Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 19:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Trivia on EastEnders

WP:NOT a general knowledge base - this is trivia --Doc (?) 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. At first I was thinking about merging it to EastEnders under a trivia section, like most of the other TV series articles have. But EastEnders exceeds the 32KB recommended article size. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 32KB is a suggestion, not a hard limit. See Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Suggestion: We could do something similar to what is done with All My Children. First merge Trivia on EastEnders to a trivia section on EastEnders. Then break the Storylines section into a seperate article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree with EastEnders the great's comment below. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP: The EastEnders article is too long as it is, therfore it has to be split up into other sections. There are already plenty of trivia pages like this for other articles, so what should we do - request for them all to be deleted? I think not.
Teletubbies trivia

Trivia about The Simpsons

Fiji Trivia

Survivor Trivia and Interesting Facts

Zealot Trivia

Maybe I am just missing the point? But I think it would be unfair to delete this article when others too clearly have seperated trivia pages - so I say keep this page. Would like this clearing up though. --EastEnders the great 01:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but all of those article should probably be on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with the suggestion from Zzyzx11, was thinking about that - but seemed like a bigger job.

If this article is too much of a problem then it can be merged back into the article until the other changes are done. --EastEnders the great 01:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that this would be the best course of action. Encyclopedias deal with core information, not trivia (despite what some might think). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and merge into main article. Hornplease

Keep, better split out than merged. Kappa 08:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep and cleanup. The main article is already sufficiently large. This could perhaps be rewritten into more of an article than a plain list. JamesBurns 10:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Eastenders trivia. R adiant _* 10:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry is this my fault? I added some information to the EastEnders article and it said it was too large??? I think the EastEnders page should stay as one, it is stupid that the pages cannot be too long!!!!! Who cares if it is too long anyway? Oxydrene 13:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to EastEnders, then clean-up EastEnders. It is far too long and portions non-encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with EastEnders and remove the trivia. --Carnildo 22:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But it's all trivial - that's the whole point! --Doc (?) 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with EastEnders and cleanup. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - renamed and kept - SimonP 19:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pull (physics)

dicdef, Wikitionaryise Alai 00:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect harmlessly to force. One of the first definitions a physics student sees for force is "a push or a pull." --1pezguy 03:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

But there are so many other meanings to the word "pull". Kelly Martin 03:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only meaning that's encyclopedic is force. But that's being difficult just for the purpose of being difficult. --1pezguy 04:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It also has a meaning in computer science. The assembly commands for dealing with the stack (computing) are often pull and push, although "pop" is used more often instead of pull. Grue 05:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't matter how many dictionary definitions it has, they all belong in Wiktionary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Disambig between Stack (computing), force, should also be in pickup but unfortunately that redirects to seduction. Kappa 10:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, in Stack (computing), the opposite of 'push' is 'pop'. So I'd say redirect to force. R adiant _* 13:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Moved to Pull (physics), but should still be disambiged. Denni☯ 03:06, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- But you didn't up-date this page... tsk, tsk. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, it's done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (22:31, 6 Jun 2005 Neutrality deleted "Naziniggers" (Per VfD.)) - Mailer Diablo 21:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naziniggers

In the absence of any claim to notability, this is likely to be either trolling or advertising. Delete --Rlandmann 00:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising. Fire Star 00:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising--1pezguy 00:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, alexa rank of 385,768, Wikipedia is not a directory of porn sites. --nixie 00:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising -CunningLinguist 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not advertising -- The article doesn't protray website in a positive light, and doesn't try to convince the reader to go there. It's like saying the page on Microsoft, or any other company, is advertising. This article also might be useful to anyone who wants to verify if this website exists without going there. Kayeff 01:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit.

Delete. WP is not a web directory. Gamaliel 01:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For more reasons than I can spend time writing here. DJ Clayworth 01:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The entry, judging by the lack of any tone of solicitation, is most certainly not an advertisement. While Wikipedia is not a web directory, the article is notable for the exceptional subject matter presented and its retainment merits special attention in this light.[[205.188.117.65 01:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)]]
Keep not advertising. Knowledge of this site even for those who do not wish to view it is essential to the full internet experience.70.107.182.175 01:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is advertising unless you cite third party references to verify that it is noteworthy beyond the average porn site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hehe. "Knowledge of this site is essential to the full internet experience". At least you made me laugh out loud.... But, sorry: Delete. Though, maybe you could use that slogan in a TV-commercial for the site, or something? ;-). Shanes 02:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable trollcruft. Antandrus (talk) 02:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't feel this is notable. --Barfooz (talk) 02:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a web directory.Tobycat 04:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No notability. DS1953 04:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a web directory, however, this could be incorporated into Shock_Site, or something to that effect. Conradrock 05:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is it even notable enough to merit THAT MUCH? The first time I ever even heard about this site was this VfD entry, I had at least heard about some of the other shock sites in that article -CunningLinguist 06:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a directory of shocking pornography. I know WP:NOT doesn't say that, but it should! A Man In Black 05:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and the article lacks any useful content whatsoever besides the URL. Maybe if there was some media controversy or anything, but there isn't. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ranks too low on Alexa, little content besides the obvious. Maybe a merge into shock site is appropriate, but this is not noteworthy enough to stay on its own. Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nazinigger? Anybody else see this as completelly innapropriate?--192.139.27.18 15:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Aryan Terrorism

Question of notability CunningLinguist 00:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge in to Nokturnal Mortum DirectorStratton 02:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'd agree if I thought there was content to merge. The three sentences of Aryan Terrorism fail to provide any facts. The first sentence states that it is a project, but fails to describe it further. The second sentence is purely POV. The third sentence is a pointless crystal ball statement.Tobycat 04:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry forgot the tag "merge if this is even real" DirectorStratton 09:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete because there is no real content here. Even if there were, it would be non-notable given the minor notability of the band it's linked to. '"Aryan Terrorism" is a real topic, but the content here has nothing to do with it.Tobycat 04:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete / Merge, not that there's anything to merge. IF anything of substance is added, perhaps create a specific section in Nokturnal Mortum under the name Aryan Terrorism. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing to merge. El_C 22:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 19:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

František Janák

~~Doesn't establish notability.~~ Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

keep Nevermind... content added, VfD withdrawn Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete, sounds like vanity. Present format is that of a resume, and most of the awards seem to be nothing special (e.g. a 'honorable mention' rather than a winner, and a 'diploma'). R adiant _* 10:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with radiant. The article reads like a resume. JamesBurns 10:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(I've moved this page to a non-accented version because there seemed to be some transclusion problems). R adiant _* 13:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Question User:Sasquatch has 'withdrawn' the nomination, and removed his VfD tad - is this legitimate? Is this debate now closed?--Doc (?) 22:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Too Old 23:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Delete as per Radiant --Doc (?) 21:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable artist. DS1953 07:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete A google search suggests that he is an artist and possibly notable, but this article doesn't suggest any of that. It's also a total mess, so if no one is willing to clean it up then it might be better to just delete it and let someone who has read the guidelines and can write full sentences try from scratch--if the guy really is notable, that is. I'm not an admin or anything, so I don't know what the protocol for crappy pages of borderline notable people is. But the google search brings up some very nice glass designs, and if there is a Frantisek Janak, it needs to have pictures of those and not just his c.v. and high school yearbook photo --Mister Tattle 07:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A poorly written page generally should not be deleted; it should be left to be cleaned. This artist has exhibited all over and his work is in a number of museums, including at least one glass museum in the U.S. Since museums have limited funds, if more than one museum has recognized his work, then he is probably notable enough for Wikipedia (which is not paper encyclopedia and can be more flexible in determining coverage). While the page is poorly written, there is a lot of material to work from - just the thing a wiki is good for. DS1953 14:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewritten article on notable Czech glass artist. Uppland 17:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note to closer: The nominator "withdrew" his VfD nomination four hours after he nominated it and removed the VfD notice from the article, so this has not really gone through the VfD process. I substantially rewrote the article on June 11, so I think it would be inappropriate to delete this article without at least going through the full process. DS1953 16:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I apoligize for any inconvinience caused. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Girl Trash STL 1983-1989

Besides being very incorrectly titled for an article about a band, I think it's non-notable band vanity; zero relevant google hits Soundguy99 01:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Here's a Google search. [1] --Barfooz (talk) 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Concur with above. Not notable. Tobycat 04:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow! 17 hits, must be important. Seriously, delete, important American bands have a bigger web presence. Is their an allmusic entry on this one? Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like vanity page to me. --192.139.27.18 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete defunct band vanity. No allmusic entry. --Etacar11 19:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 'Strong delete Let's lose all of the garage bandcruft vanity! (Do love the comment that the band is "Defunked"!) Rlquall 11:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mincer

This page is nothing but a dictionary definition. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Barfooz (talk) 02:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What, again? How many times would you like the article to be transwikied? ☺ Uncle G 02:50, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  - If that is the case, then should it be speedied? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Speedy deletion does not automatically follow transwikification. Read Wikipedia:Transwiki log for the various routes that one can take. Uncle G 03:23, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
      - There is a template on the Mincer talk page that states "It may be redirected, it may go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition and remain on the Wikipedia. If none of these tasks have been performed, please do so." Since I cannot see it going anywhere, that was why I placed it on VFD. Though this word is not on Wkitionary at all, maybe it was deleted per a similiar type process over there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy delete as duplicate material. (Yes, duplicate material is a speedy candidate.) When folks transwiki, they're supposed to either bomb the article or tag it for speedy. Geogre 03:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite. See above. Uncle G
Delete, still a dic def, already transwikified. No way to expand this past stuff already mentioned in other articles on homophobia and similar articles. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for now, unless someone would like to write a new article- I actually came here looking for info on the kitchen implement. -FZ 21:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, if that's even the correct term to use for a one-sentence "article," with gay slang, and delete. Exploding Boy 22:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 19:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Funny Garbage

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 01:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The stub isn't very good, but I did a little checking. Despite the quirky name, besides the work on creating the puppets, the firm, founded in 1996, appears to be a well known award-winning design firm with offices in New York and Los Angeles. In 1999, founder Peter Girardi became the youngest person to win the Daimler-Chrysler Award for Design Excellence and Technology Review magazine named him one of the TR100, a group of “entrepreneurs and young visionaries...most likely to make significant technological contributions in the next century." An interactive exhibit produced by the firm for the Whitney Museum of American Art - Jacob Lawrence--Exploring Stories - won a Gold 2002 Muse Award from the American Association of Museums. They have been the subject of numerous articles. In short, they seem to be notable and verifiable. - DS1953 04:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Legitimate advertising/media company with an impressive client list. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could be okay if it got past its current stubbyness, so I vote keep. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but the change to a redirect should be undone and the article expanded. -- ericl234 ^talk ^contribs 21:58, Jun 6, 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 - merged - SimonP 19:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"The Biggest Toy Store"

Please note Jonel's comment below. A merge requires the edit history to be saved per GFDL. This should NOT be deleted but redirected as the final part of the merge. Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the minimal content into the Toys R Us article. There's hardly anything here and it doesn't merit its own article. Barfooz (talk) 01:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete not worth an article, hardly even worth a subtopic in Toys R Us (Comment by Jtkiefer 01:24, 6 Jun 2005)
Speedy delete. Gamaliel 01:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I wish the speedy delete criteria were relaxed a little. However, it's clearly not malicious in intent or content-free. It's just misplaced and doesn't require an article. --Barfooz (talk) 01:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Part of Toys R Us DirectorStratton 01:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and write a small blurb or something in Toys R Us about how the biggest toy store int he world is the Manhattan branch of Toys R Us. -CunningLinguist 02:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Done -Barfooz (talk) 02:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Next time you merge an article's content into another article, please redirect to whatever page to which you merged the unwanted article rather than putting it on VfD. Once you've merged it, the GFDL requires that we keep the page's history, and therefore deleting the page (which takes the history with it) is not a valid option. -- Jonel 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What should the redirect be renamed to, then? Obviously, "The Biggest Toy Store" is not a good option. Largest toy store maybe? --Barfooz (talk) 03:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jonel is correct. Redirect, alrhough a rename per Barfooz, might be smart idea to do first. Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete minimal content already merged. JamesBurns 10:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge content (which someone already did) and redirect. The "Biggest Toy Store" is a slogan for the company and noting that somewhere on the Toys R Us page should explain that.--Mitsukai 16:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Basically an ad. ShureMicGuy 19:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account created today, all edits are to VfD. Rick K 23:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Good idea but defintely misplaced, which seems to have been dealt with accordingly.Not encyclopediac in the way it was used.Jan Bei 1:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Set it to redirect to Toys R Us page. --michael180 14:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not redirect. Having that manner of redirect would essentially be putting a pro-Toys R Us POV in the title structure of Wikipedia. Also, if it were to be renamed to be something like "Manhattan branch of toys-r-us", would that then mandate us to create articles like "Calgary westhills branch of ATB" or something similar? Falcon 19:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Having a company's slogan redirect to the company is hardly POV. -- Jonel 19:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious ad. Doesn't make sense at all. It is the largest in size, largest in merchandise, largest in number of shoppers? Where is the link to the source of the research that determined the fact in question? Gbeeker 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Obvious brag. Could be an article under `Worlds largest toy store`, but that would have to contain `largest` by size, products etc, history of who has been largest etc.. This article as it is, when the info is added to `ToysRsUs`, must be deleted.
Speedy delete as vanity ad and hoax. --SuperDude 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 21:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shari Thurer

