunborn 06:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "the good guys"? Rick K 22:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Yes, both. Neither is particularly encyclopedic, and by keeping the McD's one up, we're just inviting someone else to create this list again, or a Wendy's list, or a Carl's Jr. or White Castle list. -- Grev -- Talk 07:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
No Germany? ;-) Delete Yopohari 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Burger King and delete - Skysmith 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As BK is British owned - the deletion of this and retention of the McD's might be a US bias - on the other hand, we could Delete both --Doc Glasgow 08:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're thinking of Wimpy. Burger King started in the U.S.. Uncle G 12:18, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  - But BK is still British owned, at least until Diago sell it. And delete both. Hiding 12:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the Burger King article, Diageo sold it in 2002 to Texas Pacific, which I don't think is a British firm, although you never can tell. Ground Zero 18:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia can't contain this . Burger King site can . --IncMan 12:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nestea 15:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is as meaningful^^^less as the McDonald's article. Keep one, keep both, or else delete both. Or is the only reason the McDonald's article is being kept is because I nominated it? Rick K 16:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't you. When there's a economic "Whopper Index" (see Big Mac index) used to compare the purchasing value of currencies, and a widely known theory of peace developed around having "the King" present, they'll be treated the same. Until then, those are two very significant differences to consider. Blame The Economist. Expect to see lists of Starbucks franchise countries and perhaps data for Coca-Cola consumption added to WP if they're not here already (see Big Mac index article for why). --Unfocused 20:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not? That's why I voted to keep it! -- BD2412 ^talk 02:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Merge into Burger King and delete. –DeweyQ 17:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge into burger king Jeremybub 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArrrg, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. Klonimus 03:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale makes no sense. Uncle G 14:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Delete, trivial. R adiant _* 08:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP is not a repository of lists. And, as, said, sets precedent. As an aside, the McDonalds list is now up for a Vfd of its own. Master Thief Garrett 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC) (vote below)[reply]
Delete BK doesn't have well known economic and peace theories based on their presence. Not enough data at the time of my vote to Merge. --Unfocused 13:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate content for Burger King. Inappropriate content for a standalone article. Fortunately, this only mentions 5 of the 57 countries that Burger King says there are, includes nothing bar the names of the countries, and two of those countries are already mentioned by name in Burger King. No real need for a merger, therefore. Start an "Other countries" section in Burger King, which can be expanded to discuss its operations in the other 55 countries in detail, just as its operations in Australia and the United States are already discussed in detail in that article, and Delete. Uncle G 14:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Agreed, Merge (anything?) and Delete (no redirect). Also any merged content needs a rewrite in true paragraph form, like "the first Burger King opened in Sydney Australia in 1902, followed the next year by Cairns" or whatnot. Could make quite a fascinating article. I can remember Burger King arriving in my own home town quite vividly... mmmm... now I feel hungry... darn... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 14:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having waded through the above I still can't see any damage that keeping this article would do, nor any that deleting it would do either, assuming that any remaining information (not text) is merged to Burger King. It's as clearly a borderline case as I can imagine, and its value as a precedent is minimal IMO. So, no big deal. No vote. Andrewa 19:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and unmaintainable list. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Charity branding

This page contains nothing of note; just an unverifiable statement and a book about charity branding. It should be deleted (unless someone can expand it to include worthwhile, verifiable information). --K. 01:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's trash! Yopohari 08:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no harm in keeping it . Needs to be edited though .--IncMan 13:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not noteworthy as an article in and of itself. If the information is critical it should be a subsection in Brand. If this passed VfD the link in Brand should be removed to prevent recreation in the future. Wikibofh 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a legitimate subtopic of Brand but could be better written from scratch. –DeweyQ 17:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree DeweyQ. There are definite differences between corporate branding and charity branding, so there should be either an article on it, or a section under Branding. However, the current article is as Megan1967 said, not encyclopaedic. --K. 00:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an interesting article to be written on the rise of "ethical" brands such as Fairtrade; but this isn't it. Delete. -- Karada 10:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Lundle

Appears to be made up, the anon who created the article has a history of vandalism and no mention of a lundle whip can be found. (see also the refdesk discussion). --W(t) 01:22, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Delete hoax Stancel 01:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvilPhoenix 06:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if it is not a hoax it is not notable. --metta, The Sunborn 06:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. No google hits. Nothing in the dictionary. Wikibofh 14:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 00:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

West End Girls

Pet Shop Boys lyrics only. Transwiki to WikiSource and delete. Denni ☯ 01:58, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Keep Not only are those lyrics copied all over the place, I'm pretty sure Bobby would only feel complimented by seeing the lyrics posted here; Let's point him to this page! Also, any fool with decent ears can quote them after hearing them, what is the harm in writing them (or part of them) down for once? I really don't see what the fuss is about. It is exactly by posting them here how you would make them 'belong' to those who wrote them. West End Girls <- there, was that so hard? ;-) JuliusThyssen 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a) Mr. Orlando is the sole owner of the copyright to the lyrics and b) can verifiably express his permission to post the lyrics on a Wikimedia project, then the lyrics might be appropriate for Wikisource (but not Wikipedia). Incidentally, not "any fool" can discern all of the lyrics in West End Girls. It wasn't until I read the article that I found out that what comes after In a West End town is a dead end world and not something completely different. And my ears are fine, thank you. :-)android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - So why again is the West End Girls page taken offline? Again, if I can post these lyrics the way I just did, anyone can, and Wikisource can too. I won't be sued for it. Wanna bet on it? By the way, I did hear what they were saying there in that track (seems my ears are better than yours then). The text here is not the same as that of the page on wikipedia.195.64.95.116
    - Wikipedia:Copyright explains it all. "We won't get sued" is a terribly naïve attitude. Websites that have posted lyrics in the past have faced litigation; there's no reason to take the chance that Wikipedia won't. You won't be sued because no one will notice. Wikipedia is just a bit more high-profile. android↔talk 03:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - I don't think Alexa understands the internet very well. First of all, post a link to my page on West End Girls/Temp and you're done. Mine will still be considered "unnoticed", the viewer will notice, but Alexa won't, everybody happy. I have a great deal of respect for Orlando, and he knows that he should have thought of keeping his writing for and to himself before he made sure it would be yelled in my ears. If I hear something, I will post it on my site if I damn well please. They (Pet Shop Boys) should have kept their mouths shut if they didn't want that to happen. I still don't see what this has to do with copyrights, since I'm not copying anything, I'm reporting what I heard in free air. JuliusThyssen 10:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a copyvio. Because there is a seperate process for dealing with copyvios, this article should be marked as a copyvio and removed from VfD. VfD is not the proper method for dealing with a copyvio. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it as a copyvio over a whole day before you wrote the above note. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be removed from VfD, as this discussion has no bearing on whether the copyvio version is removed. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be listed at WP:CP and WP:VFD at the same time. CP deals with the article's current content and its copyright status; VFD deals with the article's subject and whether or not an article on that subject is appropriate for Wikipedia (although sometimes its current content is taken into account). The two processes are complementary, not adversarial. android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Err, wouldn't lyrics be a copyvio, and as such, not appropriate for Wikisource, either? android↔talk 03:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio. Rmhermen 04:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if encyclopedic content other than the lyrics may be added, but that seems unlikely. Delete for now. — JIP | Talk 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. I will have a go at writing a temp page as this was a notable song going to number 1 in both the UK and US in 1986. However, it would be unwise to add the changes as that would preserve the copy vio in the article's history. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 07:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No transwiki as, believe it or not, that profound document is copyright. Just a fan dump. Geogre 11:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. 23skidoo 13:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource - Copyrights mean nothing. — Jesse's Girl 13:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why don't we have a lyrics wiki?? Jesse's Girl 13:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's a Wiki rule not to include copyrighted material without permission. Have a look at WP:CP. — JIP | Talk 13:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? There's pleny of other websites that list song lyrics without permission. Are we too upscale (read: pretentious) for that? — Jesse's Girl 13:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I repeat, no Transwiki to Wikisource, as they are a Wikimedia project and are bound by the same copyright policies as Wikipedia. If by pretentious you mean afraid of litigation, then yes. android↔talk 14:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
        ~~My vote stands~~. I must say that if anyone brought litigation against wikimedia, it would most likely not be over lyrics, and that they had better be suing all the other lyrics sites too, or we'll countersue. BTW, see wiktionary:pretentious since you don't know. Jesse's Girl 14:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if you want to vote for something that's contrary to well-established policy and that can't happen, that's your prerogative. (I don't know where you got the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word pretentious, but whatever.) android↔talk 15:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
        There's nothing that says it can't happen under fair use. But since this is a mere copyright debate, and not a VfD, I'm changing my vote. Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC) And you said prentious means "afraid of litigation", so you don't know what it means.[reply]
        He didn't say pretentious meant "afraid of litigation". He said that your claim of Wikipedians being pretentious would be true if the word "pretentious" was replaced with "afraid of litigation". — JIP | Talk 11:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikisource is for original material, so this wouldn't be quite right there. I'm not as opposed to the idea of a lyrics wiki, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the legality is; it seems like it would be a copyright violation at the end of the day- just because other sites are doing it doesn't mean it's legal. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 15:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Let me explain: We can use lyrics under fair use, provided that they're there for educational purposes only. This is how the other lyrics sites get away with it. Why can't we? — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - IANAL, so I'm no expert either, but I think you have a rather strange interpretation of Fair use. By what I've read, pasting the entire contents of lyrics to songs by the thousands (as I assume you're advocating here) into articles wouldn't qualify as fair use, even if you use the "It's educational!" defense. Any experts/actual lawyers care to chime in here? android↔talk 22:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      - Unless the site belongs to a record company or the musicians publishers, most other sites that have entire lyrics printed up are in fact in breach of copyright laws - they just havent been caught or prosecuted yet.. Megan1967 05:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics are copyrighted. Delete, and review the litigation history of http://www.lyrics.ch. Rick K 16:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a copyright violation which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Also, it can't be in the history of the article. Mgm|^(talk) 16:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mark as copyvio. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio. But this is a great song—don't dis the Pet Shop Boys. :-) –DeweyQ 18:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article but edit to replace content entirely. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, but without prejudice as to whether a legitimate article about the song may be recreated. Though I have been unable to find any case law directly on point, I don't buy the fair use argument because the copying is too substantial and the argument for academic use too tenuous. At best it's right on the outer edge of fair use, and we should err on the side of caution because we really don't gain very much from being a lyrics depository. Re: "everyone else is doing it," that's hardly the best argument, particularly if you really look at the notices of some of these lyrics websites, they seem to be trying to shield themselves from contributory infringement claims by characterizing themselves as a mere venue for users to post lyrics without their intervention or supervision. Not exactly a confident endorsement. Postdlf 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with Postdlf's "fair use" argument 100%. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Uncle G and I have written an article on West End Girls/Temp. I would be grateful if it could be copied to the main article at the conclusion of the copyvio process. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I hadn't actually voted yet. Delete as copyvio but recreate with Capitalistroadster's and Uncle G's new versions after deletion. android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Definitely keep West End Girls/Temp after the current one is deleted. Postdlf 22:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 00:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Greatest movie villains

Completely POV. The list is already at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains, anyway. Delete. Apostrophe 02:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge missing titles to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains and delete. Nestea 02:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if necessary and redirect, it is a title that makes sense. --W(t) 02:37, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete the second POV list, but Merge the first list to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to AFI. The second list is POV, the first list already exists in a much cleaner format. Wikibofh 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be cleaner. But this first list is more complete in movie titles. Nestea 15:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NPOV, if it's the same list no need for a redirect.--Sophitus 20:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If there's anything worth merging, then you can merge, but delete regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Panaphobia

I originally speedied this, considering it nonsense, until someone left a comment on my talk page suggesting that it was a valid term of some kind. So I restored it. Then User:LevelCheck tagged it for speedy deletion again as a restoration of properly deleted content, and it was again deleted by someone else on that basis. So I restored it again, and I'm listing it here so I can ensure this gets done properly. No vote for now. Postdlf 02:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty much invented word, but it is invented pretty often by a lot of different people, so I suppose a ~~Move to wikipedia~~ move to wiktionary is in order; otherwise delete though, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. And kudos on doing the right thing. --W(t) 02:38, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Thanks. And I assume you meant move to Wiktionary? ; ) Postdlf 02:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's like you read my mind (because you sure as hell didn't get that from reading my text). --W(t) 03:39, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it should be panophobia. It is a valid term, but since no one actually suffers from it, it's really a dicdef. No vote for now. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:41, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- If we're going to speak strictly (and please let's), it should actually be panphobia I think. --W(t) 02:46, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
No vote for now, but according to Lucy Van Pelt it is "pantophobia" --Arcadian 02:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think pantophobia is a fear yelling he's behind you and people dressed up as horses. --W(t) 03:33, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Hypothetical and highly unlikely, by the article. And yes, Pantophobia is better (and it does mean you're afraid of pants, but not exclusively so) but you can put any Greek word in front of -phobia. Anyway, delete. R adiant _* 11:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I prefer pannaphobia, the fear that you're someone's beast of burden. I don't think a Wiktionary move is appropriate, because what we're looking at is a dictdef, yes, but a coincidentally created mistake by a bunch of folks. There's no stable or consistent definition, so it's not really one word. Geogre 11:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to -phobia (including note on alternate spellings) and redirect. --Arcadian 12:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No need for copying alternative spellings notes. And certainly don't add to the list there. (We've had this discussion about keeping the list trimmed and free of non-words before. See Infrogmation's comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Afrophobia.) Just Redirect (as a mis-spelling) if you keep this at all. There's a perfectly good dictionary right next door. It will tell you about panphobia, panophobia, and pantophobia, and how they relate to one another. I know this because I wrote the articles. (Editing Greek text is difficult for technical reasons, which is why I couldn't complete the etymologies.) It will even tell you how they are commonly confused. And the reason that Wiktionary doesn't have "panaphobia" is simple: There's no such word. (The mis-spelling hasn't reached "word" status.) Uncle G 13:14, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf 15:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary's already got it. --Carnildo 19:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of how notable the term is, this is not a real condition Stancel 23:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jawed Karim