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable author (one of the books listed—the linked one, in fact—has not even been released yet). — Gwalla | Talk 01:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete No evidencd of notablity. You 01:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) I change my vote to Keep considering after reading the comments by other users. You 16:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Poor woman, working as an adjunct. Her works have not yet achieved notability, although I wish her the best in the future. Geogre 03:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A quick online search indicates not only has she published the two books noted in the article, she has written at least one article published on Salon.com and she has been quoted in a wide variety of publications from Slate and the Boston Globe to The Christian Century. Her book, Myths of Motherhood is cited in a number of essays and research papers online. Colectively, that is notable to me. - DS1953 03:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Published author - 3 books with a 4th on the way [2]. LOC entry. JamesBurns 10:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as well. -- ericl234 ^talk ^contribs 22:00, Jun 6, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The End of Gender: A Psychological Autopsy

A book that hasn't been released yet. Advertisement, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 01:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't really apply here. This isn't really speculation or some future event that is liable to not occur (unless you have some other information that states that this book will not be released as planned?). However, at the moment, it is advertisement and this is pretty much on the edge of notability in my opinion, so Ill vote Delete. -CunningLinguist 01:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: To me, it's still in the future, and therefore any accomplishment is purely speculative and unverifiable. Further, this is an announcement and an ad. Geogre 03:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is extremely rare for a book to be notable before it is published. Since this is not onw of those rare cases, the text is merely advertising.Tobycat 04:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with above. Wait til it's published. --Etacar11 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with CunningLinguist. -- ericl234 ^talk ^contribs 22:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Just looks like advertising to me.--EatAlbertaBeef 23:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Only an ad. Too Old 23:27, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Delete actually sounds like a press release, which it may well be. carmeld1 01:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Books aren't notable until somebody's actually read them. ----Isaac R 22:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep if rewritten. Megan1967 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vortexed

Marked for speedy but borderline. Advert for non-notable web forum (Alexa rank 3,982,767). — Gwalla | Talk 01:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Barfooz (talk) 02:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Fancruft + forumcruft, and Wikipedia is not a web guide or lifestyle guide. Geogre 03:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 04:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The definition of forumcruft. the wub (talk) 08:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non special web forum/advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but good save--not a speedy candidate. Meelar (talk) 13:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 19:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lourdes Ciccone

Substub. All that can be said about young Ms. Ciccone is that she sprouted from Madonna's womb, and has barely had a chance to do anything notable. — Gwalla

Keep. Lourdes Ciccone is already 8 years old. I also think that this article is more important than Madonna on Letterman and Madonna Kiss.Vorash 02:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect - is not good ,because Madonna's article is already overloaded with info. Vorash 11:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) If article will be kept, i will expand it. Vorash 15:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So what has this child done in those 8 years to meet the WP:BIO criteria? Uncle G 02:55, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Redirect: This is an old, old issue. Redirect to the mother, who has enough coverage. Geogre 03:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to her mother. (Lourdes, btw, seems to have assumed the surname of her mother's ex-boyfriend (her father), so perhaps we need a redirect to mom from Lourdes Leon - or Lourdes Ritchie if a surname change follows the assumption of fatherly duties by mom's husband.) - Nunh-huh 03:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Rick K 04:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to her mother. Lourdes gets enough mention in the press that it is reasonable that a Wikipedia user would enter the name for more info. The Madonna page should be the correct destination.Tobycat 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable, fancruft. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to mother, only notable due to Madonna's fame. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect any useful info to Madonna. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Madonna (entertainer). JamesBurns 10:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I normally don't try to keep relative-of-someone-famous articles, but come on: at age 8 she's already attracted more press attention than probably 99.99% of the folks we have articles on. Virtually everyone in the civilized world has heard of her at least once, and fame like that, regardless of its reason, deserves an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Commenting... but a seperate article? A redirect or something could serve fine. As for "Virtually everyone...", that's a very presumptious thing to say. Many of us don't watch those stupid celebrity "news" shows. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Madonna. I hate not simply deleting this one, but I don't control the celebrity-obsessed media. Un focused 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The child gets enough attention, having done anything or not, to be notable. Secondly, the Madonna article is too busy and huge and this is a valid sub-page. SchmuckyTheCat 14:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Currently this is a single line article, and has been since creation. A single line won't expand the Madonna article appreciably. When it develops into a full section, the redirect can be expanded, wouldn't you agree? --Unfocused 14:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - This is a single line article, only because it's a candidate for "deletion".If it will be kept, i will expand it.Vorash 15:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We are not E! News or Access Hollywood, and media coverage is not the sole barometer of notability. Encyclopedic notability, in my mind, rests on two axioms: achievement and recognition. Henry Procter is an example of someone with noteworthy (though mostly negative) achievement, while someone like Paris Hilton or even Terry Schiavo has recognition without achievement (although not terribly notable of themselves, circumstances or family and circumstances have made them so). This person lacks achievement, and her recognition is solely due to being born the child of Madonna. --Scimitar 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. This doesn't need an article. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename & Redirect - definitely doesn't merit her own article now, but like it or not the very fact that she's Madonna's kid is notable in itself...however, per Nunh-huh, rename the redirect to Lourdes Leon. StopTheFiling 22:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to her mother's article. --Carnildo 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Madonna. We can give Lourdes her her own page when she does something outrageous enough to match her mama. Denni ☯ 03:14, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Redirect to Madonna. How many celebrity children are there? --Silversmith Hewwo 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- to Madonna. - Longhair | Talk 16:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 07:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Albert kellermann

Seems to be a swipe at somebody the author knows. — Gwalla | Talk 01:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All google results [3] are in German, while the article claims that this "Albert Kellerman" lives in Orlando, FL. This person is not notable. Delete --Barfooz (talk) 01:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete (but I'll let others do it, in case there is a salvation to be had): Geogre's Law failure, and a general purpose libel page. Geogre 03:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No point here. - DS1953 03:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. The content is utter nonsense. Tobycat 04:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. It has been deleted before and I'll delete it again now. Shanes 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Geogre and Gwalla, you are making false assumptions about Albert Kellermann in saying that the article is a libel page attacking someone the contributor knows. Everything in the article is true, if only written in a misleading manner. Geogre, if you were to read(it is too late now) a recently "vanity page" article on which you voted for deletion(and even left humorously insulting remarks about the contributor), you would see Kellermann mentioned there in passing, by first name only, yet in a way that is more upfront about his identity and that would clear up the aforesaid false assumptions. unsigned comment by 209.208.117.164 (talk · contribs)
- We try not to include articles that are "written in a misleading manner" on this encyclopedia. --Scimitar 15:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strawberry clock

Vanity. Bordering on nonsense. [4] Barfooz (talk) 01:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. This page has (apparently) already been deleted at least once today and re-created.--1pezguy 02:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete if already deleted. Otherwise, delete for Newgroundscruft and clockcruft. From recent deletions, it seems that Newgrounds is invading Wikipedia. Nestea 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clock Crew for a related discussion. Uncle G 03:00, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Delete: Absurdly worthless forum fancruft, and it's not even about incense and peppermints. Geogre 03:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

10 points to Geogre for obscure pop music reference ;-) Soundguy99 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense. - DS1953 03:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic or notable. Content contains a lot of nonsense. Tobycat 04:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. So nonsensical that I don't see why it was not speedied out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 10:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete can't even tell what this is supposed to be about. --Etacar11 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you delete this youre just a hater

Delete, forum fan vanity. --bainer (talk) 02:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Strawberry Alarm Clock (that's likely what someone would be looking for if they typed in "Strawberry clock"). Blackcats 07:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep strawberry clock is HUGE and should be on wikipedia. Strawberry Clock is King of teh Portal!. --TailsClock 09:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

everyone here is just being fascist, the clock crew produces wonderful movies,please don't delete it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fiji Trivia

Nearly contentless article, dont see why this couldnt be a sub-section of the Fiji article CunningLinguist 02:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quick Delete pointless article with no purpose Jtkiefer 02:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - do not move content to Fiji, move it to Truman Show article. --Barfooz (talk) 02:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete trivial minutiae about a film. Will never be more than a once-sentence article. Should be removed.Tobycat 04:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete trivial content. JamesBurns 10:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with only The Truman Show item, it's just too trivial. --Un focused 12:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I want to vote "delete" because there's too much trivia on WP already. But there's no getting rid of it, and maybe we could move it into "trivia ghetto" articles... ----Isaac R 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 19:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Diplom

~~English Wikipedia encyclopedia is not a German dictionary.~~ Chill Pill Bill 02:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete: It's probably good to explain the common usage of the term by Europeans speaking English in Wiktionary, but it isn't a Wikipedia article. Geogre 03:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at the rewrite, but I can't change my vote. First, it isn't bias to be the .en Wikipedia. The words we treat are English ones. Therefore, an article on German university degrees (all English words) would be a huge keeper, but an article on Hausfrau would not. Second, the article as rewritten still is definition and not discussion. There is a move toward discussion, but it's not really there. Therefore, I have to still say transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to merge Master's degree, Bachelor's degree etc. into American university degrees, University degrees in English-speaking countries or similar. Martg76 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where he mentioned that this is the en Wikipedia? ----Isaac R 05:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia had a global scope. Maybe you could point me to the policy that it should have an Anglocentric bias? Martg76 21:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not "bias" to organize the material in a way that's useful to your particular audience. We're not refusing to talk about German-only degrees (that would be bias!), we're just talking about them in a way that easier to understand if you're not already familiar with the German educational system. ----Isaac R 22:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a German dictionary. Tobycat 04:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- change to Keep per review of changes. Tobycat 05:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki and Delete freestylefrappe 04:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC).
Wiktionary. JamesBurns 10:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 22:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. National systems of academic degrees vary considerably. If pages explaning academic degrees in non-English-speaking countries are deleted, but pages such as Master's degree, Bachelor's degree (which do not traditionally exist in German-speaking countries) are kept, this must inevitably result in an Anglocentric bias which I think most of us don't want here. Martg76 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Martg76 - this doesn't seem like a mere dictionary entry to me. DS1953 02:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Changed vote. Martg76 added two new sentences. I agree with Martg76's reason that we shouldn't be cultural bias which wasn't the reason why I nominated it. --Chill Pill Bill 03:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep post-dicdef version. I hope my rewrite was helpful. ----Isaac R 22:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. I think my rewrite addressed the dicdef issue, but the other point Geogre raises is a good one. For an English-speaking readership, it doesn't make sense to provide separate articles for all the different German degrees, especially a degree that's being phased out. A comprehensive article on German post-secondary degrees can cover all this in one place, and in a more useful format. So Delete my own prose. And in general, let's not be so quick to say, "It's not a dicdef, it's a stub." Not every sub-sub-sub-subject deserves its own article. ----Isaac R 01:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move/merge to German university degrees, i.e. use it as a section there.SeventyThree 23:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep While there is an English translation of Hausfrau, there is no English translation of Diplom, just as there is no translation of Bundestag. Diplom is a name for a thing and there is no English name for that thing, if we want to describe it, we therefore have to use the German name. Markus Schmaus 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's an argument for defining, Diplom, not for writing an article about it. Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.----Isaac R 18:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It does not make sense to have an article on Master's degree and not on Diplom. Many people who don't live in an English-speaking region use the English Wikipedia because it is the most comprehensive, the word Diplom is also used in English to refer to the German degree, and the article has enough potential to grow. Note that Education in Germany already has a long section on the German system of tertiary education. -- Jitse Niesen 17:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Upton, Warwickshire