Vanity Terrace4 02:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; It is obviously vanity. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- --Bhadani 02:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also the redirect Jawed. Axe them all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but give user chance to Userfy. I've put Template:PotentialVanity on the page, so maybe the user will do it on their own, and we won't scare away a potential new contributor, especially one who seems technically adept and may just not understand the culture yet. (The template has the new language BD2412 proposed, but it's still pretty new, so edits to the template and feedback are quite welcome.) --Arcadian 02:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use .--IncMan 13:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. --Ragib 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You seem like a clever guy who could potentially make valuable contributions. I hope that my vote won't scare you away. Jester2001 22:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Fikes

Unable to find any supporting information in Google. ~~Possible hoax.~~ Unless some external evidence can be provided, I say Delete.-gadfium 02:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think this may be a hoax, but it still should be deleted. Programmers in the 1960s worked on many ideas which became popular/important later, but that doesn't make them notable, and the incident in this article isn't verifiable.-gadfium 03:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. EvilPhoenix 06:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

--216.152.190.235 08:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC) External evidence would be in the Pentagon, and would require a Freedom of Information act request. or in the memory of any co workers that he may have had at the time that are still alive. (Dad's almost 80) The only available evidence aside from that is the word of Bill Fikes. As he is my Father I have no reason to doubt his story, which has remained unchanged for many years.[reply]

From a personnel viewpoint I can attest that I lived at Ft. Huachuca from 1962 to 1964, I attended Whiteside Elementary and a school in Serria Vista. While there my Father worked on computers and could not talk about his work.

Thank you for your clarification. Is there any reason to believe that Microsoft's implementation was influenced by your father's at all, or is it simply that the same name was used for two pieces of code which had a broadly similar purpose?-gadfium 08:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable/speculation/secret conspiracy stuff. R adiant _* 09:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete although the author may be honest, an encyclopedia should be a secondary, not primary, source of information Terrace4 09:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable, non-notable. Quale 15:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Carnildo 19:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if verifiable, nn. Rick K 22:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diplomacy kissinger

Title is wrong; author already rewrote article under appropriate title: Diplomacy (Kissinger). Normally this would require a move, but as the contents have already been moved, the article under this title should just be removed. Terrace4 02:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect? But since there's a vote, delete. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful as redirect. Gazpacho 02:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. --metta, The Sunborn 06:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. Megan1967 07:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Jesse's Girl 13:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Heathcliff 22:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect needed. Harro5 10:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Servers of the divine plan

Advert for non-notable book. Although the text never mentions the book, this article is a de facto advertisement for the book by the same title. Google gives 635 hits for "servers of the divine plan." SWAdair | Talk 02:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the following books on Amazon.com:

Servers of the Divine Plan: The Destiny of Ages Is Nigh ISBN 1403300976
Servers of the Divine Plan: Essential Keys to Awakening and Remembrance ISBN 1893183076

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The first book that Zzyzx11 mentioned has an Amazon sales rank of 912,164; the second, 3,150,987. (Shouldn't it be Servants? I figured it was a new-agey text about spiritual awakenings in computer hardware...) android↔talk 04:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 08:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a new kind of Network System? No? Delete, then. R adiant _* 10:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is simply an advertisement for some new age religion/something that is espoused in one book. The book is probably non-notable, but the article is virtually unreadable, and the content seems to make it unlikely to ever be encyclopedic. Wikibofh 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by virtue of being an advert. Stephen Compall 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:25, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jason Harvey

Not notable, I can't even find him among the myriad Jason Harvey's on Google. Not every CEO of every small business needs to be in the encyclopedia (if this is even verifiable) Terrace4 02:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get only one Google hit for "Jason Harvey PolitiCorp" -- a press release. Unless anybody can find some notable, credible third party references, this will have to be removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, advertising. Assuming PolitCorp is the domain name, it is even unavailable. Wikibofh 15:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Blankfaze (vandalism) --cesarb 23:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dennison

Not notable, vanity Terrace4 02:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the report of winning an award in 2006--this is vandalism, should be a speedy delete Terrace4 03:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Adriano Monteiro

Not notable, vanity, I can find no third-party reviews of his work, only his own web postings Terrace4 03:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firing squad. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. No credible third party reviews found yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. Excellent artist. Beautiful fine art. Who cares about the re third reviews? "Young bull" understand nothing about art. FY 17:58.
Not delete. Interesting. Vanity? Many people have vanity in their business, etc. Salvador Dali had a stronger vanity and many others artists, writers, etc. And so? Come on!
- Both these votes by 200.171.36.46 (talk • contribs). --bainer 14:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN. R adiant _* 08:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Not delete. Uhhhh! 10:01, May 19 2005
Not delete. So... Vanity (?) and self-promotion (?) in Wikipedia: Giger, Ciruelo Cabral, Luis Royo, Amy Brown, Larry Elmore, Boris Vallejo, etc... ShTHN May 19 2005
- Both these votes by 200.171.35.97 (talk • contribs). --bainer 14:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Note that the votes above which say 'not delete' come from IPs similar to that of the article author, 200.171.35.9 (talk • contribs). --bainer 14:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anybody no need this. There is no time for that. Someone loves to get IPs! Cool! Go ahead! Delete without delay! 15:16
Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to Vegetarianism. The content of this essay is already covered in the latter article (but in a more concise form), so therefore there is nothing to merge. Death phoenix 18:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-vegetarianism

POV personal essay. NatusRoma 03:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above, but only put a cleanup tag on the article because I thought it could be redone to describe arguments in favor of and against vegetarianism. On the other hand, with a title like that, I don't know if the article could be made NPOV. Abstain Terrace4 03:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the personal essay. But I think the pros and cons of Vegetarianism should be merged and listed on the Vegetarianism article. I do not think each has much content to warrant seperate articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, changing my vote to Delete Terrace4 03:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork (no pun intended). Megan1967 08:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encylopedic and probably unfixable. Anything useful from the page could be merged into Vegetarianism.--Heathcliff 12:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect --IncMan 13:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Terrace4's charitable reading is a good example of Wikilove and should be applauded, but my hesitation would be on whether "Pro-vegetarianism" would be a searchable lemma. Seems to me that "Reasons cited for it" and "Reasons cited against it" would go in the master Vegetarianism article, so just delete this. ("Vegetarians merely take the life of that which has no voice to scream." -- Matthew Arnold) Geogre 13:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant POV and thus non-enyclopedic. The arguments should be made in vegetarinism page, not in a POV article. Wikibofh 15:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vegetarianism. If someone wants to try merging, that's fine, but it's all uncited polemic and probably not worth the effort. We could probably use a more detailed explanation of meat animal production but this isn't it. Demi ^T/_C 19:19, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Vegetarianism I'm a vegetarian, but I don't see the need for a "pro-vegetarianism" article, this essay has alot of good information that could be added to the vegetarianism article. Stancel 00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vegetarianism, however everyone knows that red meat is the original health food. Klonimus 03:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of that rant do you propose be merged? Quale 09:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any part that is found to be red meat by the vegetarians.Klonimus 04:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say userfy, but since this is an anon, just delete. I don't think there's much here that's worth merging without needing a complete rewrite. --bainer 14:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete POV. Nothing to merge here folks, just move along. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Vegetarianism. As written the article is badly in need of cleanup, maybe some of the content could be included in the Vegetarianism article but it looks like a lot of work to do so. Kaibabsquirrel 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by SWAdair (incomprehensible). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic envisioneer

Unverifiable, at best represents recent primary research, at worst a hoax. Even as primary research, it is not notable and not visible on google. Plus I don't understand what the hell they're saying Terrace4 03:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Phil Welch 11:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it's nonsense. Wikibofh 15:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nonsense. —msh210 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, I agree. I've listed it there, so someone can take action on it. No use giving it the whole five days. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted as incomprehensible. SWAdair | Talk 05:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not pron

Obvious ad for a porn site Terrace4 03:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Notpron was inspired by an earlier site, [http:/thisisnotporn.com/ thisisnotporn]. I have (tried to) play both and I can attest that they are not pornographic. They are multimedia puzzles. It's also my understanding that MIT has similar, but larger-scale games each year. Gazpacho 04:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created the page, and it's not an ad for a porn site - click on the link, it's a really neat riddle game that's quite popular right now. Google "not pron" and you'll see it. Also, check out memepool - it's on the top of their list right now. --Tommertron 04:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not pornography. But it's not really an encyclopedia article either. I don't see any way to verifiably expand past the current sub-stub. The parent site, deathball.net, has an erratic Alexa ranking and I can't find anything independent on the puzzle itself. Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if/when this truly becomes a verifiable web-phenomenon. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Tommertron, for mistaking it for a porn site. However, I tend to agree with Rossami, that it remains not notable. Please convince me that I'm wrong about that, too. :) Terrace4 04:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advert, but if there are more URL-guessing games besides notpr0n and the earlier thisisnotporn.com, then that could be a subject for an article, although not just a list of exlinks. Gazpacho 05:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed there are others: hack.net and plime.net, and a site somewhere at Google that they use to find smart job candidates. Gazpacho
Also The Python Challenge. Sorry I created a stub with this - I thought that it was in interesting game and it looked like it was gaining popularity - I was hoping that some others in the know would expand a bit on the background of the game, as it seemed pretty novel. I still vote to not delete it, or possibly create a category for this type of game. --70.25.23.59 12:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... do you suppose an article containing all of these riddle sites is a good idea? Then perhaps we could merge and redirect. Nestea 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it deserves to be merged somewhere. There was also that google ad with a puzzle which lead to a website. --cesarb 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the merge and redirect idea, and am changing my vote. Terrace4 23:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, good idea. R adiant _* 08:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Merge is a good idea, but I've been racking my brain to figure out a common name for these types of games, that people might actually look up. What do you think, "URL Guessing Games"? "Web Based Puzzles."? --Tommertron 22:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about "URL Puzzles"? Nestea 14:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say "Web based puzzles" or "Online puzzles" or the like. We could include stuff like Crimson Room and puzzles like it... - fiveless 04:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-Methano-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-carboxylic acid

This article was tagged by Kerowyn for deletion on 3 May but the page was apparently never posted on the VfD page. Completing the nomination. No vote. Rossami (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Unless this substance has a particular importance in chemistry or biology, this info is unneccessary on Wikipedia. --Kerowyn 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: quinoline and isoquinoline are proper and interesting chemicals. This compound is one of their variaties, but I wonder whether IUPAC nomenclature was used for the naming, though. I'm not familiar enough with isoquinolines to recognize this one as particularly relevant. Wim van Dorst 15:21, 2005 May 3 (UTC).
Delete: Not notable Fuelbottle | Talk 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a specialized constrained phenylalanine mimic which was first synthesized in 2000. It's not noteworthy, and should be deleted. (Also consider the fact that the creator (User:Fuelbottle) of this article suggests we delete it.) ~K 19:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Practically an infinite variety of different chemical compounds can be made by putting some extra groups on some skeleton structure, but the majority of them will not be worthy of an article in a general all-around encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I did a web search on this compound name and found only 24 matches, most of them being mirrors of the subject Wikipedia article or duplicates of two technical articles on this compound. The abstracts of neither one mentions any use, application, or general relevance. I conclude the compound is not notable. Nor do I consider this compound a fundamental building block or skeleton structure like (for example) quinoline, isoquinoline, or the triazines (which I plan to write something about), which are skeleton structures for various herbicides on which their chemical names are based on.
H Padleckas 08:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable either as a compound or as an article. Physchim62 20:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have studied A-Level Chemistry for the past two years and have never come across this compound. This article doesn't really serve much purpose. I Hunter 07:53, 8 May 2005
Delete as anyone who has taken chemistry should know, there are very many isomers of organic compounds, and it would be almost impossible to record them all, unless someone were to make a List of Organic Compounds. Else, delete.Sensation002 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's 'list of organic compounds'. Organic compound isn't a proper name. ;-) Wipe 18:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: there are millions of known compounds and probably an infinite number of possible ones, so only a fraction of them are worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Wipe
  - What fraction of the infinite number were you thinking would be worth mentioning? Half? ☺ Uncle G 13:44, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- See the third definition on Wiktionary:Fraction ("a tiny part"). BTW, half of infinity is infinity. Wipe 17:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. That was my very point. Uncle G 00:32, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  - Better stick to a tiny proportion then. Kappa 23:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-proteinogenic amino acid? Big deal - as H Padleckas points out, there's a near-infinite number of such. It could, at some point in the future, turn out to be notable, but then, so could any of the myriad personal vanity pages we regularly delete every day. Should this eventually turn out to be notable, then the page will get recreated - just like for a person. DS 12:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebiochem cruft. Klonimus 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable compound. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the content of this article cannot be included somewhere else appropriately. Enochlau 02:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Revolution and Zelda Revolution