Appears to be an experiment and/or vanity. Delete--1pezguy 02:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete if no additional information is added to this article to explain its existence. Looks like geneaologycruft to me. Kelly Martin 02:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Genealogy, it seems. Geogre 02:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Get thee to Wikitree! Delete. Uncle G 03:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Tobycat 04:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ due to basic genealogical info. No place in the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain The correct response is to google "Upton, Warwickshire" and substitute some encyclopedia content. But I'm just as lazy as everyone else. --Wetman 06:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I googled both names in the entry and found one or two links. --1pezguy 06:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, we don't have genealogical info in Wikipedia, and there doesn't appear to be a place called Upton in Warwickshire. Average Earthman 08:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Upton, Warwickshire is a town. This is obviously just a case of someone clicking on the redlink from Upton and typing in unrelated gibberish. I would have speedied it as patent nonsense on those grounds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Change vote to keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is it a town? It's so small that Google Maps didn't bother mentioning it - I've finally found it, though, it's north of Nuneaton, just off the A444 [5]. Average Earthman 14:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - It's a village. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I've fixed it to be a very small stub about the village. Morwen - Talk 15:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, now that it's village-cruft. --Scimitar 15:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that it has been fixed: keep Aecis 15:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strong keep the revised article on the village. Dunc|☺ 15:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep fixed page. - DS1953 17:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep village stub. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Just a harmless stub Celestianpower 17:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article has been extremely revised. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I believe our policy is to keep these articles because someone with information might add it someday. There are thousands of geography stubs. Falcon 23:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Noah Hurowitz

Vanity article with no meaningful content. Kelly Martin 02:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No Google hits. --1pezguy 02:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a libel page. Contents were: "Noah Hurowitz is a crazy anarchist with no friends." Geogre 02:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OpenNAP

Appears to be a defunct OSS project. Don't think this is notable, feel that it should be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment By following the link at the bottom of the page opennap-ng.sourcefourge.net you'll see updates as recent as April. Though I'm not familiar enough with the topic to judge notability, there is evidence that the project is still active.Tobycat 04:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Real, popular protocol in use, one of the earliest responses to the Napster lawsuit. WinMX is an OpenNap client, for example. Hardly defunct. — Gwalla | Talk 07:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep popular song file protocol. JamesBurns 10:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This *is* notable. Kaibabsquirrel 05:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as something that appears al least somewhat notable, and is definately not gibberish or self-promotion. Falcon 23:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep OpenNap is historically notable. If one argues that Napster had no influence on the world musically and legally by facilitating file-sharing, one can discount OpenNap, the open source version of the Napster server and protocol. It is historically significant, socially significant and significant to international computer file-sharing law. unsigned vote by Merek (talk · contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Southern Preppy

I think this article was supposed to be a joke...delete...? freestylefrappe 03:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC).

Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 10:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Field guide to people. Bad idea. (Besides, the female southern preppy used to be known as a "bow-head" for her reliance on bows, and the male southern preppy could be detected by the wail of "I got a beemer" growing louder as he approached.) (Yes, I was a Gamma Delta Iota.) Geogre 11:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it isn't encyclopedic. I'd vote to delete preppy too, BTW, since it's full of nothing but unsupported claims and assumptions, but at least that should have an article to start with. There's no need for an article on southern preppies at all. Tuf-Kat 00:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonencyclopedic, original reserach. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Useless. Stupid. Hohokus 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rachael Anne Abraham

Textbook vanity. Barfooz (talk) 04:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If this isn't vanity, what is? — JIP | Talk 04:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Can't we remove the obvious vanity articles faster...seems silly to drag out a 5-day vote on something this obvious.Tobycat 04:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would agree with Tobycat about something this obvious. However, I have seen many cases where an article on a notable person was labeled "vanity" by a VfD nominator because the person was unfamiliar to the nominator and the stub was too vague to make the notability clear on its face. In those cases, the exposure has often brought out the additional facts. - DS1953 05:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Patent vanity. I hear you, DS1943, but it is the author's responsiblity to establish notability, not the reader's. --Xcali 05:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you Xcali, I am just pointing out that what looks like vanity to one person is not always the case. Speedy deletions don't have the same chance of sifting the wheat from the chaff. DS1953 05:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, I agree. I've seen a couple horrible articles that were speedied but actually had some potentially useful info in there. I stubbed one of them, and a couple people went on and fixed it up to an okay level. On this article, Delete.
  - Two editors are simply not enough. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  - Xcali, please review the speedy delete criteria. Vanity is not one of them, no matter how egregious. Denni ☯ 03:19, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Delete. Well there are a number of articles that have been listed as vanity that went on to be kept, but they tend to be articles about professors and researchers rather than undergraduates. This one, like every other undergraduate article I've seen, is not encyclopedic.Average Earthman 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: 15 year old student. BTW, I'm as big a hanging judge as any, but I agree wholeheartedly that vanity articles shouldn't be speedy candidates unless they are thoroughly obvious and egregious. I.e. I support leaving their speedy deletion to official admin abuse that no one will complain of. I know that's hypocritical, but it's the best way, because there certainly are cases of even obvious vanity that have been potentially valuable. (If only someone could propose a new system for speedying articles after a delay!) Geogre 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This content is what home pages supplied by ISPs are for. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for home pages. Delete. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Strong Keep, Rachael is a great person, I met her once. Karatloz 17:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a who's who or a social register. --Jim Abraham 21:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of the 30 Most Influential Women of the Millennium

The personal opinion of the person who runs a non-notable website which we don't have an article on. The title also switches between "the 30 Most Influential" to "30 of the Most Influential". Rick K 04:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete The source is not-notable and therefore the list itself isn't notable. This list itself is also POV. The title gives the appearance that Wikipedia knows in some objective way which 30 women out of the billions that lived over the last thousand years were the most influential.Tobycat 05:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. Postdlf 05:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Tobycat's reasoning. - DS1953 05:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ditto. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Tobycat --nixie 07:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this was Time Magazine's list, or some other notable organisation, then it would be worth keeping with the source in the title - since then it wouldn't be our POV, it would be repeating someone notable's POV. However, a list produced by an organisation that appears to exist only on one obscure webpage is not. Average Earthman 08:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Delete' per Toby and Average Earthman. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some fairly remakable choices and omissions in this list, too. No Queen Victoria or Elizabeth I, no Marie Curie, no Florence Nightingale, no Margaret Thatcher, no Indira Gandhi, no Joan of Arc, no Elizabeth Fry... no offence to Pauli Murray, but... Grutness...wha? 10:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete personal speculation Fornadan (t) 11:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Just somebody's opinion, and a rather odd opinion it is, too (the omissions pointed out by Grutness are startling). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, amusing but unencyclopedic listcruft. (And what about Pearl Buck, Georgia O'Keefe, Barbara McClintock, Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Barrett Browning... And how do you compare the "influence" of a queen to that of a writer?) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4th Grade (South Park)

Hopelessly unencyclopedic. Might be able to merge some of this into an article on a specific episode... --Barfooz (talk) 04:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep It was an episode of South Park, and its in an established Wikipedia Category. The article just needs to be cleaned up a little, which I'll start on once its decided to keep or delete. Conradrock 05:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I just refurbished the article. It was apparently intended to be an episode summary for South Park so that's what I turned it into. Many of the show's episodes have individual articles. There's even a navigation template between them. I've added content, added the template, and a stub notice as more could be added. I think it's now a keeper.Tobycat 05:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep because someone seems to be going to the pointless trouble of writing articles on all SP episodes. A colossal waste of time, IMHO, but now it's done it would be silly to have a gap. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as many TV shows have episodic articles. It may be a waste of time, but we'd have to take back possibly hundreds of articles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Toby. Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I actually know someone who referenced a Wikipedia article on South Park in a paper for a law class. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:19, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- And what grade were they in? sjorford →•← 13:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Third year law student, I kid you not - the reference was quite tongue-in-cheek. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:06, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Keep--thanks, Toby. Meelar (talk) 13:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but inappropriate as a main article. A good example of why the mainspace should allow encyclopedic subpages. Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 17:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could just make a tag to say "this isn't a main article"? Kappa 22:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mark_Begich

In the Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not article, it is stated that Wikipedia is "not a general knowledge base". While it is somewhat notable to be the mayor of the largest city in Alaska, outside of this he has not really done much. I spoke to a friend who lives in Alaska, most of what he is known for is for being mayor of Anchorage and butting heads with the govoner regarding building roads. EagleFalconn 05:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, mayor of a major city. "Somewhat" notable is good enough for an unlimited, open encyclopedia. Kappa 05:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I agree!
Keep as Kappa noted. - DS1953 05:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa -CunningLinguist 06:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mayors of cities as large as Anchorage are definitely notable. Personally, I think that mayors of any city with 20000+ population (and possibly smaller) is notable. It's when we get articles on local council members that things go into the realms of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep, definitely a keep. Mgm|^(talk) 19:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its a given that the mayor of Anchorage would have an article on Wikipedia. Besides, various other mayors have articles. -- OldRight 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Storrow Band

Their debut album was released in May and they have since gone on hiatus. No entries at allmusic or artistdirect. "Storrow Band" gets 18 Google hits. Their album is apparently only purchasable online. Rick K 05:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. Put this article on hiatus. --Etacar11 19:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC

allow me to respectfully make a slight correction to a couple of errors above- the entry did not say the band had gone on hiatus, but rather that one member had gone on hiatus in order to recieve a college education. The band itself is very much hard at work as demonstrated by a consistant tour schedule. Additionally, the band is an indie band which explains lack of entries on popular music sites such as allmusic. The record is available in independent record stores and the band currently has pending distribution deals with barnes and noble and other national distributors. The Storrow Band has listings on indie sites including starpolish, purevolume, sdam, and myspace music. Most importantly, the proof of this band's significance lies in the music itself, which will continue to take on more public relevance as the group continues to gather momentum.

(above unsigned comment by 68.70.94.240)
Keep. Real band, real album = notable. Grace Note 06:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A band whose only album is only purchasable online is no more notable than an author whose books are only available through vanity presses. Rick K 20:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. band is active and appears to be present in many indie music outlets. --Magicandmusic 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's only edits are here and to the talk page. --Etacar11 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

once again previous users' comments are misinformed; as noted above, the band has distribution through several record stores. Additionally, an independent band can absoultely hold the same validity as one committed to a major label. notability is not directly about widespread distribution; if this were the case, only popular culture icons would be "notable" in this encyclopedia, and many avant garde and fringe movements would be ignored. The same cultural forces which have enabled a site such as this to exist have also reshaped the way the music industry works, and a band without major label support can still hold relevance for a large number of people. This is a real band and the information contained in the write-up is factually true. This honors the spirit of a database that prides itself in having a wide variety of knowledge and information.

Please see WP:MUSIC and point out which of the keep criteria this band matches. Rick K 23:18, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Where's the notability? The band was formed a year ago. Musicians don't seem to have any previous history. Some Google hits, but mostly for announcements of performances in pizza parlors or similar venues. WP has a low threshold of fame, but it's higher than this. ----Isaac R 22:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for now. Perhaps at some future point in time they will meet wikipedia's notability requirements. --Scimitar 18:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per RickK, Scimitar and others. Quale 15:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gustav Leijohhufved

Does trespassing at the White House make you notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? Googling for the name in this particular form gets a few hits with identical phrasing, apparently originating in a single security report. The story is probably real, but the person is almost certainly called Leijonhufvud, which is the name of a well-known Swedish noble family (a member of which was queen of Sweden in the 16th century). I don't find anything relevant, however, when googling "Leijonhufvud" in various combinations (+"white house" etc.). Uppland 05:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable, and even then breaking and entering isn't really noteworthy unless they were really good at it. --nixie 07:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me. It should be noted, though, that this was created from an entry on "Requested Articles". Also, quite a few people have tried some sort of White House stunt like this, politically motivated or otherwise. Does this call for its own article or something? Mashford 66.82.9.34 19:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - renamed - SimonP 19:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Candypunk

Another imaginary music genre. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nothing found on Google whatsoever -CunningLinguist 06:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. the wub (talk) 08:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment there is actually more Google hits with "Candy Punk" rather than "Candypunk". It appears to be similar to Pop Punk, [6]. JamesBurns 10:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Candy Punk and flag as a stub. Someone should add some bands and albums, and if possible some history and all that other sap these articles are filled with. Falcon 23:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Move When I made this I wasn't sure how whether to split candy an punk or not. And yes there is information on Google, you just have to look harder. Also I wouldn't expect a lot from Google yet anyway, as this seems to be a fairly recent offshoot.--Lzygenius 09:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pop punk. Phlebas 13:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I am compiling a list of bands, songs and albums that fit under this genre.--Lzygenius 18:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

I've never heard of this genre in my life. I thought electronic punk was called new wave or synthpunk? Seems that this is pointless. For one, any band under this genre would also automatically be eligible for one of the aforementioned punk offshoots. For two, the creator of the article can only name one band (before I deleted whoever put Green Day as a candy punk band) for this genre. And thirdly, if it is a recent genre, well... that's just dumb. Genres generally don't get their classification till about 5 years after the initial band comes out and is then copied by slews of other bands. Then someone finally thinks to name the genre. It would be impossible to name it before then since technically it would just be one band's particular unique style and a few bands imitating them.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 19:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Raffles Institution String Ensemble

Non-notable high school musical ensemble. Gets 7 Google hits. Rick K 06:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Raffles. --nixie 07:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, it won a number of national-level awards, took part in many national music events and even an international concert tour. The article has sufficient amount of content not to be merged. And ... it was created less than 1 day ago! It was tagged vfd mere 12 minutes after its creation which is pretty unfair. Since then, the content has expanded considerably. Please give it more time, folks. Google-hit stats is not a good measure in this case, please read the article. -- Vsion 04:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 12 minutes or 12 months, it still doesn't make it notable. Seven Google hits. Rick K 20:34, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What do you mean, "non-notable"? Its certainly not just vanity, especially if you consider its participation in the SYF. -- Natalinasmpf 04:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Seven Google hits makes something non-notable. RickK 20:34, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - The article has established notability. I hope you are not claiming Omniscience of Google. Please use more creative argument next time. -- Vsion 22:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I'm sure it's a good ensemble, but that doesn't mean that it's an encyclopedic topic. Awards are nice, but a string of awards given to a person means one thing, and that same string to a group means something altogether less (because over time good years and bad will eventually mean a pile of awards). "National" awards are similarly not really that substantial by themselves, as the categories can be narrow. Again, no disparagement of the institution, but it is not now an entity that is of sufficient mystery as to require a discussion in an encyclopedia. Geogre 00:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Few organizations of this type are encyclopedically notable. Quale 06:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into CCA section of Raffles Institution (or create one if they don't have it). Not notable enough. What Geogre said. -Hmib 16:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems insignificant, maybe merge it into the main raffles article. Frankchn 02:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Xezbeth 06:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

FUBAR (album)

album to be released in Sept 2005. Speculation. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball... --nixie 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation until released. --NormanEinstein 13:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete crystal ball Tobycat 05:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify that information. If it gets released it would be notable. If it somehow won't get released, it would be quite notable too. Grue 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is speculation in the same way that the 2006 World Cup is speculation. --Bletch 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not speculation. Kappa 21:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 19:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Opera electronica

Another imaginary music genre, operas including electronic synthesizers. Eric Whitacre did write a composition with the subtitle "Opera electronica," but I can't find any evidence that this is a real genre.—Wahoofive (talk) 07:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep and expand. Borderline notability with 1260 Google hits [7], listed as a genre here [8]. JamesBurns 11:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Opera Electronica is the first album by DATA, by the way. Uncle G 15:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Keep. I can see this area growing a lot in the future. I moved the article to opera genres. --DrG 20:22, 2005 Jun 7 (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 unanimous keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Autoerotic asphyxiation

This was on Speedy Delete which was (rightfully) opposed on its talk page. I think this article should be kept but decided to put it on VfD since it was on Speedy Delete CunningLinguist 07:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep or possibly merge with Erotic asphyxiation. A much talked-about sexual deviancy (I can use POV terminology here because this isn't an article) which has led to some notable deaths. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 08:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons I already stated at the article's talk page. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gives definition and expands on it. Also provides links to related articles and is well sourced. Don't see any reason to delete it. Wikipedia isn't censured. Mgm|^(talk) 19:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't censored. I dare say that sometimes it ought to be censured. :-) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid term. Rick K 20:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep — notable for the deaths it has caused, among other things. — RJH 20:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - has numerous legal issues and notable deaths. -- Jonel 22:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notable concept. Blackcats 07:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep --michael180 18:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Lam

This person doesn't seem to be notable. DHN 07:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I dont see any suggestion that he is particularly influential in the business sphere, and I'd expect a company the size of the Li & Fung Group would have quite a number of corporate analysts. The magazine interview isn't any help, of course, as it isn't in English. Average Earthman 08:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability unverified. --Etacar11 19:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Etacar11. Pic of workspace at Li & Fung is a tiny cubicle, so probably not high up in the company, either. -- ericl234 ^talk ^contribs 21:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable.--Melaen 22:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Sub Pop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sub pop

Yet another imaginary music genre. It varies from pop music by attempting to find a more common element with its audience. Yeah, right. Nothing links here; let's kill it before anything does.—Wahoofive (talk) 07:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete and/or Redirect (no merge) to Sub Pop, a well-known music label that most people typing this in would actually be looking for. — Gwalla | Talk 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merge to Sub Pop. the wub (talk) 08:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sub Pop. JamesBurns 11:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Saint Etienne was on the Sub Pop label for one album and one EP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect--nice pickup, Gwalla. Meelar (talk) 13:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Gwalla. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. -- ericl234 ^talk ^contribs 21:41, Jun 6, 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 20:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

David Lani Christian Gabriel O'Grady-Haywood

I believe this to be factually incorrect. The married name of Princess Astrid's daughters are Woods, Johansen and Beckmann. Average Earthman 08:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Now added my signature - oops). A number of sites give geneology of the whole line of descent of the British Royal Family [9], although the official British royal family website doesn't go down as far as 80th in line to the throne. However, all sites that state the grandchildren of Princess Astrid do not mention this O'Grady-Haywood, and he produces no google hits whatsoever, so I believe the probability is high that it is deliberate nonsense. Average Earthman 08:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. See [10] which lists the descendants of Princess Astrid, of whom David O'Grady-Haywood is not one. --Metropolitan90 15:28, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Would they list someone who died at birth? Because 7 month premature, birth weight 170 grams sounds non-viable to me (which isn't notable). RJFJR 04:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article claims that David O'Grady-Haywood was born in 1987 and is living in London as of 2005, so it's not about a person who died at birth. He seems to be either (a) completely fictional or (b) a real person whose ancestry is being misrepresented. Even if he is real and notable, the article would still need to be completely rewritten. --Metropolitan90 05:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Uriema

a collection of songs that are yet to see the light of day, delete --nixie 08:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If music plays in a forest and there is no one there to hear it - then it's not notable, not influential and not verifiable. Average Earthman 08:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 11:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Kuhlenschmidt

Vanity/commercial/orphan page. MH 08:33, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 08:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. I only get around 300 google hits, suggesting that this is not a highly influential gallery, and since it is not the job of Wikipedia to create note and influence, an article is not warranted at this time. Average Earthman 09:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/ad. --Etacar11 20:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lanny Kolpek

Not notable -- Longhair | Talk 09:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Former High School band director. Not significantly influential enough to warrant an article. Average Earthman 10:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn student vanity. --Etacar11 20:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE except redirecting Clearwater Lake. Golbez 08:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Springs and others

Alexander Springs, Big Scrub, Big Bass Lake, Clearwater Lake, Doe Lake, and Buck Lake are all campsites in a US National Forest. They are also single line stubs of the sort that used to be called substubs. The info has already been merged from all these articles as one section on the page on the forest. These should either be deleted or redirect to the Ocala National Forest article. Grutness...wha? 10:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non notable Fornadan (t) 11:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Probably easiest, GFDL-wise, to redirect. Meelar (talk) 13:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Clearwater Lake, Delete the rest. Information on campgrounds belongs with the article on Ocala National Forest. In addition to the campsite, Clearwater Lake is a geographical feature large enough to show up on my maps of Florida and thus my reluctance to delete it out of hand. --Allen3 ^talk 13:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

note: Another one just added (Lake Delancy). Grutness...wha? 14:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of these names are common for lakes in national forests, state forests, state parks, and so forth. If we put in a bunch of redirects, we'll soon need disambiguation pages by the dozen. Delete the substubs, weak redirect Clearwater Lake (perhaps with "(Florida)") per Allen3, but note that under that reasoning, all one needs is a more detailed map to justify hundreds of campground entries per state. Comment: I'm a hiker and would like having thousands of campgrounds and trails in WP, but the verifiability and maintainability and disambiguation issues would be substantial. Better to have them appear only in articles about each park or forest. Barno 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Barno's reasoning on campground content. We should avoid redirects for campground names because they are so common Tobycat 05:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep and disambiguate. --SPUI (talk) 05:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge or Keep and disambiguate. Redirects are cheap. Kappa 21:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Willosaurus

Really - a nickname for a game character coined this year?? --Doc (?) 10:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kill, Crush and Destroy A character created in-game? My Baldur's Gate character is more notable Fornadan (t) 11:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some context though - Will Wright is the chief designer for Maxis, and so this critter would have been the first one ever created in Spore. Possibly relevant to mention in the game's article. Certainly doesn't need its own. ESkog 18:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A player's character name from a single-player game? Not even MMORPG? --Tabor 19:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete WTF? Why are my votes being removed? Haters be disenfranchising me? -BrowardBulldawg 01:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Tobycat 05:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a name given to a creature in Spore. It is the first shown in any presentation of the game, but it has no signifigance beyond that. Will Wright never actually called it that during the GDC presentation (little used fan name), it has not been used outside of that presentation and game screenshots, and is not really being used as a mascot (The Spore website even features some other, wacky thing in its flash intro). Not notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete! If you know Spore, you'll understand why. unsigned vote by 81.77.58.0 (talk · contribs), user's first edit
Delete Please. Thunderbrand 05:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as notability is nonexistent. The game won't even be out until 2006... Mr Bound 13:10, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Roger Eatwell

No information on who he is, merely a list of reviews of a book he's written. Appears to be an advert. Delete.OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable author, needs a strong rewrite though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Appears to have written a number of books. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete WTF? Why was mah vote removed?? -BrowardBulldawg 01:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not an article. Gamaliel 06:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep He is a leading authority on Fascism. Definitely needs big improvements, mind you. Keresaspa
Delete If it walks like an ad, talks like an ad, and quacks like an ad, its an ad! Hohokus 23:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account created today, all edits are to VfD. Rick K 22:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Davood Firoozian

Apparently this is a 22- or 23-year old part-time computer programmer, who wanted to establish a computer firm but never got round to it. I fail to see what makes this man notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Aecis 11:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete This does not seem to meet the policy for biographies John Cross 11:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Xcali 16:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity/ad. And he created Sibiran.com too. --Etacar11 20:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Before I wikified the article I thought it was just poorly written with good faith. Etacar11 is right, both articles were originated with same IP address (anonymous) and is probably vanity.--AI 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Black Dawg

Hoax, probably speediable as vandalism but what the heck. --W(t) 12:05, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Strong Keep Not a hoax. -BrowardBulldawg 12:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note that White Dawg was created by User:BrowardPlaya. Wannabet the two posters are the same person? Delete. Rick K 20:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Either a hoax, or a rapper so minor google even doesn't know he exists. no Usenet discussion...no AMG article...no nothing. --Jamieli 12:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete if not for hoax (it doesn't seem to be a hoax), then for either vanity or non-notability. Aecis 12:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Likely hoax. Highly unlikely that a musician would choose the name "Black Dawg" when there's already a real group called Black Dog, who do remixes and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
DELETE May be significant in the near future as the author claims, but certainly isn't now. WTF is up with listing a linked Wikipedia user name in the article as a member of a music group? That spells VANITY in ALL CAPS. --Un focused 15:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's crap. --Xcali 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity at the very least. Since Google and numerous other sources haven't heard of this, I would like BrowardBulldawg explain to us why this is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia entry and whether he can source it. (And no, you don't have to be the subject of the article yourself for it to be vanity.) Mgm|^(talk) 19:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 20:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yo, this is T.L. aka THUGlife. Real funny article here, bitches. I ain't never heard of Black Dawg, but I'll ask White Dawg personally about this. But this article claims that I belong to a rap group called "Tha Four Blingaz," and y'all know that just ain't true. This is a joke, probably meant to smear White Dawg on tha wikipedia. Let's delete.T.L. 23:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This aint THUGlife. Trust me, I know THUGlife in real life and this aint him. Hes just trying to use reverse psychology to hate on WHITE DAWG!!!!!!! HATERS! -BrowardBulldawg 01:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commentz: Black Dawg is a new rapper signed under Dawgman Spencer, White Dawg's 50/50 partner in da muzik biz. -BrowardBulldawg 01:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Bad dawg. no! Tobycat 05:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Scimitar 22:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, probable hoax. I couldn't find anything relevant on Google. "Black Dawg & White Dawg" gets no results, and "Black Dawg" "White Dawg" gets 1 result. Further, about the CD called Grille... see the Black Dawg Bar and Grille. Their supposed album is still speculation (Google doesn't even say it's hit rap news sites yet). I'd say that Black Dawg can even be sent to BJAODN... I thought that "Black Dawg & White Dawg: An Interracial Thang" album title was pretty funny. But unless this album actually comes out and sells decently well, we don't need an article on this artist. --Idont Havaname 07:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I could care less whether it was notable or not, or how many albums released, or number of fans, but the original creator of this article, through his language, clearly disproves any worth of the article to Wikipedia. -- Natalinasmpf 21:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Hunter Inc