No information on the game is available. We don't even have a working title (Revolution is just the name of the game system, which itself hasn't even been released yet and won't be for quite some time). This stub serves no purpose. Delete it for now and re-create the article when we actually know something. Firebug 05:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days for more info if any. E³ just started. CyberSkull 05:23, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

And even after E³, there won't be enough information for this page to be encyclopedic. Delete. -- Grev -- Talk 07:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established, games cruft. Megan1967 08:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do we want to describe all games in the Wikipedia? Yopohari 08:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the "crystal ball" rule. But I see nothing wrong with having individual articles about all released computer games. Sjakkalle 08:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too early for an article, although I'm afraid right after it is deleted, it'll just get created again. It is Zelda, after all. Thunderbrand 23:31, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Zelda definitely is one of the most notable game series ever, and as noted above, the article might just be created soon after it's deleted. We might as well leave it as is and let it grow once more info about the game is released. Stancel 00:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverifiable future event. We have no need to "scoop" anyone. Wait until it comes out and has a real impact. Rossami (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a crystal ball. --Chill Pill Bill 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing is known, way too early. K1Bond007 02:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there is already The Legend of Zelda (tentative title), which is the correct working title to use; I am going to recycle that page for this game the moment anything of substance is known. This page name is potentially misleading, for the game is neither LOZ: Revolution nor necessarily "revolutionary". Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC) I should add, also, that this is NOT a launch title so may take two years or more to be released. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing new is going to be known about this game for probably another year, at which time it should probably be created. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 22:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Revolution

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We simply don't know anything about this game yet. Not a single screenshot has been released, nor a working title (again, Revolution is just the title of the upcoming game system, which is scheduled for a 2006 release). Please do not create stubs of this nature until there is at least some useful information to include. This simply contains no informational content. Firebug 05:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speculation, games cruft. Megan1967 08:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - " It is unknown if it is ..." ??? Yopohari 08:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will get created later anyway if it's deleted. I improved it a bit, and removed the bit about Mario 128 because the original author must have been confused as 128 referred to the Gamecube's 128-bit graphics and could not possibly describe a game for the Nintendo Revolution Stancel 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverifiable future event as well. We have no need to "scoop" anyone. Wait until it comes out and has a real impact. Rossami (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a crystal ball --Chill Pill Bill 15:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Same as the Zelda Revolution article. Thunderbrand 02:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, way too early K1Bond007 02:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no real info can be added for at least a year from now. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 12:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned above, nothing new is going to be known about this game for probably another year, at which time it should probably be created. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 22:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This thread was made more difficult than normal to sort out by the movement of comments and the multiplication of relevant discussions on several different talk pages. I think I finally found all the relevant facts and comments. Taken together:

I count 12 clear "delete" votes in this discussion, 7 "keep as is" votes (but four of them have to be discounted as anonymous or very new users), 2 explicit "keep only if rewritten", 1 "abstain" and 1 that was too ambiguous to call. In addition, 4 users took the time to separately endorse the "Sandbox" version.

My own investigation is confirming the original allegation that the theory remains "original research" at this time. It has not met Wikipedia's standard of verified external sourcing. A great number of web-based links were provided and were dutifully researched by several Wikipedians. The results were ambiguous at best. Two of the people who reviewed the links concluded that they actually worked against the author's claims.

The original author has already expressed his dissatisfaction with the Sandbox version and has created a Sandbox2 version. This makes it seem less likely that it will be possible to keep a balanced and neutral article on this topic. My conclusion here is tempered by the author's behavior during this discussion. While diligent in the defense of his article, he has remained polite and fact-based. The dispute is only an interpretation of Wikipedia policy on the standards for inclusion of an article topic.

I am going to call this one as a "delete" as original research. The article in full probably should not be re-created until it the theory has been independently published in accordance with the "no original research" guidelines or until it has reached a level of notoriety equivalent to some of the other pseudo-science theories mentioned below.

After deletion, I am going to move the sandbox version to the main article space. Noting the controversy, however, I am going to immediately tag it as a procedural nomination to VfD so that a separate discussion and decision can be made on that version. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonics Theory

and derivatives Harmonics Theory Calculations, Harmonics Theory Music, Harmonics Theory common cycles, Harmonics Theory Non-linearity, Harmonics Theory Redshift Periodicity, Harmonics Theory Particle

See discussion on its talk page. This is an article by User:RayTomes about an unpublished theory created by Ray Tomes, with references to ray.tomes.biz, and controversional claims answered with "I, Ray Tomes, say so." Some users have been trying to fix it, but I think allowing such transparent original research as this would undermine the policy. Delete Gazpacho 05:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "vfd" templates to the articles in question. The methods for doing this when creating the VFD listing are described in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The templates used are in Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion. ~~My vote is merge into Harmonics Theory, and rewrite into something encyclopedic (I've already volunteered to do so).~~ Claims for Notability were made in the relevant entry in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Mathematical_and_Natural_Sciences#Physics. Possibly padded, but if close to that many references exist, it's arguably not just a vanity page. --Christopher Thomas 06:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to abstain. Replacing with the contents of Harmonics Theory/Sandbox would probably keep Mr. Tomes quiet, but this doesn't seem to be a very Notable entry. --Christopher Thomas 19:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble duplicating the alleged number of external references for the article, which would indeed suggest non-Notability. Going to poke at this a bit more before changing my vote. --Christopher Thomas 07:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reproduce the list of references somewhere easy to link to? I am in favor of deletion if non-notable. All those smaller articles should be folded into the main article regardless. - Omegatron 13:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem - I _haven't_ been able to reproduce the list of references. Mr. Tomes claimed several hundred links to his site from people who weren't him, but the first several pages of searching for "harmonics theory" and "ray tomes" on google contains only material he produced. --Christopher Thomas 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update - searching for "ray tomes" and "cycles" gives mostly RT's work, but a handful of other references to it. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Cycles-Harmonics-Universe.htm seems to be a similar write-up by a different author that cites Mr. Tomes' work. Other references I've dug up so far are mostly newsgroup posts and the like. So, still not looking Notable. I'm trying to prod the vocal supporters in the Talk:Harmonics Theory page into digging up the bona fide references they say exist and posting them here, but no response so far. --Christopher Thomas 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of links moved to talk page. R adiant _* 08:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Non-notable crank, original research. Quale 06:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research - also looks like pseudo science to me --JiFish 11:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Can you say "harmonic analysis"? Looks like personal "research". — RJH 15:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic and drastically shortened rewrite completed at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox. Still no proof from anyone that it's Notable, though. --Christopher Thomas 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of actual mathematical derivations makes it seem less credible to me. (I like the rewrite at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox and would be happy to see that stay.) I found some external "Harmonics Theory" information but these links (PDF article and Tutorial Presentation) look like unrealated research where they use the phrase "harmonics theory" in place of "harmonic analysis" rather than as a theory of the nature of the universe. Starfoxy 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the phrase occurs most commonly for my theory, but also quite commonly for general theory of harmonics of a regular type, and also some for an astrological meaning (which has an "indigo ray" with it - that is not this Ray!). I fail to see how you can criticise a lack of mathematics when I put a simple program to show the exact logic of the calculation. And PRF Brown has confirmed that my calculations are correct and added some additional note. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete harmonically~~. Original research, seems unverifiable (except vanity) from verification attempts reported above. Barno 18:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace harmonically with /Sandbox version. Good NPOV that nonetheless is close to a debunking. Barno 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, then keep - Seems notable enough for an NPOV summary. I think the "sandbox" version will be good. - Omegatron 19:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 20:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crankery, original research, vanity. Take your pick.--Heathcliff 22:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, then keep. Tomes does have some ~~mad as a wifflebat~~ interesting theories, but it seems that - as long as they are labelled as that, there's no harm in them being here. ISTR that that strange theory about everything being a cube has an article in Wikipedia, and Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken certainly do. BTW, is there any connection between Tomes's theories and Bruce Cathie's earlier (equally, erm, interesting) Harmonics Theory about UFOs? Grutness...wha? 04:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection with Bruce Cathie, but he does live in the same city :-) Although his UFO grid does have harmonic 2880 around the earth, which is a strong harmonic in harmonics theory. However that side of harmonics theory is not in dispute (I think) as it has been found by PRF Brown to be a known mathematical equation. But Cathie uses the word "harmonic" to sometimes mean a numerological one, whereas my meaning is always mathematical/musical/physical. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information (from the horse's mouth, no less!). Grutness...wha?

- Time Cube has an article not on its scientific merits, but because it's a significant part of internet culture. Velikovsky and von Däniken are both well-known, widely-published authors, and von Däniken also has a theme park and a television show. Does this guy meet any of those criteria? --Carnildo 06:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks! Well Archimedes Plutonium has tried to steal my theory! But I take your point - to the ignorant the difference may not be clear. My name doesn't start with a V. And serious scientists have invited me to give seminars at prestigous places such as Russian Acadamy of Science in Pushchino. Ray Tomes 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well no, he doesn't, but I'm sure you knew the answer. Quale 09:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. The sandbox version is very useful. Megan1967 05:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful how? Quale 09:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am still not really convinced about the notability issue ; it's all very hand-waving at the moment. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 13:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Regardless of any application to cosmology, harmonics theory deserves to be in an encyclopaedia. It concerns hard facts that may be little known at present but may turn out to be the missing link in explaining many phenomena. Caroline Thompson 20:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The harmonic theory could open up a new paradigm. True out of box thinking is rare to find.

Message left by User:Doctor North. This is their first edit.

Discussion moved to talk page. R adiant _* 08:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT original research. R adiant _* 08:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People are still writing "original research". According to the wikipedia:Original_research article: 'Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication;' The people that are putting this have been badly informed by Gazpacho. He makes a statement that is totally untrue without first checking the facts. I think that all these votes (based on original research) should be discounted. I have published papers on harmonics theory with the Foundations for the Study of Cycles conference proceedings and from a conference proceedings run jointly with University (Nevada?) and Apeiron journal. These are all reputable organisations. Ray Tomes 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some votes appear to have been moved to the talk page. While arguably some of them qualify as sock puppets, my understanding was that actual votes (vs. commentary) were still supposed to be on this page. --Christopher Thomas 21:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no votes on the talk page. I have looked for deletion of votes but can find none. However I agree that some votes have gone. I have records and will come back with a list of what is gone. Ray Tomes 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Three votes have been removed by someone. They were PRF Brown keep, RayTomes keep, Hazelhurst keep/cleanup. I am trying to work out now who did it. Ray Tomes 03:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The three vote were removed by Radiant's first edit onthe 20th when he (re)moved discussion and links to talk page. They need to be put back! Ray Tomes 04:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am inserting the deleted votes here. I have retained a little text with each. It is unreasonable to have reasons by delete votes and not by keep votes. Allow us at least a voice please. I note also that Radiance removed three keep votes and voted delete. This might have been an accident as his removal of large text was reasonable action. However one would be excussed for being very suspicious. Ray Tomes 04:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:PRF Brown The Harmonics Theory has its place in an encyclopaedic work of this nature. Mathematically, it is supported by the theory associated with the number of ordered factorizations of natural numbers. See specifically the Integer "core" sequence number A074206. Here is an independent page which provides a structural environment for the HT: - http://www.mountainman.com.au/harmonics.htm - Additionally, I have independently confirmed some of the - computational analysis upon which the exposition of the - HT rests, and the results of this independent computational - analysis is here: - http://www.mountainman.com.au/harmonics_01.htm

- - Note: User:PRF Brown's second and third edits. --Carnildo 19:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ...discussion moved to talk pages Ray Tomes 08:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Firstly i should say that I have known Ray Tomes (on the internet) for past 7 years and I have found him to be a polite and genuine 'alternative' theorist with interesting ideas. I do not agree with everything he writes, but think that Harmonics is an important subject that should be investigated and published on Wikipedia. ... discussion moved to talk page

This is my rambling few cents worth on why i think the article deserves to be kept, but should be cleaned up to have the more speculative areas removed. Haselhurst 10:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - original research. Second choice for the case deletion doesn't get consensus: Delete the sister pages and replace main page with a NPOV rewrite. --Pjacobi 22:16, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Added: Evidence for being original research: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22harmonics+theory%22+tomes&btnG=Search --Pjacobi 22:19, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Keep - it works well in partly explaining how the universe works. Ric Ingram www.traderscalm.com

Delete current Harmonics Theory page, as a clear violation of the original research clause:

"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

The same page helpfully defines "reputable publication": "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."