This page has no usefull information, nor do I find it comprehensabel (in otherwords, I think it is written in the "nonsense" language) --Admiral Roo 12:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. One-sentence substub on a non-notable online t-shirt shop. — Gwalla | Talk 22:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity/advertising Tobycat 05:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - moved to Wikibooks - SimonP 20:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

IB Biology

Ambitious recreation of the International Baccalaureate syllabus for 2003, really not suitable for an encyclopedia, delete. --nixie 12:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good work but this should be in wikibooks. DS1953 14:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The right place for study guides is the Study guide bookshelf at Wikibooks. Well whaddaya-know? Looky here! ☺ Delete. Uncle G 16:20, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- Good idea to move but its should probably go in the separate module of Wikibooks that exists for IB study guides. I left a message earlier today on the author's talk page. DS1953 16:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Allen3 ^talk 01:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Xezbeth 06:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Neten Dorji

Not notable. A sound engineer, even Bhutan's first, just isn't that rare. Nateji77 13:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep. [11] shows him to be the first and only sound engineer in Bhutan, where musical facilities are severely limited. The article needs rewriting, but as the link shows, Bhutanese music is of very limited quality, so Dorji, as the only trained guy at the only equipped studio, should hit well above his weight in Bhutanese music. As a sound engineer, he is NN, but his impact on Bhutanese music probably meets requirements. (And don't quote me google hits. It's Bhutan, and there sure as hell ain't a lot of internet connections in that country.) --Scimitar 15:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten. --Scimitar 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment not sure about this one, but does he have what it takes to make a sound engineer notable? Vegaswikian 06:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- may not be notable world-wide but clearly in worthy of note in his field. --Simon Cursitor 06:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Felipe Raposo

19-year old film student, dreams of making it big. Not notable (yet). Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:39, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Delete He may be "up and coming," but he isn't here yet. --Xcali 16:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Keep dreaming, someone will write about you when you are famous. --Etacar11 20:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sofiul Azam

Vanity page for self-promotion. Google returns a few hits all of which are user-created profiles of himself, and the text is exactly the same as here. Non-notable, unknown poet. Ragib 15:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Xcali 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/promo. --Etacar11 20:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See creator's entry on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress about Rajshahi University edits. Dralwik 21:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 06:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Death Knight (Warcraft III)

Duplicate of death knight Talrias (t | e | c) 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just redirect; death knight is of superior quality. Dunc|☺ 16:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to death knight. You shouldn't even need to vfd it if it's that obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Why should it be redirected? It should be deleted instead. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - redirects are cheap. Somebody went to that article name for this. -- Jonel 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - the person who created it went by the naming scheme "unit name (Warcraft III)" for other articles too (including spells in the game). Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge content into Undead Scourge and delete. The link on the Undead Scourge could then be redirected to death knight. — RJH 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Merge and delete" is an invalid vote. — Gwalla | Talk 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - There is no content to merge; it already exists in death knight already. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the page. I have already copied all of the material off into Warcraft III strategy. I apologize for creating a page that seemed to be redundant - i was planning on expanding it to focus it more on the strategic uses of the unit in Warcraft III than on a general description of the Death knight in the Warcraft universe. Admins: I am the sole contributer.RampagingCarrot 06:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lava soap

I came across this page on 6 June. The page had been nominated VFD by 63.173.228.51 on 25 May, though user gave no reason for explanation or nor did the user list it on VFD pages. Thus, I am following up on this as the user had begun a VFD process and I am not sure if the intent was serious or otherwise.

My opinion: Keep. Lava has been around a long time, and is notable for a number of reasons, the pumace content being part of the advertising; the fact that it is made by an industrial products company (WD-40) instead of a health care or home care products company like Proctor and Gamble (though WD-40 Company is one now, they didn't start out with that intent); and innovative (for the time, and still to some degree now) packaging design. I don't know if it's one of the major-selling soaps in the US, but I do know that it's one of the more instantly-recognizable brands out there.--Mitsukai 16:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually Lava soap was made by P&G for decades until the brand was sold to WD-40 in 1999. --Tabor 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That I did not know; it's not listed on the article and probably should be.--Mitsukai 19:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. If you work with engines, you've heard of it (and probably used it). -- BD2412 ^talk 16:42, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Keep. Notable product particularly because of its history and uniqueness. DS1953 16:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Scratchy and unpleasant, but real annd pretty famous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've tidied the article up a little. Joyous 17:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - added a picture, product-stub, and soap category to the article. Not that I think the article's going to be VFD'd, but it couldn't hurt to spruce it up anyway.--Mitsukai 18:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Common household product. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though perhaps move to Lava (soap) to be consistent with naming conventions. Haikupoet 03:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Pretty much, yeah it's significant. So can we remove the VFD sticker now, or is there some sort of expiration on these things? --The Human Spellchecker 23:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep What??? You never heard of Lava soap? Keep!!!!
Keep I swear by this stuff, it's much better than anything else out there, and half as expensive. I found the article to be informative. Did not know it had been bought by WD-40.--Txredcoat 00:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise Logix LLC

More or less unwikified advertisment. No notability established. A Google search finds it more or less only in directories. Delete. --S.K. 16:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 16:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy ad --Xcali 16:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. Gblaz 21:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Adwait parker

Looks like vanity to me. Google gives ~250 hits, but most seem to be forum postings or lists of debate results. --Xcali 16:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, blatany vanity. Dunc|☺ 16:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete high school vanity. --Etacar11 20:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/hoax. The creator is a known vandal and this article hasn't been his only mischeif today. See User_talk:204.108.80.10 for more on his latest "contributions". Tobycat 04:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Steve Smith (average)

This is simply a page of some random, non-notable person ErikNY 16:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete honest about his averageness, but still vanity. --Etacar11 20:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. To quote the article "He is known for nothing really". Tobycat 05:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Siberian language

A language invented on a blog. Non-notable. http://www.livejournal.com/community/learn_siberian/ (link in Russian). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I know, a Siberian language per se does not exist. Decius 19:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Conlang invented in 2005 according to this. Could potentially come back some time if/when it has a developed a following or noteworthiness. -- Cam 01:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It could justify an article in the future if it becomes a persistent invented-language phenomenon, like Klingon. Tobycat 05:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I wish they deleted it on Russian Wikipedia too. Grue 09:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I am the author of the language. The topic is of no interest for english-speaking people, but is an important topic for duscussing for Russians and Siberians. So there is no need to have this in English wiki, but it must be saved in Slavonic Wikies like Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, etc. Siberian dialects on which the language is based have a long history and are notable, but perhaps all this is only of local interest. Samir. --213.210.75.88 03:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Athletics training

junk article UtherSRG 17:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete drini ☎ 17:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. DS1953 02:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It has no relevance whatsoever, and has no hope to become anything more than a stub.
Delete. --Schulte 05:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

19:38, 6 Jun 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted "Wikipedia Authoritarianism" (rant attacking wikipedia; includes fake acronyms for organizations (received 6 delete votes in vfd of which 4 speedy))

Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Authoritarianism

Nonsense essay on why Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed, or something. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would have speedied this as gibberish. If anybody else can make sense of it, fine, otherwise delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete drini ☎ 17:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. If the POV ranting wasn't bad enough, once I got to NAKED I knew this article was utter B.S. 23skidoo 18:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Speedy Delete as nonsensical POV rant by that same anon (or a sockpuppet of him) who wrote Chris labosky and vandalized its VfD. --Idont Havaname 19:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy the lunacy. --Scimitar 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I stopped reading after the HATER acronym.

Also from the Chris labosky VFD: Do not Delete: I don't see why this article should be deleted. Over 80% of the information given in the article is legitimate.

These people seem to completely misunderstand the wiki process. Info may be valid, but that doesn't everything should be a wikipedia article, nor that we should allow everything and anything to be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bifta

Delete nonnotable dicdef, and WP:WIN official policy drini ☎ 17:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Slang dicdef. Not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete EXCEPT for Hot Karl, which has its own VfD and will be redirected. Golbez 08:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

South Park sex positions

Various sex positions, that have been featured on South Park and seem to semi-fictional and atleast don't seem notable. Dunc|☺ 18:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(and possibly more from category:sex positions)

Excluding any terms which can be verified as being in wide use outside South Park, I suggest merging them into a List of South Park sex positions. Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Instead of creating a stand-alone list I merged all of the content into the SP episode summary from which they came.Tobycat 05:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — beneath trivial. — RJH 20:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm or wherever Kappa 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sub-trivial. --Carnildo 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since many of these positions (regrettably) already seem to have their own articles. Denni ☯ 03:30, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Delete all that are only mentioned in South Park. It was a throwaway gag at the very end of a single episode. Utterly nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete All of this content came from the same episode of South Park (Proper Condom Use). As a result, I have merged all of it into that particular plot summary article. Tobycat 05:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just because something does not interest you personally does not mean you should keep everyone who watched that episode in the dark about what it means of what was mentioned. There's two more articles (dirty sanchez and donkey punch) where the persons have had to make the articles over two pages long to avoid whiners from going around deleting them (and for another reason, one of the people who voted delete these articles is going to sneak by and delete them from the south park page in the next couple months). It's like trying to delete the movie Titanic because you thought it was stupid or a chick flick. Thodin 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I voted delete, but for information organization reasons, not to "keep people in the dark". The information is trivia within a narrow topic area (South Park). The content in the articles is not central to the show's storylines and shows up only briefly in the dialog. As a result, it is better presented in context rather than in stand-alone articles for each one. For people wanting to learn about South Park these bits of trivia may be useful. The best way for them to find them is within the South Park episode guides in which the contextual content is also discussed. I have already migrated the content of the above articles into the episode guide...so the information will not be lost if we delete the articles above.Tobycat 05:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Tobycat has merged into episode guide. Wikibofh 14:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge: I'd rather these be kept, but merged into one page. Plus, significant articles that only mention South Park should be linked to the merged page. Mathprog777 08:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed someone merged them, but they got deleted the next day. Thodin 15:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep more can be added to the article. --TheAznSensation 06:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Infamous's Adventures

This caught my eye because it was originally a pretty blatant advertisement. I referred it to Andrevan (from the computer/video game Wiki-project), who "de-adified" it, but we're still left with an article on a game company that doesn't seem to have released anything yet. Joyous 17:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'd hate to say this since I know these guys, but as they haven't published or completed a game yet I'd have to consider it vanity. Delete, come back later please. R adiant _* 22:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Andre (talk) 22:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is Bromios. I just typed Infamous Adventures into a search engine and I am shocked to see that page that I've no idea existed is up for deletion. What exactly did it say? Who made it?

I would rather not have a page that says up for deletion then deleted itself. Could you please remove this?

- Bromios

Hello, this is Blackthorne. I don't think anyone from our team made this page. I'd rather not have one until the release is complete. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with the vanity comment.

Bt

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Banana Addiction

Appears to be a troll, only references found via google support this - see: http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.eating-disord/messages/239677.html

Delete drini ☎ 17:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I'm pretty sure this topic has been deleted once before. It's just more crap from the "Stop Drinking Soda" guy. --Xcali 19:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And delete everything else that anon created, dammit... --Kiand 20:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Although I swear my cat has it. --Etacar11 20:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, merely a sockpuppet of Andrew Lin, our "stop drinking soda" vandal. - Jersyko talk 22:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Toytoy 07:18, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep!!! -- Good article 68.170.0.238 07:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - the above vote was cast by the article's creator using a different IP (i'm 99% sure). - Jersyko talk 12:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep!!! -- Banana addiction is real 128.2.247.44 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User is an Andrew Lin sockpuppet. --Kiand 17:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as lincruft and protect the page from future lincruft. Aecis 13:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete (as if there ever was one on Wikipedia... seriously, wtf) DoomBringer 06:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Religion of Gold and Mammon

Fancruft from non-notable online game (Googling results in only 769 Google hits. tregoweth 09:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete a micro-god for a micronation - total cruft --Doc (?) 12:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep no micro-god and no micronation. You can find the game by looking at the first link brought up by google, plus a link to the game is supllied in "External links". You can find more on the game at [12]. I see no reason to delete this page, and I have no idea why Doc glasgow has an interest in the religion of Gold and Mammon. --Technogiddo 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's 5th edit. Rick K 04:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
A fictional religion of a fictional nation from a game which doesn't appear notable (135 unique Google hits for Jottonia, and about 900 total hits [13]). Even if the game (Jottonia) deserved an article for itself, "Religion of Gold and Mammon" clearly does not in the least. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge if there is a proper place This link is Broken 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It seems to be a copy-paste job, with a bunch of headings that are completely blank and no wikification.216.158.31.195 16:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or at best if the game Jottonia achieves notability at some point, create an article for the game. --Tabor 18:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. Kel-nage 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Animal acts

This page is a misnomer - it tells you nothing about animal acts and has been created only to report criticism and cases of cruelty. Material could be in an article on animal welfare - but does not belong under this title --Doc (?) 17:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename or merge and redirect with Animal welfare. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge if possible or just Delete Celestianpower 18:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, merge if necessary with animal welfare and/or animal rights.--Nella-mair 18:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sasxsek language

OK, I am finding that there are a shocking number of invented language articles on Wikipedia that are simply non-notable, ie: they are recent, original creations of the Wikipedians who posted them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict Wikipedia:No original research policy, and Sasxsek language seems to be another one in violation of this. Googling shows that an overwheming number of hits to Sasxsek all lead back to Wikipedia--or one of its mirrors--as the original source. Wikipedia is not a platform for establishing the notability of anything. func (talk) 18:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. func (talk) 18:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Until notable or well known, Delete Celestianpower 18:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. Compare Ceqli and Slovio, which show authorship and for which Googling shows a certain noteworthiness outside the author's own web pages. -- Cam 19:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, personal conlang DopefishJustin (･∀･) 21:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all nonnotable conlangs! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Almafeta 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. By the way, I have known about the language for several months, even though I have only a tangential interest in constructed languages. That's notable enough for me. Also I wonder about the justification for what appears as a kind of crusade against conlangs here. - Ar 19:09, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
- May I ask where you heard about this language, apart from Wikipedia, a Wikipedia mirror, or another source that credits or that ultimately leads back to Wikipedia? If you are perceiving some hostility, it is only because many conlang authors have been using Wikipedia to establish the notability of their brand new conlang creation. Wikipedia is here to report on verifiable subjects, and not to support original research. func(talk) 19:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Occasional browsing of some newsgroups or mailing lists. E.g., there has been quite a lot of discussion on the alt.language.artificial newsgroup. - Ar 14:31, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
    - Interesting. Thank you for pointing this out to me, Ar. Googling for groups turns up 68 hits. Out of those, I couldn't find any where the creator of Sasxsek, Dana Nutter, wasn't involved in the thread. At the end of this page, we see a gentleman named Adam H. Kerman who states:
      "Gosh: 18 entire posts about SASXSEK in the last three months, none of which are archived from your vanity froup. You sent the newgroup Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:40:29 GMT, after it was pointed out that no one was discussing your artificial language on Usenet and that you should post to alt.language.artificial. Your group hasn't been picked up beyond Easynew, Newsreaders, and Altopia which create 100% of the crap alt groups (and only a selection of the legitimate groups). Why are you here with another proposal for the same froup? You don't get to retrocharter your froup. If you want to make up for your earlier mistakes, then find some discussion for your topic. Go away."
    - And then there is this link, [14], where a "call to arms" has been sent out to save this very conlang. These 68 usenet postings convince me even more that this is a vanity posting to Wikipedia, and that this conlang has no currently notable currancy, ie: no one is speaking it or studying it in any serious way other than Dana Nutter him- or herself. func (talk) 16:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a conlanger myself, let me just say very strong Delete. Totally non-notable. Conlangers, don't spam Wikipedia with your languages (unless they truly are *notable*), it just makes the rest of us look bad. --Whimemsz 01:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Kill all non-notable conlang articles. (Yes, I'm a conlanger too.) This isn't even a conlang article, just some silly person calling their list of phonemes a conlang again. Plus it's an auxlang, which means it's supposed to have a considerable number of actual speakers before it could be considered notable. May no such thing ever happen. Delete. - Cymydog Naakka 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

WJOWSA

Speedy delete non notable garbage. tagged it {delete} but it gets removed. drini ☎ 18:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to coin neologisms. You 18:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not Garbage - You have a poorly programmed bot, that does not recognize a word that is in use on Automotive Message boards. Please fix your bot. 141.157.157.100 18:46, 6 Jun 2005
Been in use for years - This term was coined in the late 90's, and in still in constant use today. (12.42.63.59 18:49, 6 Jun 2005
- Yes, however, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Look at WP:WIN for some of Wikipedia's official policies. drini ☎ 18:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete neologism Dunc|☺ 18:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but not speedy--doesn't fit criteria. Meelar (talk) 19:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Scimitar : WJOWSA! How can anyone think this is an encyclopedia article. Delete. --Scimitar 19:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mgm|^(talk) 19:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, idiosyncratic Internet slang. If it was at all common it would have more than 160 Google hits. ZOMG has managed 43,400 for crying out loud. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 21:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Source http://www.urbandictionary.com <-- Shouldn't it be a dictionary article then? If you've looked at urbandictionary, it's full of the kind of stuff wikipedia deletes anyway....or was when i went there ~2 years ago. Anyway, not notable....and if it were, it should've been in wikipedia instead. By the way, isnt it spelled wowsa?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 20:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tzenkethi

Atomiktoaster added the vfd tag to this page on June 3rd but didn't create the subpage. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 18:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 18:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to List of Star Trek Races, where it belongs. The Tzenketh do exist and we know they had a war with the Federation at one point, but that's all that's ever been said about them. Marblespire 18:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Marblespire Celestianpower 18:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Must... merge... all... minorStarTrekraces together. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:14, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Merge, I suppose it's futile to resist the relentless assimilation of minor Star Trek races into a single ~~collective conciousness~~ really long page. But let it break out if more content is added. Kappa 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jonahball

Seems to be about this guy's back yard sport. Only one google hit. Atomiktoaster 23:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. And the image this google hit links to seems to refer to squash instead of a game with bases. Doesn't seem to have had the time to be played on even a local level. Mgm|^(talk) 19:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hasn't this already been deleted once? Speedy --Xcali 20:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn except to Jonah. --Etacar11 20:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Earth Society

I think Earth Society should be deleted as it appears to be a self indulgent vanity article for a non noteworthy group of people. However, I am not 100% satisfied that they are non-noteworthy, as I do not know this field well, thus I have chosen to submit it for VfD rather than speedy deletion.

After a little bit of research, the Earth Society turns out to be a legit group. The article is written very poorly - possibly copy-pasted from somewhere else - but legitimate. This needs a rewrite, but not a delete. 216.158.31.195 18:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 18:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment--vanity and non-notability are never a reason for speedy deletion. Meelar (talk) 19:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. Hard to tell notability of this particular group since so many have Earth Society in their name and it's hard to weed through the google hits. (Maybe someone else can do better than me with that) --Etacar11 20:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Music Addiction

Google search shows no clear definition for "music addiction". Appears to be another bad-faith addition by User:128.2.247.100, who has been creating anti-soda and unusual addiction-related articles (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 18:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete 'Lincruft' as someone else on here branded these articles. --Kiand 19:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now he has something against music, too? Delete --Xcali 20:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete more nonsense from this guy. --Etacar11 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable (as such). El_C 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's got to be another Andrew Lin sockpuppet, see the above-mentioned Rfc. - Jersyko talk 22:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tualatin High School

Wayward added the vfd tag to this article over a month ago, but didn't create the subpage. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 18:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. Therefore, delete. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional delete unless more information is added. --Scimitar 19:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I added a bit more specific information about this school, which seems to be a high performer. IB program etc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into a school district page, per wikipedia:schools. — RJH 20:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How generic can you get? --Carnildo 20:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Rick K 21:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Un focused 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for preference, for organic growth, else merge into the newly created school district page, Tigard-Tualatin School District. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 01:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and let it grow. DS1953 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly without merit for inclusion. Denni ☯ 03:34, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Keep seems to have done a lot in a short period of time. Vegaswikian 06:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are verifiable, enduring physical and social institutions that merit inclusion in any encyclopedia aiming to be definitively encyclopedic. --Centauri 06:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Neutral point of view with facts that can be established. -- Natalinasmpf 06:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is getting annoying. Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wake me up when its over. —RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Please accept that high school articles are kept and move on to some more worthwhile activity. CalJW 05:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. R adiant _>|< 07:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Tualatin, Oregon and delete - Skysmith 07:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please we dont need to do this all the time Yuckfoo 22:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools should be kept. -CunningLinguist 16:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 20:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Cornelius

Winning a spelling bee is not enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Vanity. Sarg 18:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: subject was the winner of the 2005 U.S. National Geography Bee and received a $25,000 scholarship. Please be descriptive in your summaries on vfd pages; this description makes it sound like this might be a random vanity page. Meelar (talk) 19:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will try to write more info. Sarg 19:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete--not notable. My criteria for this sort of thing is "make a living doing it", and he hasn't. Meelar (talk) 19:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to National Geographic Bee --Un focused 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Merge and redirect to National Geographic Bee --Carnildo 23:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It takes up six bytes and is more notable than most of the high school articles here. At least the kid =did= something. Denni☯ 03:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- Comment However, everything in this kid's article is already contained in National Geographic Bee. --Un focused 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge Vegaswikian 06:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable vanity. Grue 09:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep better than the articles about countless towns in northern Montana. At least there is significance. Anomynous.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 07:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rice Boy Page

Somehow related to WJOWSA (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WJOWSA); Internet forum? Notable? I think not. Dunc|☺ 18:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, since the creators allegedly don't want people to talk about, I think it would be morally indefensible to keep an article on it. Don't you? Delete. --Scimitar 19:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep So using that logic you should delete the Free Masons since they have been a secret society. You would also never add Builderburger Society.

Also members don't want the members talking about the location, but its existance is not in question.

Your logic doesn't follow. You have an article on Area 51 the government has a poorly kept secret base there. They would really rather people not talk about it, and they have purchased land to block public view. Being the government doesn't want you talking about it, the using your logic the AREA 51 entry should be deleted. User:141.157.157.100 4:26, June 6th, 2005 (EDT)

Oh, my apologies if I was unclear. I would advise you to check the wiktionary 'facetious' or 'sarcastic'. A well-known aspect of some vanity creations is how they aren't wellknown because the members keep it a secret. As for your reasoning, Free Masons don't hide their existence, and Area 51 was built by the govt., which is representative of "the people", therefore it is created by "the people", who never have expressed their wishes that it remain a secret. If my arguments fail to convince I would vote delete as unverifiable and nonnotable. --Scimitar 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --Tabor 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, -- BD2412 ^talk 21:00, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Keep
By likening the subject to Fight Club the article itself helpfully tells us that the subject is too secret for Wikipedia and that therefore the purported "forum guidelines", estimates of membership, and claims to famous members that comprise the rest of the article, must be pure invention. Delete. Uncle G 00:22, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Keep Its verfyable and real. Some people need to learn hwo to use things such as google and altavista search.
Delete - Not notable. The article is pretty humourous though... --Chill Pill Bill 01:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable. carmeld1 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since they seek anonymity, let us help them. Denni ☯ 03:39, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Delete. I post on that forum and I don't see the value. AKADriver 21:39, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- KEEP I'm a member of the RBP too. AKADriver you coming up to the next autocross? I will have finished filming Car & Driver TV and will have the car we build for the Super Four Challenge there.--71Demon 02:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jon muscoplat

Happyfeet10 added the vfd tag to this article a month ago, but didn't create the subpage. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 19:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 19:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn content-less. --Etacar11 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pointy Haired Fallacy

Interesting idea, perhaps, but seems to combine neologism, original research, and lack of verifiability. --Tabor 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete if anything, because it being a neologism (WP:WIN) drini ☎ 19:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Scimitar 19:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I remember that particular Dilbert strip. I liked it a lot. I try to keep it in mind when I am among fellow-engineers who assume that what the people on the business side do is easy. The term "pointy-haired fallacy" might not be a bad name for it, although the PHB in Dilbert espouses so many different fallacies that it is not clear why this particular one deserves the name. (Why, the PHB is practically a fallic symbol). Unfortunately "pointy haired fallacy" is clearly a neologism; the term is not in any real use. Zero Google hits!. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- reads as original research. --Simon Cursitor 07:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Heavy isotopes

Keenan Pepper added the vfd tag to this article about a month ago, but didn't create the subpage. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 19:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article doesn't match the title. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to James Andrew Harris, since there is no such an article and make it a substub. This one should be deleted afterwards or instantly filled with something relevant --Dungodung 19:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and spare us the trouble of moving to James Andrew Harris and then deleting James Andrew Harris for lack of notability/content. --Scimitar 19:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as having too little context, although a redirect to isotope might be useful. Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The original author's choice of article title leaves me boggled. This is the two-sentence beginning of a biography of James Andrew Harris, one of the team who identified isotopes of rutherfordium and dubnium. Whether he meets the WP:BIO criteria is unclear without further research. The article doesn't help in the slightest, of course. This is definitely the wrong name for the article, though. Uncle G 22:43, 2005 Jun 6 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arsebiscuits

shite

Delete I think that should've speedied.drini ☎ 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy The article is arsebiscuits. --Xcali 19:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Speedy delete as nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:40, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
I've speedied it. Criterion 1: Small article with almost no content or context. Also, possible attack on ITV1 and dic def on top of it. All unsourced. Mgm|^(talk) 20:02, Jun 6, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kolben, Montana

can't find any reference to the Krane brothers, numerous rambling posts from anon user today - unsigned nomination by M0nster0 (talk · contribs)