Conference proceedings are typically not peer-reviewed.

As far as I can determine, neither the original work, nor explicit tests of the work, or support or refutation of the work have been "published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet". Usenet postings and links on somebody's web site are not sufficient. It doesn't matter if Harmonics Theory is the greatest thing since sliced bread; it simply doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. The "/Sandbox" article may be salvagable - I'll have to look at it some more before voting, though.

--Dcfleck 13:27, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Dcfleck, I request that you look at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 which has incorporated a lot more wikifying and also has additional references etc. The emphasis has also been changed to show that the theory arose out of cycles studies. Unfortunately there are no peer-review journals in cycles studies, so FSC proceedings and cycles magazine are the best available. The FSC was the most reputable organisation in the field. As far as it relates to physics and cosmology the problems of new ideas in peer-review journals has been raised by a nobel prizewinner, Josephson, as being almost insurmounrable. Ray Tomes 02:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the following DOES NOT refer to the main article.

Of the two sandbox articles (Harmonics Theory/Sandbox and Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2), I think that Harmonics Theory/Sandbox is both better written (from the Wikipedia standpoint) and is more successfully NPOV. I would support Keeping Harmonics Theory/Sandbox, largely because I've been swayed by User:Omegatron's memory hole argument. --Dcfleck 12:33, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

What are the rules on this discussion closing? It seems to have run its course. I suggest that the best thing now is to remove the original pages and do a page that follows the rules as far as possible. I would prefer that to be done by someone other than Christopher (no offence intended, I appreciate your efforts, but several things I think reflect your POV) making changes to the sandbox2 article, because there are some serious errors of fact in the sandbox version and some important extra references in the sandbox2 article, I am happy to accept your judgement on NPOV, but would like to see the correct facts retained (as regards e.g. Tifft, Arp etc). Ray Tomes 06:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen is that one of the Wikipedia administrators will review the votes and take action as they see fit based on what people here have suggested (which will either be "delete" or "replace with NPOV rewrite", depending on how many of the "keep" votes they consider valid). This is supposed to happen a week after initial listing on VfD, but took about two weeks the last time I was involved in a VfD. Patience is key. --Christopher Thomas 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No theory is ever complete. The expectations of too many is that theories need somehow to be legit before they should have space in the public domain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Peer review journals have been proven to not perform in the publics interest. They along with their organizations get caught in the rightness of their dogma and let nothing challenging in. It takes a revolution to displace them. In the meantime it takes spaces like this to communicate ideas toward individuals of different minds to come up with concepts to replace wholesale the prison yards of dogma. It is unlikely that any single subject will make the difference. But what will make the difference is someone that just happens to wander inside this space and with a few other ideas makes a whole new idea of the ages. That will not happen if you take that opportunity away from them. Doing so is almost always a bad idea. Why take the chance? James Conway May 29 2005.

If mountainman says something is true, it's true.

(The above is User:67.150.88.108's only edit).

"The expectations of too many is that theories need somehow to be legit before they should have space in the public domain." Yes, that is the expectation. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote someones' pet theory for them. --Dcfleck 13:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

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 delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Sharif

Son of a famous person, now an owner of a pizza joint and a T-shirt shop. Whoop-de-doo! —Wahoofive (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relatives of celebrities are not inherently encyclopedic. --Angr/_comhrá 06:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not inherently notable on his own. Megan1967 08:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dad. Attendant fame = redirect. Geogre 11:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Idea: list the son's accomplishments on Omar's page. Or not. –DeweyQ 18:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Accomplishments"? —Wahoofive (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sarcasm got away from me. Having said that, all small business owners should be proud of their accomplishments... but it doesn't make them notable. –DeweyQ 21:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvilPhoenix 22:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - He is notable. The article is void of information and should be cleaned up. He was also in Doctor Zhivago, the Movie too. The 'pizza' and 't-shirt' thing.. well i'm not sure that thats altogether true, but I don't know. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. JamesBurns 09:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 CDC (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Taiwanese American Union

I'm not sure about this page, but I thought I would put it up for debate. It's just a campus club, and it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's also partly self-promotional: see the slippage into the first person ("our") in the middle section. I vote to delete. Emiao 08:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a search, you'll find quite a number of student organizations out there. In addition, you'll find student organization itself, and this would be a good example of one. As for the self-promotional slip, that was an accident; it was copied and pasted. I vote to keep. Cgkm 08:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (added comment) Please see UCLA_Chinese_Students_Association as a precedent for such a page. Cgkm 16:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 10:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Phil Welch 11:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see my RPG university organization in Wikipedia, and I don't see any reasons why it should be here. Same for this one. Sarg 13:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of California Los Angeles#Student life, as with other single iterations of organizations. Geogre 13:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good candidate for merging to UCLA. --Carnildo 20:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stancel 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if we must). This should not have an independent article. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Harro5 10:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 transwiki to 11 September wiki. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: FDNY, Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks: plane passengers

Keep - Lest We Forget. Shouldn't this be in the memorial wiki? WP:NOT a memorial. R adiant _* 08:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. I can imagine a lot of people turning to Wikipedia for these lists. I at least feel that "Wikipedia is not a memorial" refers to obituaries of people who were not particularily notable and whos' deaths are not notable. Although most people on this list are not notable except for having perished in the 9/11 attacks, their deaths are. Sjakkalle 11:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sad when people die, especially as the result of violence, but most individuals who perished in those attacks are not more notable than people who die of violence every day. If these sorts of causualty lists are to be in WP, then we need lists of victims of every such tragedy in WP. I think this is not a good idea. Quale 15:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - September 11 was not just any tragedy. Nevertheless, I have read the comments of Geogre and MacGyverMagic. I think that these lists belonged in some sort of wiki, and if they're in WikiMemorial that is okay as long as we have an external link to those lists in the September 11 terrorist attacks article on WIkipedia. Alright: merge per MacGyverMagic's proposal. Sjakkalle 06:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia already has the lists in Wikimemorial. That's why we don't recreate this, why we don't need mass lists. This is duplicate material. Also, the "not a memorial" was a policy that came about specifically to deal with the 9/11 victims. Geogre 11:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by Geogre. 23skidoo 13:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre. Quale 13:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — not only out of respect for those killed, but also because I would expect to find this information in Wikipedia. — Jesse's Girl 13:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I now agree With BD2412 and MacGyverMagic, I want to see these merged into Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks which will direct readers to the appropriate page of the September 11 wiki. However, I am nevertheless appalled that anyone would show such disrespect for the dead and for my nation by nominating these for deletion. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three of these into one article that directs visitors to Wikimemorial. The average websurfer probably knows of Wikipedia by now, but has not heard of the other wikiprojects - this is an opportunity to expose them to the wider world of wiki. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Merge with sep11:In_Memoriam--ClemMcGann 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per george, but merge any unduplicated material per ClemMcCann --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Can these be redirected? Average Earthman 16:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all articles (redirect some if needed) into one article - preferably Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks - that provides a short definition and a link to the memorial wiki. Mgm|^(talk) 17:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stancel 00:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to some sort of soft link to the memorial wiki. Is this a recreation of previously deleted material? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary duplication. Megan1967 05:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all as above, and merge and delete the subpages too. Links to the sep11 wiki should be more prominent, perhaps as part of the infobox on the article series? --bainer 14:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Sep11 wiki should die. --SPUI (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Sep11 wiki should die. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to plain Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello July 7, 2005 07:31 (UTC)
Transwiki to Sep11 wiki, then entrust content of said wiki to someone else to maintain, then delete it. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and memorial pages belong neither in Wikipedia itself, nor in POV spin-offs. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly a duplication. Not necessary. -- Herrhav0k 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - FrancisTyers 16:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Quale. Do you want to find out every death from every major tragedy, whcich would also include WWII's genocide? No, maybe move it to Wikimemorial, because 9/11 was a tragic event, but not every dead person can be on Wikipedia. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 10:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge Use this page to redirect to the Wikimemorial page. -- Drew 17:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge As above. DamianFinol
Keep. Those murdered in America's tragedy at the very least deserve to be mentioned in encyclopedias. -- OldRight 7 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

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 delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of superstars

Reason why the page should be deleted The article can be very POV and get very long. Besides, isnt everyone famous a superstar? I heard Bill Clinton, for example, is called a superstar by fellow politicians, for example. I say a consideration for deleting is due. Antonio Crackers Martin

Delete, a POV-list (and: Jodie Foster ist not on the list! ;-) ) Yopohari 09:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV - what is the criteria here for a "Superstar"? Unmaintainable list. Megan1967 09:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. A large unmaintainable list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly, silly, silly article. — Phil Welch 11:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of what a superstar is tends to be pretty hazy, especially if, as the article suggests, superstars specific to one country or area are to be included as well. For example, Rajinikanth is on the list, and I've no doubt that he's famous in India, but most people elsewhere haven't heard of him. Suggested alternate lists might be "List of world-famous people" (celebrities so iconic that they're known in nearly all of the civilised world) or a listof people who have recieved significant notability in more than one field (i.e. Arnold Schwartzeneggar - acting and politics) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we already have the latter, List of people with two or more professions. Thanks for your vote anyways, Andrew.Antonio thousand women Martin
Comment - The list is not suited for a encyclopedia .IncMan 13:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRidiculous. How this has survived since Feb 2004 is beyond me. --Doc Glasgow 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "I'm a superstar on my own right! Why aren't I on the list?" Nestea 15:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superstar is not a defined position, it is largely subjective and therefore inherently POV. Average Earthman 16:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already mentioned. Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for POV reasons, what constitutes a "superstar" can differ between individuals. Stancel 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhol superstars, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 04:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV list. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Charles Matthews (nonsense) --cesarb 23:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Langski

Delete. Vanity? No Google hits on name. 青い(Aoi) 09:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a VIP born October 1988? Yopohari 09:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Shackell

Non-verifiable. SWAdair | Talk 10:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Sarg 13:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvilPhoenix 22:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
?NPOV? ?Verifiable? ?True? --Simon Cursitor 07:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 30:23

Delete. This appears to simply be a quote from Exodus. 青い(Aoi) 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Exodus under the heading Chapters 25 to 31~~. Delete. Megan1967 10:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not doing the search before voting, but I'm fairly sure that the Book of Exodus is on Wikisource. Consequently, that particular verse is on Wikisource, so delete. However, if I am wrong and Wikisource doesn't yet have the whole Bible (several KJV Bibles are already flat coded and out there as public domain), then, really, this is a thing Wikisource should address. In either case, it's not appropriate to have an article that's a PD quote, nor for the article on Exodus to be picking verses hither and thither (and yon). Geogre 13:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quale 15:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an article. Merge into Wikisource if it's not there. Mgm|^(talk) 17:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Shiny Wikisource:Religious texts contains a KJV translation of the Bible, alongside others, with all of the verses you could want. Wikipedia is not a repository for the contents of religions' holy books. Wikisource has a whole area for that, with many major religions' holy books already present. Delete. Uncle G 17:52, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete, no merge. Wikipedia is not a collection of source text fragments; otherwise adherents would simply insert sentence after sentence until WP contained the entire source text, whether in one file or as hundreds of separate article stubs. Wikisource has the material as Uncle G noted, and the article has external links to every chapter. No need to redirect this title and every other book/chapter/verse combination. No indication that this verse has widespread individual significance (cf. Ten Commandments). Barno 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Del per Barno. —msh210 21:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Bible. No merge, don't put in Wikisource, as it is probably already on there. Stancel 00:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Wikibooks:Cookbook? ;) --bainer 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre, Uncle G. Whig 08:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barno. JamesBurns 09:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a copy of the Bible. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect Airey Neave, no merge. CDC (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neave

Vanity, with a bit of speculation for added taste. R adiant _* 10:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Airey Neave; put the non-vanity information into the article on nephew, from which the name derives. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:00, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete: The nomination is spot on. ("Famous people with this name: Me!" Blug.) Redirect wouldn't be the worst thing, I guess. Geogre 14:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to Airey Neave. EvilPhoenix 03:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. No redirect to Airey Neave as it's unlikely he would ever be linked to or searched for by his last name alone. No merge with nephew because the information here is speculative and unverifiable. --Angr/_comhrá 07:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Hayes. Note: There was nothing useful to merge. Death phoenix 18:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O'Hay

Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Merge O'Hay into Hayes (which is currently a disambig page - this is a perfect example of a page that can be both an informative article and a disambig). -- BD2412 ^talk 13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Merge works for me. — RJH 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412, leave a Redirect to discourage this from being recreated as is. --Unfocused 16:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A merge works for me as well. Don't forget to leave a redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 17:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect, as Hayes would never be linked to or searched for under O'Hay. --Angr/_comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Misses the point - someone may search for O'Hay itself, in which case they will find the information they seek under Hayes. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  - No they won't. If anyone searches for O'Hay, they will be seeking information about a person named O'Hay, and won't be helped by a redirect to what is, for all practical purposes from an English speaker's POV, an entirely different name. It's as if I searched for Verdi, looking for information on Giuseppe Verdi, and found myself redirected to Green. --Angr/_comhrá 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~Hayes as above~~ Hayes (surname), many Irish and Scottish surnames are variations on a theme. Redirects to the more common one are useful. --bainer 14:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Gallagher. Death phoenix 18:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O gallachoir

Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Merge O gallachoir with Gallagher - same logic as O'Hay, since I just turned Gallagher from a redirect into a disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Merge works for me. — RJH 14:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412, leave a Redirect to discourage this from being recreated as is. --Unfocused 16:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412 Stancel 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect, as Gallagher would never be linked to or searched for under O gallachoir. --Angr/_comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Misses the point - someone may search for O gallachoir itself, in which case they will find the information they seek under Gallagher. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  - Just as I said for O'Hay above, except it's even stronger here because O gallachoir isn't even spelled correctly. It should be O'Gallachoir for the partly anglicized version, Ó Gallchobhair for the Irish version. --Angr/_comhrá 06:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, now they redirect to Gallagher, and the page explains the connection. If the information in the existing O gallachoir can be confirmed, there's no reason not to place it there as well. I am, after all, a mergist - all relevant information should be in one place, unless that would make the page inconveniently large. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:34, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

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

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

Yoder (surname)

Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Yoder - this is an example of a surname that can stand on its own as an article; if not kept, it should be merged into Saint Theodore, as it shows how his influence led to a surname created in his honor. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

keepphatt phaggotz (vote by 207.200.116.9 - something like 15 or 16 edits)

Keep — RJH 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all surname articles which are not disambiguation pages. Rick K 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep → at least until the Names/Surnames debate is resolved. --Unfocused 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework and rename it to make it a disambiguation. The info is already there. Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- It is? Where? RickK 22:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - In Yoder, the disambiguation that already exists and that makes turning this article into a disambiguation pointless. MacGyverMagic is apparently advocating the existence of two separate disambiguation articles for "Yoder", duplicating each other. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Yoder already is a disambiguation. Yoder (surname) is a disambiguation within a disambiguation, and as such is completely unnecessary. It's effectively a section-breakout of the "people with the family name Yoder" section from the Yoder disambiguation for completely no reason.
This can all be handled with a name disambiguation at Yoder, with the "list of Yoders" from Yoder (surname) merged in, and an interwiki link to a shiny Wiktionary:Yoder article telling readers the etymology, alternative spellings, pronunciation, translations, and whatnot of the name, just like a dictionary article on a word should.
Wiktionary and then Merge to a normal name disambiguation at Yoder. Uncle G 17:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Comment - no reason it can't be both an article on the name history and a disambig at Yoder (with Yoder (surname) redirecting there). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:18, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  - The history of the name is the history of the word, and belongs in the dictionary. The history of the people/places/things belongs in the encyclopaedia. This is standard practice from many other name disambiguations. The history of Darlington, the place, is in the encyclopaedia. The history of the name Darlington, how it originated as a word, and how it was co-opted and its meaning expanded, is in the dictionary. A with our spangly interwiki linking system, readers can pass back and forth from the one to the other. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
merge Yoder per Uncle G. —msh210 21:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep or re-merge with Yoder article. There is "encyclopedic" information and history on the name, so I don't think it should simply be thrown away. As regards the "is not a geneology database" comment, why would the current article qualify as "geneology"? Should we reject information just because it is associated with a surname? I think there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for interesting aspects of various surnames without it becoming simply "geneology". — Greenmoss 22:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of people with the surname Yoder that has begun to grow qualifies the article as genealogy. And very little of the content of this article is encyclopaedic. How to pronounce the word "Yoder" isn't encyclopaedic, for example. There's a perfectly good dictionary right beside the encyclopedia, that has holds written (and, in some cases where Wiktionarians have been really enthusiastic and uploaded sound files, spoken) information on the pronunciations of words. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  - "The list of people with the surname Yoder that has begun to grow qualifies the article as genealogy" - so we should get rid of all the disambig lists of people sharing the same last name, because that's genealogy? Genealogy is not the study of people sharing a last name, but of the lines of ancestry and descent within a single family (see, e.g. Dukes of Swabia family tree). This article is clearly not that. It seems that a lot of people here are a) confusing geneology with etymology, and b) presuming that etymology is not a legitimate part of an article. Shall we scour wikipedia for articles that describe the origin of the word in question - such as River Thames, Florida, and Pantheism, and eliminate those descriptions as unencyclopedic? -- BD2412 ^talk 15:44, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
    - so we should get rid of all the disambig lists of people sharing the same last name — Try fewer straw men and more reading. Start with reading what I wrote below at the same time as the above. Uncle G 08:48, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
      - Whoa, let's take a step back here! What we're really discussing is whether the information in this article should a. be discarded, b. maintained in its current place, c. moved to somewhere else in wikipedia (presumably the Yoder article) or d. moved to somewhere else in wiki* projects (presumably Wiktionary). Consensus seems to be moving toward c. around here, and that's fine with me. What I really *don't* want is a., and I also don't think d. is appropriate, considering this isn't a "word" in the English language, with a definition, etc. An encyclopedia really does seem like the most appropriate place for it. Greenmoss 16:02, 21 May 2005
Merge with Yoder per Uncle G. --Angr/_comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No need for Wiktionary now. A shiny new Wiktionary:Yoder article now exists, written from scratch. I note that some misguided editors are copying information that is already in Yoder into this article, in particular disambiguation information for places named "Yoder". Aside from the fact that information on place names doesn't belong in an article that purports to be on a surname, the disambiguation is already at Yoder. Trying to bolster this article by duplicating the disambiguation article is just plain silly. We also appear to be growing a list of people with the family name Yoder, but who don't have encyclopaedia articles (or even redlinks from other articles). That way lies a genealogy database. The only content to merge into Yoder is the third paragraph, the only actual encyclopaedic content of the whole article (apart from the original family name disambiguation), on the demographics of people named Yoder, which fits quite snugly into a "people with the family name Yoder" section of the name disambiguation article at Yoder. But for that one paragraph, my vote would have been delete. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- ...which is exactly why I suggested merging Yoder (surname) into Yoder, the existing disambig page. The disambig is valid, and there's no reason on earth to exclude a few lines of etymology from it, especially where they might be useful to a person searching for information on their name (both in terms of what it means and in terms of who shares it). As an example, I recently did something similar for my own surname, 2412. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:24, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Sjakkalle 14:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patel

WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is far more than geneological information - Patel is a collection of Hindu castes (e.g Lewa Patel, Gujarati Patel), and is itself a sub-caste of the Vaishya group. It's particularly interesting by dint of the correlation between members of this caste and their traditional professions (both in India and when transposed into western societies). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, genealogy. Megan1967 10:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add discussion of the castes. Kappa 11:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:46, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Keep per John Fader. --Unfocused 14:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. — RJH 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep snd expand. The caste info is interesting and notable. Capitalistroadster 16:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- please refer to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Awasthi) for a useful discussion on the such matter. All points are valid here also. I am sure everyone who may have participated in such VfD discussions earlier remember the points well and understand the ramifications of the issues involved. --Bhadani 18:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I assume most wikipedian are not aw3are that roughly 10% percent of indians are named Patel? Klonimus 03:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, cross-refer --Simon Cursitor 07:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it isn't genealogy, it's about a subcaste and immigrant experience. Jonathunder 14:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Keep for further expansion --ZekeMacNeil 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is about a subcaste, not family history. It has as much validity as pages like House of Saud and Clan MacLeod. --Douglas 16:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Being more than just bloodline, it is important that non-Indians understand that it is a caste. Expand, because I believe Patel may be of different sub-castes(?) themselves(dont quote me.)GoldenDragon 20:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the 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 No consensus for either, page kept. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Milnes

WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Miller (the most common variant of names derived from the profession of running a mill - again, see Smith (surname), and note that Miller is almost as common) - yet another example of a page that could be both a disambig and an informative article. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:50, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Polluting Miller with Milne would be wrong. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Merge with Milne, a closer variant. (Or else merge Milne with Miller, as above.) I don't see a problem with having some genealogy information on a page that also has notable family members listed. :-) — RJH 14:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the way that the people section of Bush (disambiguation) has been structured, for example. However, there's probably enough to keep Milne and Milnes as separate disambiguations. Note that doing so makes the interwiki links simpler. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
There is no validity in a merge with Miller but some validity in a merge with Milne. However, the recognition of association between the clans is recognised by Milnes and by the (USA) Gordons but not at present by Milne. For this reason, there is validity in keeping the pages distinct. --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until the Names/Surnames debate in process is resolved. Then renominate at will.--Unfocused 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymologies and pronunciations of (attested) proper nouns go in Wiktionary. (And, conversely, Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.) This one would go in Wiktionary:Milnes. See Wiktionary:Hastings, Wiktionary:Churchward, and Wiktionary:Jock for existing examples of how this works. Articles about names, i.e. about words, should go in Wiktionary, whilst articles about people/concepts/things/events/places by those names should go in Wikipedia. Compare Darlington (disambiguation) and Wiktionary:Darlington, for example (or indeed Hastings (disambiguation) and Wiktionary:Hastings). Once the etymology, pronunciation, and other dictionary article content has been moved to Wiktionary, there's scope for a name disambiguation article here. Whilst there may not be concepts, places, or things, there are certainly people to be disambiguated. I find at least two encyclopaedia articles for people with the family name Milnes (Sherrill Milnes, Richard Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Houghton, possibly Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe, and Robert Shore Milnes) . My only problem with this article is its lack of cited sources, and the fact that the original author basically cited himself, meaning that it might be better to start from scratch at Wiktionary than transwiki the article. In any event, Keep, to become a name disambiguation. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- You have a problem with someone citing themselves? Would it, then, make all the difference if someone else provided the information and cited the same author? It sounds illogical that the author should not be the most valid person to enter information into an encyclopedia! --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect to Miller or Milne as neither of those names would be linked to or searched for under Milnes. Even Wiktionary doesn't accept just any personal name. From Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion comes this quote:
As a rule of thumb, a proper noun should be included only if:

1. It is used as a common noun (especially if it is commonly written without capitalization).

2. It is used in an attributive sense with the expectation that the meaning will be widely understood (a David Beckham hairstyle).

3. Words or terms derived from the name are already in Wiktionary.

4. The name appears in different forms in different languages (e.g. John/Johann/Jan/Juan/Jean/Giovanni ...)
--Angr/_comhrá 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that those are the new criteria, recently changed. Also note that the old criteria do not match what has actually been existing practice. There's a discussion of all this on that page's talk page that is as yet unfinished. It's worth reading. Uncle G 14:52, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
I am becoming utterly distressed with the number of Wikipedians who don't know the difference between genealogy (e.g. Dukes of Swabia family tree) and etymology, and who are presuming that because etymology is covered in the Wiktionary, it can not also be a legitimate part of an article (e.g. River Thames). If we follow this logic, we must remove all etymological information from all Wikipedia articles. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- I agree that Milnes isn't a genealogy page, and I agree that etymologies can be useful parts of encyclopedia articles, but Milnes as it stands is basically a dicdef. Being a name, there's no meaning to be assigned, but there's an (unsourced and highly speculative sounding) etymology, a vague pronunciation guide, and a paragraph about coats of arms that doesn't even show us any of the three coats of arms associated with the Milnes family but merely warns us not to trust everything we see. --Angr/_comhrá 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are saying to delete because it's incomplete? --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps Milnes should be labelled Clan Milnes (which has legitimacy) and then everyone will be happy? Or will that then cause calls for deletion of pages like Clan Gordon, Clan MacRae, House of Stuart etc? --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP not a dictionary. --Ragib 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 delete. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Matrix Generation

I can't imagine an article cropping up around this topic, as apparently the only information is a passing comment from Cornel West. Lots of Google hits, but almost all of them are about generating matrices in math. — Phil Welch 11:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this stub and merge anything useful or not already stated into whatever the main Matrix article is. 23skidoo 13:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cornel West didn't cite his sources. He says that there are people calling themselves that, but he appears to have his own private Harvard Google. "More and more people are getting suspicious of Cornel West" is as valid a statement. The article is a tidbit attempting to be a dictdef. Geogre 13:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not every comment is encyclopedic! A2Kafir 16:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stancel 00:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvilPhoenix 03:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Despite the subsequent improvement of the article, this is still a neologism with no evidence found of widespread use. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Jockey

Recently coined, non-notable neologism. 31 Google hits. Delete. --OpenToppedBus 11:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fairly interesting idea, but that doesn't make it notable. --the wub (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Stancel 00:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's interesting, but I doubt it's that widely used at this point.EvilPhoenix 03:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I edited the page today to expand the historical and contemporary context for "Google Jockey" as a useful term. Also added two external links to substantiate the presence of Google Jockeying. JustinHall 19:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have heard of this phenomena before but I have never heard the term. However if another term arises, the page can always be renamed later. Alex Krupp 04:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crawl Through Knifes

Not notable vanity/advert, describing an album that has not been released yet by an undescribed artist. Title also misspelled. Hope the album does well, but it should only be listed here after it has done well. Terrace4 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverifiable, advertising, future event, and, to top it all off, it should be "Knives." Geogre 13:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - large numbers of albums are released every year, and many of them have little or no influence at all, at the time or later. Since this article cannot even be bothered to name the band, let alone the record label (assuming it has one), and nothing links to it, I can't see the point in it. If the album does get released and does make sales, the current information could be reproduced entirely from the album sleeve. Average Earthman 16:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, advertising, not notable future event, mispelling of "knives". Stancel 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet), promo. Megan1967 05:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.E.N.T.A.G.O.N.