Delete Patent nonsense. --Xcali 19:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete User in question's only contributions have been vandalism - this is no different. AndrewH 19:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I find the addition of "Kolben, Montana" and similar articles to Wikipedia a good which should not be stunted. It is an absurd injustice that these articles should be removed merely because no practical relation to the Krane brothers can be determined. Thomas Aquinas
- User's tenth edit, seems to be a sock of TalkingAl—Wahoofive (talk) 21:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do Not DeleteThis article is not vandalism, but an article about a fictional city on a show that you haven't heard of. DE-TalkingAl
- This user vandalized User:Barnos page. --Etacar11 21:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a fictional city invented by a pair of comedians. Not real, no indication of notability, no potential to become encyclopedic. Barno 20:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This user vandalized user DE-TalkingAl's page - unsigned comment by Thomas AquinasII (talk · contribs)
Do Not Delete As a response to "Barno:" did not "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" begin as the insignificant invention of comics? What, then, prevents "Kolben, Montana" from attaining incorporation into popular culture? It should not be destroyed as a virtual embryo, incapable of propagation. Thomas AquinasII
- User's first edit, another sock—Wahoofive (talk) 21:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to try to drum up interest. When it becomes part of pop culture, then come back and write an article. Wikipedia is about what is and what has been, not what might be. --Xcali 21:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- When it becomes as notable as Monty Python, then we'll include it. Jacob1207 01:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What prevents Wikipedia as a method of promoting popular culture incorporation; it is contrary to justice to promote an arbitrary declaration which fails to serve the common good. unsigned comment by DE-TalkingAl II (talk · contribs)
Delete non-notable. --Etacar11 21:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Don't delete! Yo Mama 5000
Do Not DeleteBarno, you nerd, the intention is for it to be fictional! It is like writing an article about Springfield from the Simpsons. And in response to "no reference to the Krane brothers" the Krane brothers are two writers/comedians, let's leave it at that. DE-TalkingAl
Delete, non-notable. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 21:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-existent town allegedly created by non-notable comedians. Could it get less notable? Frjwoolley 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete because a) there are no independent references from established sources in pop culture, indicating a lack of notability, b) there are no independent references to these comedians indicating they are of any importance to anyone other than themselves, and c) this article is supported by sockpuppets, all of whom should be burned with fire. --Scimitar 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable joke by non-notable comedians. Googling for "Krane brothers" doesn't bring up any results about comedians (most were misspelled references to Niles & Frasier Crane on Frasier). — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There seems to be a surplus of sockpuppets here. --Carnildo 23:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable fictional place created by non-notable people. This ain't no Springfield. Rick K 23:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fictional place of interest to sockpuppets but apparently of limited interest currently to huimans. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, even if it really is a fictional city. Jacob1207 01:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article itself says this is a fictional town. Not notable. Kaibabsquirrel 05:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 20:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Shorthand

This seems to be an advertisement for a proprietary product. Too Old 19:27, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I believe it should be dealt with in one of the following ways:

Deleted
Merged with the main shorthand article
Made part of a new srticle about proprietary shorthand systems, of which there are several.

Too Old 19:32, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Merge with shorthand and redirect. Remove advertising aspect. I have heard the term "personal shorthand" all my life but the emphasis is on "personal", not someone's proprietary system that they have named "personal Shorthand". - DS1953 20:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Vanderpool

Delete as non-notable. Google returns zero results for "Richard Vanderpool" + "Lake County Captains". This article was started by a user that has written several articles recently VfD'd for non-notable vanity, and the recent Wikipedia Authoritarianism article which has received several votes for speedy deletion. --Idont Havaname 19:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the accountant always the hero of the team? Delete --Xcali 20:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, a minor league baseball player is historic (and therefore encyclopedic). Personally, it needs strong clean-up, but not to be harpooned. Antares33712 20:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Antares33712, you may want to take another look. It is not an article abot a player, but for the accountant of the team. --Tabor 20:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Possibility it's a hoax; note that the section "Works" is clearly a joke. Frjwoolley 21:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK, since the vandalism's been cleared up (Thank you, Carnildo!), I still vote Delete for non-notability. Someone who plays A-level ball for a year or two is not for that reason notable. He was probably a darn good college ball-player, and might well become a darn good GM somewhere; but he just hasn't done it yet. Potential isn't encyclopaedic. Frjwoolley 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think accountants are all that notable by default, but that doesn't matter at all, because this is actually a hoax: "He became intensely interested in baseball following a curious event marking his sixth birthday. [...] When Richard's father returned home from his cashier's job at Seven Grains Market in Tallmadge Ohio he was struck in the head by a rouge [sic] black bird that had been pirched above the family's front door. The bird was reported to be in such a rage that it desisted only after consuming Vander's left eye and puncturing his right. By the time Richard reached his father, Vander had died from loss of blood. Richard and his mother buried Vander in their backyard garden and celebrated young Richard's birthday at his graveside. From that point foward, Vanderpool's love of baseball would not diminish." I'm sorry, what? Someone died from loss of blood from two wounds to the eyes? And because of this incident, young Richard loved baseball? Makes sense! Furthermore, his book about the incident, named Thus Spoke Zarathustra, was was pulled from stores when Nietzsche's great great nephew Mark sued him (never mind that the book's copyright expired ages ago), and when the book was retitled to Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, he was again sued by Sartre's "friends and publishers" and then had to give up on the whole thing because he'd exhausted every possibility for a name? Okay, I laughed at this stuff, sure, but it's a hoax. Away with it, I say. Should probably see what else the author of the article has been up to... -- Captain Disdain 21:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment And yes, I realize that the parts that I quoted above may appear to be vandalism instead of a hoax, but I would like to point out that after the page was vandalized by User:Runner06, the article's original author, User:198.234.224.6 took the time to fix various typos and whatnot in the vandalized text. I suppose it's possible that he was simply gullible and thought that the other guy knew more about the topic... but I doubt that. Looking at his user contributions, I see that he has vandalized other pages before, including (to pick a couple of random samples) Juggalo, Rap, Battle of Gettysburg, Napoleon Dynamite, Columbine High School Massacre, where he apparently pulled the classy move of creating imaginary victims, and Skateboarding, in which he posed the following conundrum to his fellow Wikipedians: "haha ypur gay u fag why are you reading this u poseR!" Truly, who can say? Now, I dunno if Runner06 is his friend, a sockpuppet or a completely unrelated guy, but the point is, the original author is not a particularly credible contributor... and, more importantly, even if he were, a perfectly ordinary accountant still isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, if he turns out to be a real person and a thoroughly extraordinary and notable accountant, I'm happy to change my vote. I very much doubt that I'll have any reason to. -- Captain Disdain 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --Etacar11 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up Carnildo. Without the hoaxy stuff, he's still not notable, though, I think. --Etacar11 23:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I have reason to believe that this was a legitimate article until it was hijacked and destroyed by a certain person.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.170.246 (talk • contribs)
Delete. The current version is a hoax, the original appears to be a hoax or vanity. --Carnildo 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, vanity or just not notable. Nothing worth keeping. DS1953 02:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: A few more points about this article. I looked on The Baseball Cube, and they didn't know of any players named Vanderpool, and they showed that the Cleveland Indians' 11th-round pick in the 1998 draft was actually Jake Reynolds, who went to Southern Utah University. Also look at this Google query, which I just ran. Also noteworthy is that the Lake County Captains did not even exist until 2003 (Richard's "playing career ending" injury was in 2000). Also look at the Lake County Captains' all-time roster. That shows that even this version of this article is a definite hoax. --Idont Havaname 02:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a good hoax! Damn, and I was the idiot that pulled it from a speedy. Boy, I wish I could take that back. Cancel my previous vote (I don't know how to put the line though it), because I now vote DELETE. And I'm going to see about the speedy. Antares33712 19:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment, if the guy weren't a hoax, I would have voted keep. I mean not everybody makes the minor leagues or is even a good college ball player. Certain careers lend themselves to publicity and notoriety and thus notability. But thanks to Idont Havaname, this is a proven hoax, so I apologize for pulling off the speedy list :-) Antares33712 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeleteRich Farmbrough 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do not Delete The discoveries of "Idon't Havaname":

I looked on The Baseball Cube, and they didn't know of any players named Vanderpool...the Cleveland Indians' 11th-round pick in the 1998 draft was actually Jake Reynolds...the Lake County Captains did not even exist until 2003...

are clearly irrelevant and should be ignored. They have no bearing on the integrety of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.234.224.6 (talk • contribs)

- How is it irrelevant? I was testing to see if what was in the article was correct. The Baseball Cube has a list of every player ever drafted by a major league team. The article claims that he was drafted; he certainly wasn't, if the Baseball Cube doesn't have him. And of course, if the article was saying that he was playing for a team that didn't exist until three years after he stopped playing, that can't possibly be correct either. Clearly this article isn't factual. Minor league baseball teams are generally not stupid. An all-time roster is a pretty definitive resource if you want to know if somebody has ever played for that team. And this guy hasn't. And according to the official site of Minor League Baseball, he's not even the accountant for this team. --Idont Havaname 19:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. User:198.234.224.6, who wants to keep this article, spends most of his Wikipedia effort vandalizing, adding bits of nonsense to various pages. Frjwoolley 19:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account created today, all edits are to VfD. Rick K 22:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sciolism

Dicdef. I would have said transwiki, but it already exists there. --Tabor 19:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(at Wiktionary, that is) --Tabor 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Aleasure eve magdalene

No evedence that such a series exists. One Google hit, and that's for the name of a reviewer at Amazon. I would have said Speedy, but I suspect the admins would have disagreed. --Xcali 20:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Frjwoolley 21:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax/vanity. Did that reviewer put this here, I wonder. --Etacar11 22:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax/vanity. Jacob1207 01:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Heteronomous language

Does not appear to be attested anywhere outside Wikipedia mirrors and forks. Single line definition does not make much sense. --Tabor 20:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heteronomy with respect to languages and its opposite, autonomy, are concepts that are used in this paper, this paper, this introduction to Scots, this paper on Norwegian, and all of these books. However, I don't think that heteronomous language and autonomous language stand apart from each other. These might do well to be merged somewhere. Compare the situation with Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache and Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache, and Dachsprache. Uncle G 23:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Comment. I've edited the page based on the definitions gleamed from the pages Uncle G cites above, so it should at least be comprehensible now. Nevertheless I've never heard this term (and I only know a completely different definition of "autonomous language"), so I'm not totally convinced this isn't a neologism. No vote at this time. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

High evif

Delete - some high-school kids who like to high-five with the backs of their hands came up with Deep Philosophical Meanings for it and declared it a movement. FreplySpang (talk) 20:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete- The popularity of the high evif is such that it deserves mention. However, I think the article would work better as a sub-section of the article on the high five. The trend is found almost exclusively in the mid-west and is most concentrated in North Eastern Ohio, thus it is not surprising that many are unfamiliar with it and its significance; the card game Euchre is another trend restricted almost exclusively to the mid-west; its article, however, is not up for deletion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner06 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 Jun 2005

Delete. Unverifiable/original research. --Tabor 20:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, probably a vanity page by the "inventors" of the gesture. The nonsense about Randian Individualism is kind of funny, but we don't need grandiloquent trivia cluttering up the pristine pages of Wikipedia. What we need is more pages about the larval forms of certain cards in Japanese games, and a page on each individual episode of McHale's Navy. Oh yeah. Frjwoolley 21:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Euchre wasn't invented by kids between January and April '05. I'd recommend doing some readings on argument by fallacy. --Scimitar 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't seem to make a difference who invented it. Pointing out that it was in fact invented by "kids" which, by the way, is not stated anywhere in the article, shouldn't detract from it's significance. On the contrary, given it's popularity, it would seem to increase it. -Do Not Delete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner06 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 Jun 2005

Delete. A neologism and some original research. --Carnildo 23:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, not in real use, no Google hits. Quite possibly a prank. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete It is a legitimate trend that is growing. I have participated.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.189.130 (talk • contribs)
Since when is a Google search the main criterion for determining whether or not a given practice is a legitamate social trend? It seems to me that many people who have no personal experience with the evif have done thirty seconds of research on Google, found nothing, and thought themselves informed enough to make a vote on this page. Runner06 (talk)
- Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Give me a good verifiable reference I can check out and I'll reconsider. The Google test is not the main criterion, but it carries some weight, and an article that cites no sources or references whatsoever is not enough to outweigh it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per dpbsmith. The author's written several other nonsense articles in the last few days that are up for deletion, so this shouldn't come as any surprise. --Idont Havaname 03:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. — Phil Welch 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and fairly nonsensical. Falcon 00:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Paris (musical)