Unverifiable A google on "Robu Samisu" returns nothing, as does a search on "gnotdroid", and nothing in the results for a search on "Tiger No Kaze—Shiroi Baka Tornado" suggest this entry has any grounding in fact. Hiding 12:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very elaborate hoax. — Tokek 18:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax Stancel 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax. EvilPhoenix 03:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A figment of imagination --IncMan 20:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 delete, deletion at 00:56, 1 July 2005 by Stevertigo. A new version was then recreated by at 00:57, 1 July 2005 by BlankVerse. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates

The Wikiproject is empty and unused, and contain very little but Template:WikiProject, which isn't even subst'ed and filled in. R adiant _* 12:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

(the other one I mentioned turned out to be a template ?! and has been taken to TFD) R adiant _* 12:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The template mentioned is used to quickly create the backbone of a project page. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. ~~Delete~~ Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates unless someone can prove me wrong. Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Change to Keep. Significantly expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with MacGyverMagic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates seems to be useless and redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is under a month old -- is it a dead duck, or is the author simply doing finals and too busy to expand it at the moment ? --Simon Cursitor 07:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sort of organization to the work on Wikipedia templates is desperately needed, even if this WikiProject currently appears dead. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Keep. This project is less than a week old according to the history, but Radiant!'s note on the Talk page is from May 11, far older than the project itself, so I'm quite confused as to what's going on. Nonetheless, if that date discrepancy is just a glitch, then it skirts the boundaries of bad faith to nominate this for deletion at this point. The question crosses my mind whether there is a conflict of interest here with respect to Wikipedia:Template standardisation. Courtland July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
- Er, what exactly are you accusing me of? Why would there be a conflict between two groups of people improving templates? Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  - I'm accusing you of a bad faith nomination. If the VFD is withdrawn at this point, that would indicate your good faith, because as you pointed out the new project is very different from the old one. Also, "why would there be conflict between two groups of people improving templates" .. come on, Radiant! give me a break. The remits are the same by and large (not identical but undoubtedly overlapping); as both of you know of the standardisation page and I can only assume that the WikiProject was "re"created and perhaps in the first place created as a formalization of the stnadaridisation work and your nominating for deletion indicates that you want nothing of WikiProject involved. So, demonstrate your good faith and withdraw the nomination. Courtland July 4, 2005 21:38 (UTC)
Something is VERY weird in the article history. I know that it was created in February or March of 2005, by User:Stevertigo. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
- Okay, here's what's going on... it was created on May 2nd by Stevertigo. On May 11th I asked on the talk page what it was about. Then on May 18th I nominated it for deletion (since I had gotten no answer from the note). Then on July 1st, Stevertigo deleted the project, possibly as a result of this VFD. Then on July 1st, Blankverse created an entirely new project, which, needless to say, is very different from the old one. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  - My guess is that I was editing the page at the same time that Stevertigo deleted the page, so when I thought that I was just saving my edits, I was actually creating a new version of the same article. Now the only thing that I wonder about is how this VFD fell through the cracks and the page never got deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
    - The reason that it fell through the cracks was that a formatting error on the May 18th VFD log page made it appear that every VFD article for that day was closed, when in fact that was not the case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

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. 16:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

John Davies

Incomplete nomination by User:Ashdurbat. Not sure why, my vote would be keep. R adiant _* 14:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep good disambiguation page. See no reason to get rid of it. Wikibofh 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple John Davies with Wikipedia articles, hence a disambig page is useful. Average Earthman 16:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why on Earth delete a disambig page?? Urhixidur 16:37, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I'm closing this as a speedy keep, since nobody has actually given a reason why it should be listed here. As I've said before - if you find an incomplete {{vfd}}, you've no obligation to add it to WP:VFD, particularly if it's such a clear-cut case. sjorford →•← 16:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. R adiant _* 08:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on the word listen

Self-admitted speculation, making it inherently non-encyclopedic. Either transwiki to Wikisource (if it's deemed sensible) or delete (if it isn't). — JIP | Talk 13:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is made of the words del and ete. Brighterorange 13:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow. Oh, wow. He blew my freakin' mind, man! Like, there's no I in t-e-a-m, and you can't spell "life" without "if." Deep Thoughts. Geogre 13:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original ~~research~~ rambling, no potential to become encyclopedic, no indication of significance which might justify sending to Wikisource. The article includes the sentence "Never to leave your audience puzzled.", but doesn't follow that advice. Barno 14:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal speculation (rather too derivative to call it original, but still pointless). While this sort of guff might be acceptable in motivational seminars somewhere in California, it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Average Earthman 16:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research --Arcadian 19:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... but what if c-a-t actually spells dog? -- BD2412 ^talk 19:29, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- (see also Michael Keaton on SNL Celebrity Jeopardy, explaining that if you break down the word number into its components - "numb" and "ber", it means someone who can't feel that they're cold).
Delete, Nonsense Stancel 00:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- verbal gematria of a type all too common to those who are trying to prove a point without actually knowing what they're talking about. Haikupoet 04:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For those not understanding the reference: Gematria. Barno 14:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Megan1967 05:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely this should be speedied as obvious nonsense? PaulHammond 17:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete drini ☎ 23:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Street Posse

The article says these guys are "notorious", but I don't think they're notable. Most of their crimes seem to be pretty insignificant anyway. Delete as per band vanity pages.

"The "Posse" is infamous for petty street crime, larceny, small time drug sales," and posting vanity pages on Wikipedia. Unless a regular editor from Philadelphia can collaborate this information, it is not verifiable and therefore should be deleted. Ground Zero 15:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 08:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless somebody from Philadelphia can provide evidence of notability. - Longhair | Talk 09:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, like the Yale Street Gangsters article, I'm unable to verify this without more information despite the fact they may be a legitimate street gang. 209.213.71.78 15:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have lived within 20 blocks of Martin street my whole life, I am currently about 6 blocks from there, and I can assure you, there is nothing notable here. Kids in various neighborhoods and around various blocks have been referring to themselves as the "[whatever] posse" since long before my highschool days. Philly is currently experiencing a strange crime wave, but kids from Martin street are not responsible for it, (Roxborough and Manayunk are actually among the least crime-ridden areas of the city). func (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Rmhermen --cesarb 23:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bonasia

joke/vanity page created from high school ip address with history of vandalism - Etacar11 14:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - nonsense, vandalism and possibly abusive --Doc Glasgow 15:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 15:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The sole "keep" vote came from a person with only two edits to Wikipedia (including this comment). Rossami (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur Tryggvason

Seems to be a vanity page. Google test seems to yield only Wikipedia mirrors. I'm Icelandic and I've never heard of this guy. Article was created by an anonymous user. Haukurth 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article states that his significance is in doing one particular skateboarding move in one particular public place. This sounds for all the world like "Kid skates at mall, and his friends are amazed." The video is expected, not released. No indication of awards, touring, sales, competitions, etc. Geogre 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keepit: This is not a vanity page, I am an Icelandic skater and know alot about the Icelandic skate culture, Baldur Tryggvason is a sort of an icon/role-modle for young skaters in Iceland.Davidsig 01:49 19 May 2005
Delete. I don't think that's particularly notable, imo. EvilPhoenix 03:38, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. If the page is improved to show notability, I will reconsider my vote. Quale 08:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jpgordon (content was: '{{vfd}}Starring Robert Urich' (No usable content)) --cesarb 22:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Run (film)

While in this state, article is completely non-notable. Sgkay 07:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No content. Delete unless expanded. Has been speedily deleted a few times. - Mike Rosoft 15:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merely stating one actor in the film doesn't make an article. Delete unless some useful information can be added. Average Earthman 16:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Sentence fragment. This is criterion #1 perfectly illustrated. Geogre 17:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing that there's more in Final Run about the subject than there is in this article. Uncle G 18:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. --Carnildo 20:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kearney

Delete -I am placing a VFD to respect the person's privacy and may place the same Vfds on other currently known young living prodigies. These persons may resent publicity.--Jondel 07:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there has been a request from Mr. Kearney (who I'm guessing is 21 now based on the date of an article), his page shouldn't be deleted due to a vague concern about privacy. Rhobite 16:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. On a side note, if a subject wants their article deleted it should be brought up here or on the Village Pump. I can imagine certain cases where we'd remove information due to privacy, but usually if a subject is notable they don't have a right to remove information from their article here. Rhobite 20:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He's worthy of an article, so unless he's shown concern about his privacy himself, I agree with Rhobite. Mgm|^(talk) 17:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and if someone is notable, they get an article whether they like it or not. I don't see that their opinion should have any weight in the matter. Meelar (talk) 20:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
comment desperate rewrite needed if kept, the beginning is ... bad --TimPope 20:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his father wrote a book about him for crying out loud, and there have been many newspaper articles. At this point (he is now grown) I don't think that privacy is the main concern. The article is terrible though, needs a big cleanup. Fawcett5 01:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I basically don't know why you'd want to delete this. Danielfong 02:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though does need work. EvilPhoenix 03:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although of borderline notability based upon what's written here. If privacy is an issue there are literally thousands of Wikipedia articles that would need to be deleted. 23skidoo 14:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but definitely in need of a clean-up. -- Lochaber 16:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Days to Vegas

No potential to become encyclopedic Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:34, 2005 May 18 (according to history Uncle G 18:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC))

Keep. —Tokek 18:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing in the article to indicate what it is, who made it, anything of substance. Delete. RickK 22:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - 86,000 search results for an XBox game that hasn't even been released yet. Nothing seems to indicate it won't be released sooner than the Phantom or Duke Nukem Forever. At first I didn't give a reason because I wasn't sure what the reason for the deletion request was. (Why does it not have potential to becoome encyclopedic? What part of 86,600 google hits are unverifiable? ) —Tokek 01:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, I only wanted to know the reasoning for your vote. Rick K 21:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It appears to be a planned console game for the Playstation 3. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Play Station 3 appears to be a planned console. By the same logic, should the Play Station 3 article be deleted also? I don't see much opinion that this will be vaporware. By the way, a quick googling seems to indicate it will also be released for the Xbox 360 console.—Tokek 01:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't even say what it is, except that it's a game (with pen and ink? with dinner parties? a war game?). Turns out, it isn't a game. It's a rumor of a game. Therefore, unverifiable as non-existant. This is on top of the writing being incomprehensible. Geogre 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unverifiable future events. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. EvilPhoenix 03:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Expand. So far everything they've said is true and verifiable, it's been in all the previews etc., but there is MUCH more known about the game than that. Even so I am loth to keep it. It is a real game, with screenshots and news articles and story summaries and everything, but *this* article doesn't give all the facts, and I don't have the time to improve it myself. So let's kill it off for now. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: now I reread it more carefully, this is ALL false and NONSENSE. It *does* involve a weekend in Vegas to gamble, but it's *not* turn-based. This article is nonsense. Can we Speedy it as such? Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most articles are short and poorly written after only one edit. If there's a policy that says Wikipedia is not a place for stub articles, then I could change my mind and be for deletion, but right now I am for keep, and I don't even play video games. This was filed for a VfD only 30 minutes after creation. The author could have come back and added improvements, but now he/she might have been put off. —Tokek 00:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed al-ghamdi Abu Sanad

Nonexistent on Google, not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 09:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There were technically enough votes calling for "merge" (a variation of "keep") to make this a no-concensus decision. However as near as I can tell, no one has come forward to even begin to merge these articles into someplace useful. I am going to exercise my discretion and call these two as "delete"s. If someone wants to recover the content in order to carry out a merge, please contact me and I will restore it to a temp page in your user space while you work on it. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: SFoskett just contacted me to report that he/she is using this content to rewrite the History of Ferrari article (and not writing it from scratch as I had thought from the comments below). In order to preserve GFDL, I am going to restore the earlier version of the article and redirect it. Rossami (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An extended essay about Ferrari covering from the birth of Enzo Ferrari to 200 and An extended essay about Ferrari covering from the birth of Enzo Ferrari to 2005

Unwikified essay. If not copyrighted, material could be added to several other articles. Rmhermen 05:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete. I agree, it's not useful in its current form. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, the article's contents have been cut and pasted also to An extended essay about Ferrari covering from the birth of Enzo Ferrari to 2005. If this one goes, I think the other should, too. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Delete both of them. The first is an obvious typo (Enzo Ferrari wasn't alive in 200), but the author seems unaware of the concept of redirects. I thought this was a copyvio but couldn't find the text on Google. — JIP | Talk 05:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Gazpacho 05:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Wikipedia is not a place for just dumping essays. If it is merged in any significant way, then it obviously can't be deleted due to GFDL requirements. sjorford →•← 09:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ferrari. — Dan | Talk 13:18, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Edit and merge - We need an extended History of Ferrari article, and this could serve as the basis. Some could also be merged into Enzo Ferrari. --SFoskett 13:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I have begun History of Ferrari and will merge in this content to that article, Enzo Ferrari, and Scuderia Ferrari. When that is done, these ridiculous titles should be deleted. --SFoskett 12:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete is a GFDL violation. Merge and redirect to Ferrari. RickK 22:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Technically it is possible to merge and delete. It involves first moving the article to a better title which would be useful as a redirect, and then merging. It is a laborious process though. Sjakkalle 11:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone volunteers to sort through that huge unformatted text block to carry out the merge, just delete. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, please don't redirect from such lengthy titles. R adiant _* 08:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. Not exactly helpful. Linuxbeak | Desk 14:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia doesn't need this. --Imaek 00:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proto 15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not ask the closer of such a debate to try merging this. Sjakkalle 11:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Radio F Software

Delete. Non-notable. Rmhermen 04:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Online University

According to the article, the "Free Online University was founded on the 17th of May, 2005". I don't think it really needed an article the day after. Come back when the university is at least marginally notable. Rl 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Prank boast. It's like those articles on "famous" bands that were formed in May of 2005. Just childishness that verges on vandalism. A typo in the article explains it best: "Histoy." Geogre 17:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---Scimitar
keep just because something is new doesn't mean it isn't real. it's quite a leap of logic to call such a posting "vandalism".... aimlessly lashing out at people is the real indication of childishness. j0n 21:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't say? So, it can be described because it exists only at the moment of speaking. It has no stability, nothing which can be referred to, since it is existing only in the form of a potentiality? Seems pretty unverifiable to me. List of students? List of teachers? List of classes? All to come whenever, someday, maybe? It isn't real, except as an announcement, and announcements are not appropriate content. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - try reading the [deletion guidelines ] again. there's nothing on this article that violates any of the listed standards. you need to find something better to do with your time than trolling around and trying to find fault with others. maybe take up knitting or something j0n 02:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice. I think I've already found it, though: verifiable. You see, when something exists for a day, it isn't really stable enough to be discussed. The purpose of encyclopedias is contextualizing of information, not announcing neato things. Oh, and advertising. That's another deletion guideline violation. Perhaps, though, you would be better served by establishing these items than trying to insult me: it's easier. Geogre 10:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not real? The users on this talk page are having a class right now. It's just a bit of an experiment however and i won't be awarding any credits for it. Aghost 02:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the free online university was founded when the wikipedia entry was published, it is designed to mirror a similar philosophy to that of the wikipedia, so it seems like a logical place to start. aghost 20:17, 18 may 2005 (UTC)
- I wish you well, but the deletion guidelines prohibit advertising. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from "wishing me well" perhaps you could look into improving the university rather than deleting it. Aghost 02:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Votes for Deletion. This is not a rallying point for anything at all. We ask only one question: Does this article violate the deletion guidelines. The answer is yes. That's why I can wish you, the person, well, and vote still to delete the article. Geogre 10:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there's some sort of verifiability. There's nary a link. --BaronLarf 20:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cool idea, but come back when it's notable. - Etacar11 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem any less notable than any of the other plethora of articles about schools, lists of countries that have McDonald's, micronations, et al that are kept. Keep. RickK 22:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- RickK? I had to double check that you weren't being impersonated. Blurb-o-matic entries on schools and bands and micronations and conlangs shouldn't be kept, and neither should this. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- RickK, is that really a good faith vote? EvilPhoenix 04:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- This vote from you, RickK, of all people, reminds me of WP:POINT. Rl 07:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D Ad and just a figment Fawcett5 02:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is considered an Ad, why exactly is harvard not considered an Ad as well, along with any wikipedia for that matter? Aghost 02:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not verifiable. If the creators and proponents of this page would be so kind as to provide some verifiable information, then we can keep the article. Without such references, this article could be just the imaginations of one person. --Durin 02:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not "having a class right now". We are a community trying to write an encyclopedia. That is our only goal. This "article" violates several principles, the most obvious being Wikipedia:verifable. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the class i mentioned is in this talk page, or it isnt depending on your pov, however, the article is just the reference material. The talk pages are not necessarily part of the encycleopedia that we are writing. Aghost 03:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for starting projects. Isomorphic 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have written in the past that tertiary institutions are deemed to be encyclopedic. However, this appears to have no recognition for its "degrees" and no method of verifying its staff. Indeed, this is far less notable than secondary schools which are verifiable. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with those who also say delete. EvilPhoenix 04:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
keep: the university does not violate any of the wikipedia parameters listed in the deletion guidelines. furthermore i see the logic in officially founding this on wikipedia. given the beautiful philosophy in a free online university it would have been hypocritical to come into written existence any other way. please, how is anything interesting or utopic to come of the internet if we can not make individual evaluations as to whether older made systems should be implemented, like demanding physical information, or whether this is a good idea and so i will trust the creators verification of its existence because if it is it is and feeling that one has proof enough to claim it is not and should therefore be deleted is being far more bold than a creator. --1bit 11:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote above is first edit by this user. Rl 11:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes please disregard the comment. i forbid anyone to read or think about it for that truly was my first edit. obviously my ideas can only be inexperienced and incorrect. --1bit 21:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the point. The reality is that it is frequently the case that some contributors to Wikipedia fight against deletions of their articles by creating sock puppets. A first time poster making his very first contribution in a vote for deletion is unusual. The tendency is to believe such an account is a sock puppet. Perhaps that is in error, but it is not surprising that people would conclude that. --Durin 01:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This falls under vanity and advertising, and is also unverifiable. One cannot maintain an encyclopedia based on the word of an anonymous internet user. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fascinating, but this sort of project usually has the lifespan of a gnat... it could die tomorrow. A year from now, however, we'd be having a whole different discussion! Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aghost has created Everything records, according to the revision history complete with a speedy delete to go with it ("{{db|page is only related to the [[aghost]] page, which is a likely candidate for deletion}}", which wouldn't be a reason for speedy deletion anyway). According to the article, that record label was founded on May 20, 2005 (today). He added links to said article from Khonnor, Wwcarpen, and Aghost. It gets increasingly hard to assume good faith under these circumstances. Rl 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as far as i know, the speedy deletion tag was added by a wikipedia script, i just made a stub. i dont have any intentions of abusing wikipedia's features. Aghost 17:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I wrote after getting feedback on the talk page conflicted with yours, so I will just add here that I am now really curious to learn about this feature that tags articles for speedy deletion solely based on the articles they link to. Anyone? Rl 17:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gamaliel 01:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporize, delete. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Delete. This looks like using Wikipedia to achieve personal goals... Sarg 13:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban the author for vandalism. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to host a project on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. And Wikiversity already exists at Wikibooks. Delete. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

under that heading of the article you linked to, it says wikipedia is neither a homepage or file storage space. this article is clearly an encyclopedia article. Aghost 20:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from that; "You may not host your own website". In the article we're discussing here, you state that the Free Online University was founded on Wikipedia. Seems pretty clear to me that this article violates the referenced clause of "What Wikipedia is Not". --Durin 14:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but i feel that founding it by posting an encyclopedic article on the wikipedia does not imply that i am hosting it on the wikipedia. Aghost 15:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is hosted here. That is clear. You founded it here. You claim to have created the freeonlineuniversity.org web but while that domain name is taken, there is no serving host. Thus, at this moment in time, you are hosting the project on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Sorry. Even if this 'university' passed such a test (which it doesn't), then the article still fails on a number of points including notability and verifiability, both of which it clearly and utterly fails, your arguments not withstanding. Regardless of my opinion or yours, this article is currently being voted to be deleted, and it is highly unlikely it will pass muster. --Durin 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there is a serving host for the domain name now (side note: the page is badly formatted HTML). On the single page on that site it says, "Accepting teachers in the Fall, 2005.". So, this 'university' has no teachers (other than you?). We have a multitude of high schools and primary schools that are not on Wikipedia because of a lack of notability, and they have teachers, in fact lots of them. Also the Wikipedia entry here for this 'university' has considerably more information than the domain name site. It certainly still appears like this project is being hosted on Wikipedia. --Durin 21:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can safely stop beating the horse now. It's dead, Jim. Rl 21:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well said rl, to be honest im sick of looking at this vfd page. i think we've had a nice chat. see you all in the future. Aghost 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC) 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the 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 Article was redirected. Should be taken to WP:RFD as this isn't an article. Hedley 4 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Sectarian leftist

Was a redirect to Atheist left which doesn't mean the same thing at all. Sectarian letist is an obscure phrase refering to those on the left, typically tiny groups, who refuse to work with any body who thinks differently to them/outside their doctrine. It is well enough illustrated by linking to sectarian and left-wing

~~Delete~~.

It has now been changed to a redirect to sectarian, which is fine by me if someone write some'in about it there.--JK the unwise 13:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--no redir I can think of off the top of my head. Meelar (talk) 20:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete DJ Silverfish 21:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should have been listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion —Wahoofive (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woops - now I know for nxt time.--JK the unwise 07:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well i didn't know that. Write up a stub on what you think it means then. Sam Spade 21:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need an article? Anything that could be said about it could be put in to the sectarian article (maby under its own heading).--JK the unwise 07:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stancel 00:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete. CDC (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shosh Shoshon

Looks like just plain stupidity, but may be something obscure but real. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stupidity. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete; "stupidity" may not be a WP-policy reason for deletion, but "unverifiable" and "no potential to become encyclopedic" are. For example, from the article: "Shosh's Mother - Michael Jackson". Barno 19:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stancel 00:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shosh. No vote on Shoshon. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, unverifiable bordering on nonsense. Megan1967 05:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete . You people don't know what you're talking about.. there is also a website showing you that this person exsits -- 07:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC) HIM
- So tell us where this website is! DJ Clayworth 17:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shosh: Patent nonsense. Shoshon: a likely hoax (no relevant Google hits for Shoshon family or Shoshon Israel). Delete both. - Mike Rosoft 11:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete: I don't think poeple here acknowledge the importance of bringing shosh to wiki. And the info may be wrong-but it's a question of belief. Can u prove God's existence?? Can u prove shosh existence? no! 12:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- do not delete i know shosh personaly and everything is true!! we should thank those who wrote it instead of blaming them for making up a bunch of lies! 01:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Do not delete: This is everything but "stupidity". There are a lot of people (most of them are from Israel) that really believe in this. Saying that this is "stupidity" is like saying that the whole christian belief is stupid. You can't say that other beliefs are stupid, this is racism. And by the way, "Michael Jackson" is a hebrew-french name, in hebrew its sound like "Michal Ya'akovson", this is only a coincidence that the name in english is written like the name of the famous singer.
- The above three added anonymously. To whoever you are, if there are any people who believe this tell us who they are and give a link or another reference. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Links were given before and can be found in the Shosh page.. i presume the above three do not know how to use this wikipedia system and are not familiar with its options such as leaving a signature--84.94.192.204 11:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Lad[reply]
    - Like you, for example. (That is, an anonymous User:84.94.192.204.) Anyway, the first link on Shosh page seems to be a fiction site (list of works by a particular author), written in Hebrew; the second one is about Shoshoni Indians. If this is what you call a reference... - Mike Rosoft 10:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable silliness. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Unverifiable genious. 84.94.34.39 10:01, 2005 May 22 (according to history. The user vandalized the preceding vote. I've separated. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 May 23 (UTC))

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Thue (content was: '{{d}}One of the best high school basketball players at Highland View Academy in Hagertown, MD. Also his girlfriend Leander Brereton is the sexiest an...') --cesarb 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Greenleaf

Almost certainly vanity. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:54, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 23:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Halloween contests

I do not see this list as having any sort of potential. Although expansion is possible... as of writing, I don't see how anyone could learn anything new from this. ✏ OvenFresh ² 18:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially unmanageable list. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:26, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
I'm not sure Haloween contests are material for an encyclopedia (every year a local radio station plays their whole library of songs--does that count?). Delete. Meelar (talk) 20:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encylopedic. --Stancel 00:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I ended it. --Tornado Kid 22:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Ltd

"Mann Ltd is a small company that produces many things for web sites and other programs. They are run by a group of people." They also seem oddly non-notable. Advert. Rl 19:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a small company was run by a group of something other than people it might be notable, but otherwise, no. More proof of significance, influence, interest etc. is required. Average Earthman 19:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete — looks like a spoof --TimPope 20:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hope it's a hoax. It's rather like the sort of papers freshmen used to hand in, though: "There are several important things to consider when considering [Topic of Assignment], including [Clause 1 of assignment], [Clause 2 of assignment], and [Clause 3 of assignment]. These are very important things." Prank or unaccountable feebleness on an insignificant and nebulous entity. Geogre 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edited by User:Mann Ltd, who has also been strewing copyright notices, claiming copyright over the whole of Wikibooks on behalf of Mann Ltd, all over the Main Page at Wikibooks, and giving Wikibooks such contributions as a wikibook entitled "Pie" whose sole content was a 5-line "poem" on how pie is "yum". Had this user made any worthwhile contributions to either Wikipedia or Wikibooks, my vote would have been "userfy". But xe hasn't. Delete. Uncle G 15:25, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 311 (band) CDC (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P-Nut

Not notable

Looking at 311 (band) the band, and by extension its members, seem to be somewhat notable. However given the sorry state of the P-Nut substub article I wouldn't cry if it was deleted as it is at the time of writing. Thue | talk 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 311 (band). Most band members shouldn't get their own articles unless they're really famous (Mick Jagger) or have been in more than one notable band (Ben Gibbard). Meelar (talk) 20:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect: My own stance is that band members should get articles if they are known for something other than their playing for that band. E.g. Jagger is known for being a general provocateur, as well as a sometime actor -- same for Johnny Rotten -- and Sid Vicious is known for his death as well as his bad bass playing. Either that, or the musician has to be a solo act at some point. Otherwise, we don't need articles saying "Mark Klein played guitar for Love Tractor. His favorite color is red, and he still lives in Athens." Geogre 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete both. CDC (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Express Meat Service and Express Land Service

"Express Meat Service, started 12-88 in Austin Texas. By Doug Green alife long Austinite. Doug started in the meat Business in 1972 for Swift & Co.". Advert. Rl 19:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are links pointing to these articles from EMS and ELS. Rl 19:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those links were added by the same IP that created the articles. EvilPhoenix 04:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. EvilPhoenix 04:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually no information found in a Google search, other than that they exist or have existed at some point. Wipe 16:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyright violation. CDC (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

This is not an encyclopedic article about the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and contains almost no information about them, but rather looks like an official statement from the group on a very specific subject. Delete as Wikipedia is not a vanity press for official statements. Thue | talk 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, delete the rhetoric obviously, but the group itself may be encyclopedic, and the controversy about Ward Churchill's supposed membership belongs in his article, if it can be verified. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
It's a copyvio from http://unitedkeetoowahband.org/, I've listed it on Copyright problems. Rick K 22:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
'Rewrite. Stancel 00:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ward Churchill cruft. Klonimus 03:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your vote: you're calling it cruft yet voting to keep? EvilPhoenix 04:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Get used to it. He does that all the time. He seems to like cruft. --Angr/_comhrá 07:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like everything except for very crufty cruft. See also Jacques Derrida Klonimus 04:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tribe itself is probably notable but nothing in the article is appropriate for said tribe's article, additional to it being a copyvio. EvilPhoenix 04:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio. Megan1967 05:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio. --Angr/_comhrá 07:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the 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. Hedley 4 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

Ramatis

Obscure detail, delete or merge with Allan Kardec if it can be verified. --TimPope 20:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable, keep and cleanup. Kappa 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added verification tag. Article recently created, but creating IP hasnt been back since. If it can be verified I think its a good article. EvilPhoenix 04:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Allan Kardec. R adiant _* 08:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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 delete. CDC (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Eustace

A copy of User:John.eustace's user page that shouldn't really be in the main article space. Was originally mistakenly listed as a copyright violation because it's also a verbatim copy of his university homepage, but since he submitted it himself there's no copyvio. --Delirium 20:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

delete vanity --TimPope 20:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User has copied page to user page, so presumably he figured it out. EvilPhoenix 04:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obvious vanity. Megan1967 05:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dysthanasia

An obvious POV fork to contrast with euthanasia. Its use is very uncommon (173 Google hits) and it is effectively a neologism. Delaying someone's death for whatever reason is not normally called dysthanasia. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dysthanasia would not mean prolonging life, but killing in a bad way (e.g. painfully and unnecessarily). Although, I do think there should be an article about the controversy surrounding the unnecessary prolonging of the lives of those who are irrecoverably suffering. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:40, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Invalid way of covering a valid issue. -Willmcw 22:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Perhaps if it catches on in a few years it may warrant an article, but then again this isn't a dictionary either.--Heathcliff 22:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. EvilPhoenix 04:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Dysthanasia is when a patient, despite being in terminal condition, is nevertheless subjected to all sort of treatments to extend his/her life, unnecessarily prolonging a state of suffering and pain. Dysthanasia is an accepted medical term, and it even appears in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. 200.30.133.115.
- Note: creator of the article. Also deleted text from Heathcliff's vote. By the way, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia, and it has no current use in English. Pubmed cites various uses, but always in "quotation" marks or in other forms that indicate it is a neologism. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, use in Spanish proves it is a real concept in use. Kappa 09:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... about 1 kilogoogles on the Spanish term. Suggests we're still looking at a neologism. Can someone check the IP of the user that created the article on es: to see if it's close enough to the one above? We could do with some articles on the whole "to help or not to help someone to die" thing, but this reads like a veiled attack on the anti-euthanasia crowd, and inherently biased. Chris talk back 02:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle 08:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ourika

CSD: no content. I'm listing it here to give User:Ponyboy a chance to expand it. —msh210 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del —msh210 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a very notable book. --iMb~Meow 21:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP sorry, i saved it too soon before i had added the rest of the info. it's complete now, as well as an additional link to a Claire de Duras page.--Ponyboy 22:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice article now about a notable novel. VFDing an article 1 minute after its creation seems a bit too harsh for me, even if it was blank. You could have told him at his user page... Sarg 22:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stancel 00:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Msh210, you listed the article one minute after it was created. I appreciate your vigilant observation of the new pages folder, but I encourage you to show patience before tagging articles for deletion. I don't really feel like saying that youre giving Ponyboy a chance to expand it is fair, it's more like youre trying to push him into expanding it, which he was already doing. I understand that it's hard to know based on a first look at a new article whether or not the editor will return, or intends to expand it, and oftentimes they do not. I guess it's just something to think about. EvilPhoenix 05:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded Seller

NN advertisement. —msh210 21:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del —msh210 21:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a possible redirect to surety bond. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auction Bond

Advert. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible redirect to surety bond, if someone feels like writing up an appropriate addition to that article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded Buyer

Advert. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above. Delete. Rogertudor 21:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All those tms in there make it pretty obvious that it's intended as advertisement. -Doozer (Talk) 23:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a possible redirect to surety bond. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the two before it. Why is one of these vote pages protected? Vegaswikian 06:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Superm401 | Talk 06:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesheen Yang

This page is <obvious sarcasm>truly touching</obvious sarcasm>, but not encyclopedic.

Delete girlfriend-vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- PS <clueless comment>I also don't think it's particularly touching.</clueless comment> If my girlfriend wrote a vanity wiki article on me, I'd be more annoyed than touched... especially if the best they could do is a three-sentence subsubstub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC) I jest. Ryan Prior 23:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Draw and quarter. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Awwwwww! Delete, and administer insulin shots to readers. (Tribute page; no notability established.) Geogre 01:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris kokko

Vanity page. Author admits to non-notability. Nothing links to this page. --EvilZak 22:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. -Doozer (Talk) 23:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Geogre's law of miniscule last names is in force here. At 17, everyone is either listless or annoyingly hyperactive, so Chris doesn't really stand out much in that regard. In 6 years, he can put on the Scuba suit, jump into the swimming pool, and ignore the advice to invest in plastics. Geogre 01:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, not notable, vanity, creater keeps trying to delete VfD notice...sure sign of nonsense. Wikibofh 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, not notable, vanity - Tεx τ urε 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Dowell Falkner III

Short vanity page without notable content.

Posted on VFD by Ryan Prior

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle 11:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and butkik --Doc Glasgow 13:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle 08:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike festa

Ought to be a user page; as it is, this is a vanity page. To those who browse vfd pages: if I have my own "about me" page as my "User:Ryan Prior" page, is that considered vanity or is that alright?

I don't see how this is a vanity page. I consider elected officials to be encyclopedic information, although the article does need some cleaning up. Keep and clean up. As for your question, I think it's generally okay to have some personal info in your user page as long as it doesn't become a substitute for a real personal website. -Doozer (Talk) 23:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because somebody is a politician dosn't mean that they deserve an entry. He isn't a particularly notable representative; perhaps merge with a page regarding the current House of Reps? Ryan Prior 23:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean up – a lot. State representatives are inherently notable. As it now stands, this is more of a vanity page than anything else. I don't care about this man's hobbies; I might care about his views on important issues and legislation he's sponsored. android↔talk 00:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think it needs to be kept and cleaned up.
Keep I cleaned it up a bit. But much more should be done. Please help.
Keep, state representative is notable. Please sign your comments, so that we know who has posted them, by typing "~~~~". Thanks. EvilPhoenix 05:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep cleanup and expand. Notable politician. Megan1967 05:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't know much about US politics, but this guy certainly seems notable. --the wub (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming he's actually a "representative" instead of a "reprehensive". Quale 08:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:VAIN and kill the socks. R adiant _* 08:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Establishes notability in the first sentence. 23skidoo 14:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state reps. Meelar (talk) 16:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: State rep, and, in case no one has noticed it, misnamed article. Miniscule last name? Pardon me? Geogre 01:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state reps, use the 'move this page' button as necessary (seems to have been done). Kappa 09:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Tapenade

Not a notable entry.

Keep. Did you look at Category:Food and drink stubs? There are hundreds of articles with much less potential than this one. There's potential history here, and descriptions of variants, and so on. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Jonel 00:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be expanded as Wahoofive suggests. Capitalistroadster
Keep and expand this stub. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a cookbook entry, so Move to Wikibooks Cookbook. Vegaswikian 06:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like poor dict-def. Needs context and needs expansion. As is, delete as trivial. --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. R adiant _* 08:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand it's notable enough, just needs expansion--Sophitus 15:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wahoofive. — RJH 17:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real food. Kappa 23:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love tapenade served on hot buttered toast Klonimus 04:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all. CDC (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active worlds radio, AW Radio, and Awradio

Spam for non-notable Internet radio website. Eight Google hits. Obvious advert. --EvilZak 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also AW Radio and Awradio too. Feydey 23:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn spamming (hence the three similar articles). I've added the others to the top, might as well kill all three at once. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthroposophy

Hoax. Can somebody verify it? Svest 23:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Zero Google. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 Google hits. Stancel 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a joke, like Emo kid earlier. Just one of those bits of silliness where one person tries to call another mopey, but in a slightly more clever way. (See the see also for its target.) Geogre 01:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- smartassed neologism. Might be in active use, but I doubt it would be used outside the circle of people that it describes. Haikupoet 04:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spur-of-the-moment neologism. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Biased, obviously constructed as a personal attack, and a neologism. Gedida 21:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete -- Great page, human beings suck (unsigned, by 200.168.116.67)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 23:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZHeXen

This is an article, not on a computer program, but on a port of that software to a specific platform. This appears not notable to me, rather an ad/vanity. Terrace4 23:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Warez ad. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Geogre 01:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I get a Zodiac, I'll definitely get this. But for Wikipedia, this is an unnotable ad. Nestea 02:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, This ain't Wikiwarez--although, y'know, that's not a bad idea, an editable-by-all warez site... barring the hugely illegal content of course, heheheh... Master Thief Garrett 08:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this is warez. Wasn't the source code for HeXen released? And does this program contain the registered .WAD file necessary to make it warez? Nestea 15:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "put your WAD files in the /PALM/Programs/ZHexen/ folder" --nope, sounds fairly OK in that regard. I'm not sure about Hexen's source being released; if it wasn't then the engine is like Bleem!, haxx0red from the original code. Regardless, this is not very noteworthy, fans port games between platforms or game engines all the time. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add a note about the port to the Hexen page and then delete. — RJH 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewaj

Alexa of 300k, Ovt inventory score of 58, It's a moderately popular site but nonetheless minor. IMO, close to self promotion. Lotsofissues 00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement. EvilPhoenix 05:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn ad. Master Thief Garrett 08:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. Ragib 08:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. JamesBurns 09:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. khaosworks 11:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional websites in Doctor Who

Delete. Fancruft Project2501a 22:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about websites that you can actually access that are tied into the programme as it airs. (disclosure: I expanded it tremendously from its origins as a simple listing). --khaosworks 01:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There may also be more of these websites created soon. --Jawr256 14:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A useful summary of the sites and their reasons for existence.--The Brain of Morbius 02:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The websites exist as real websites so both both have fictional and actual notability --TimPope 16:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not a 'fan' but found the article interesting. --Taras 04:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article interesting and will probably be expanded on later.--GingerM 18:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a friend of jawr and know how much he is obsessed with Dr Who. This page is very interesting.--Jwm2004 18:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ties directly into the plot of the full season of the show, and covers details clearly. Radagast 16:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
strong keep. As a viral marketing method for a television series it is leading the way. Instead of fake '555' telephone numbers and references there is an integration and cross-over with 'reality' (for some value of). --Vamp:Willow 12:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. user:Ted-m 18:09 UTC, May 29 2005
Keep. Major and interesting element to an ongoing series and no more "fancrufty" than the many articles on elements of Star Trek and Star Wars. 23skidoo 12:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What an utterly bizarre idea to delete a long article with lots of information - almost contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia.--83.138.189.75 06:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) [Sorry, this comment was actually Energy, who forgot to log in!]
Comment: This discussion has been open for almost 14 days, and all votes except for the initial delete have been to keep, so shouldn't we think about closing this now? --Jawr256 09:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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