Is this the Cole Porter musical? I don't know if that is about the Trojan War or not, but that's the only show called "Paris" listed at ibdb. With no further information to go on -- who wrote it, when was it performed, where was it performed, who starred in it, any of this article is unverifiable. I asked the original poster to explain, but he/she has not. Rick K 20:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) *From the user's previous edits, I would suspect you won't be getting verification anytime soon, either. Delete. --Scimitar 22:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment what about this site: Paris the Musical? No real info there, though. --Etacar11 22:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Make mine a weak keep. --Etacar11 23:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep lousy article about not very notable musical and hope someone improves it. Some clicking on Google Groups in rec.arts.theatres.musical suggests that it is a musical by one Jon English of which someone commented "Unfortunately, Paris only exists as the concept album which was released around 1990." Googling on "Jon English Paris yields quite a bit of paydirt. There's probably an article here if anyone wants to write one. I don't feel like it. Ah, here's a bit about a 2004 staging in Melbourne. The concept album sold 50,000 copies and as for the Melbourne production, "Jon has chosen amateur theatre to stage the productions. The decision was easy. 'Simply because amateur theatre tends to do stuff that professional theatre shys away from' he says. 'There are a lot of Paris fans out there." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears that this might have sprung out of a redlink in rock opera, added by Lairor (talk · contribs). Going by that edit, try looking for "Jon English" and "David Mackay". Do these two articles help? Uncle G 23:28, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Comment The 1990 recording is apparently still available and has an Amazon sales rank of 33,000 which is not terribly shabby. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I originally thought RickK was thinking of Cole Porter's Fifty Million Frenchmen but I should not have doubted him... Cole Porter did write an early musical entitled Paris so we'll need a disambiguation page at some point. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks to dpbsmith and Uncle G, I'll withdraw my nomination Rick K 23:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Jon English is a notable Australian musician and he has been working on this project for sometime. I might have a go at cleaning it up myself. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to keep in light of other posters evidence. --Scimitar 22:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lynda Wagner

Unencyclopedic Atomiktoaster 20:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't think losing for mayor of Nashville makes her that notable. Only four google hits [15] --Etacar11 22:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An unsuccessful mayoral candidate is generally too minor for an article. --Carnildo 23:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. If it's NPOV and verifable, then there should not be an issue. She's notable in Nashville. Ground Zero 18:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just checked the article out, and reconsidered. I still contend that she is notable, and therefore worthy of an encyclopedia article, but this isn't it. If someone can write a decent article by the end of the week, then keep that. If not, it should go. Ground Zero 18:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Clear creek high school, now moved to Clear Creek High School

Was marked as speedy previously, claiming no useful (or rather, NN) information. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NeoJustin 21:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but if there's a person we have an article on who graduated from it, then I'll have to vote extremely weak keep. Rick K 23:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ (change vote to Keep because heck I use to like Ultima.) Old rant: being a Texan. I have heard of this school before because of school competitions. (non-rival. My high school is way up north) However, just because a professional athlete graduated from this school doesn't mean it is justifiable to have an article. Heck the high school I graduated from had a professional athlete and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article but his accomplishments are similar to the Clear Creek pro baseball player. William Thomas (Pro Football Reference - external link) - "2-time Pro Bowler: (all-star player) 1995, 1996" Jay Buhner - "All-star (1996)" I don't consider my high school notable enough to have an article which is why I vote for a delete. --Chill Pill Bill 00:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep amd rename as Clear Creek High School. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, apart from that baseball player, Lord British (Ultima designer Richard Garriott) went there. Kappa 01:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do we have articles on churches of wikipedians with articles? We do not. Proto 11:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but fix title. DS1953 02:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Denni ☯ 03:43, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Keep. Utterly non-non-notable. --Centauri 06:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep but only if title fixed and cleanedup. Vegaswikian 06:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Utterly non-non-non-non-notable. -- Natalinasmpf 06:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Clear Creek High School and keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the basis of two alumni, weak keep, but get rid of the pointless sentences telling us who the headteacher is, the school's colours and how well one particular kid did in an exam. Dunc|☺ 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? Why? Celestianpower 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Clean up Celestianpower 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep — the usual reasons — RJH 20:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep You 20:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Clear Creek High School. Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge conservatively into League City, Texas, which currently has little more than Rambot stats, or someone who actually cares about these schools could prove it by creating a useful article about its parent school district and listing it there. Postdlf 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The parent district is Clear Creek Independent School District. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Great. Then merge there. Postdlf 06:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all high schools, even those at which Lord British is not an alumn. —RaD Man (talk) 02:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are encyclopedic, verifiable, and important. Un focused 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Please don't waste time with further nominations. CalJW 05:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into League City, Texas and delete - Skysmith 07:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 15:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 22:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, my street is verifiable, and 400 people live on it (more than many of these schoolcruft stubs being created) - neither fact makes it notable or encyclopedic. Proto 11:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Whoops, voted twice. My bad, sorry. Proto 11:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Emplotting

Possible hoax? Original word? Google only returned 30 results. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If kept, the title should be Emplottment and it needs a good cleanup and wikify. Vegaswikian 06:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gallery furniture

NN. Possible advertising? Was previously marked as speedy. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete mostly about a person and nothing of note about the store. Vegaswikian 06:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Hirshon

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jacob1207 01:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

TOWN DESTROYER

Can anyone verify this? Hoax? Was marked as speedy. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, verification comes from the font of all wisdom [16] Kappa 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but fix the capitalization of the title. --Xcali 21:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Google certainly returns a whole load of hits for that. In fact, it's already mentioned in the George Washington article; I think a simple redirect would be preferable here. -- Captain Disdain 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like a bad idea, seems to endorse the POV concept, as well as being highly inconvenient for users. Kappa 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - For some semblance of sticking to naming conventions, I've redirected it to Town Destroyer. This might be temporary as the community will need to come to a consensus on the proper way to spell it (with or without a hyphen? or to redirect from the Iroquois spelling(s)?). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In at least one, possibly two, ways, this is at the very least the wrong title. First, someone's shift key appears to be stuck. Second, George Washington tells us that the name was in fact "Hanodaganears", which to everyone (of the bare handful that even mention the word) apart from Wikipedia and its mirrors apparently means "Destroyer of Towns". "Caunotaucarius" apparently means "Town Destroyer". "Hanadahguyus" apparently also means "Town Destroyer". Going by the Wikipedia:naming conventions a Rename to Town Destroyer (and possibly several redirects) seems to be in order. Uncle G 23:53, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Keep and fix the capitalization. DS1953 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. Neutrality^talk 21:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not sure if this nickname is worthy of an article itself, since almost every prominent white person of the era who dealt with American Indians received some sort of nickname like this. William Johnson (1715-1774), for example, was Warraghiyagey, "one who does much business." But "Town Destroyer" does get mentioned (briefly) in a lot of books, and there is more to be said about the nickname -- including that it might have been originally applied to one of Washington's ancestors. All told, it might be expanded to maybe two paragraphs at most. Article worthy? --Kevin Myers 03:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wavelet Tracker

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mailer Diablo 21:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn, don't use Wiki to generate interest for a future product. --Etacar11 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 01:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Shane Gallie

Vanity Page Gblaz 21:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete a random 18 year old who found Wikipedia. --Un focused 21:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity from a vandal --Xcali 21:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would've speedied it. Rhobite 21:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, but will someone please tell me what "pwn" means (or is a typo for?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's gamer slang. --Etacar11 23:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - There is a rather long article about it. platypeanArchcow 00:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vanity. Jacob1207 01:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Clara McCarthy Feds

Appears to be vanity on behalf of her grandson, who advertises his own site in the edit summary. Google for the name reveals hits only for the "Mary McCarthy" variation, and most of those appear to describe other people. --Xcali 21:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. And "greatest undiscovered" seems like a contradiction in terms. --Etacar11 23:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rusty mchugh

nonsense/vanity page Gblaz 21:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a close one for me. Its certainly not vanity or nonsense (he's dead, so he can't be vain, and the song titles are real). Notablitility is a question, however. He appears to have been a legendary fixture in the Florida-Alabama area and was a staple at the FloraBama, which bills itself as "The Last American Roadhouse". He got regional coverage while he was alive and his passing in February, 2005 seemed to get more attention than your run-of-the-mill obituary. I'm giving it a "keep." However, it should be moved to a page with correct capitalization. - DS1953 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Webster wiley

Seems non-notable: Google for "webster wiley" architect gets 43 hits, "webster wiley" atrium gets 2 hits, "webster wiley" crescenta gets 5 hits. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 21:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Marla Dorrel

Not notable as anything except a town councillor. Her colleagues to follow. NatusRoma 21:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, see above for reasons. - SimonP 00:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people. Elected out of a district of over 20,000 people. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, her and her colleagues. Verifiable and locally important. Kappa 21:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sherry Neugebauer

Substub, fails to establish notability. An amazing zero Google hits, which is quite an achievement these days. "Corportation"? DopefishJustin (･∀･) 21:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable- Although having 0 google hits is notable of itself. Gblaz 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even though she allegedly works for a big "corportation" I'm gonna hafta say delete. Jacob1207 01:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Notable. Not! Hohokus 23:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Serynade

Not notable, fanficcruft. Frjwoolley 21:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete the fanficcruft. (Although to be honest, I must admit that I was originally impressed: "Stories Serynade (Often times with the surname Discord) has been in: The Crusade Ice Age Shattered Blood Pact The Prophecy Sons of Destiny Masterpiece Kalithain Kalithain: The Second Age Utopia" -- it took me a moment to realize that it was just a horribly punctuated list of different stories, not one goddamn humongous name...) -- Captain Disdain 22:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Knowing the authors of bad fanfiction, that could be the name of a single story... --Carnildo 23:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - If only you were wrong, the world would be a better place. -- Captain Disdain 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Scimitar 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete fanfic. --Etacar11 23:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fanficcruft. --Carnildo 23:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. I read the all listed stories, and they were written quite well. Keep it, let him expand, and who knows? It could turn out well. A friend of mine that knows him from the 'net says he has a publishing deal as well. This edit was made by User: Theblindparrot; user's first edit
- Comment: It's not a question of quality, but one of notability. Furthermore, I see that your username is Theblindparrot. I suppose it's merely a coincidence, then, that someone using the very same username on the warcraft3.com forums has written a whole bunch of these Serynade stories. Are we to believe that you're not the same person and have instead just picked that username at random? Y'know, generally speaking, attempting to fool people isn't a great way to establish your credibility, but whatever works for you. Best of luck with that lucrative publishing deal. -- Captain Disdain 14:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Another comment: Oh, Christ, I didn't even notice this earlier -- Parrot, you actually went and removed your name from the Serynade page? Seriously, did you think that no one would notice and we'd think that you don't have anything to do with these stories? (The stories that are "written quite well", to quote you -- humble, that!) I hate to say this, but that's just... sad. -- Captain Disdain 15:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shh I'm trying to keep my page up. Oh well, delete if you wish, it's alright., I read the rules and saw nothing against it, so I thought it'd be okay to kinda, advertise. It's alright, I'll keep it in mind for next time.

Comment. Well, at least he's being kinda honest about it... Since he has now blanked the page, I think this could be speedied? -- Captain Disdain 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Admired

Nothing more than a dictionary entry. Wiktionary entry already exists Gblaz 21:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete, can't think of anything to do with this one. Kappa 21:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. El_C 22:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. --bainer (talk) 23:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No content - delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bobala Road

Is this road notable? it seems just an ordinary road to me --Melaen 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just a random road, not encyclopaedic. But full marks for fitting so much nonsense into an article. I think I might BJAODNise this. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Soroush Vahhabi

This person is not famous and perhaps does not exist Sina 21:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable vanity at best. But kind of clever. Frjwoolley 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/maybe hoax, only google hits are mirrors of this page. --Etacar11 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Jacob1207 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And not link from other pages to the page. roozbeh 13:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I, as a Iranian, have never heared the name. Hamidifar 14:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of tyrants

This is inherently POV - a 'list of tyrants in antiquity' might just work - but not this (see its talk too) --Doc (?) 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should not be a candidate for deletion under this criteria of NPOV, I refer you to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category "Article is biased or has lots of POV" -- lots of POV List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. It does not fill any of the criteria for deletion under the section Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problems that may require deletion. If you think it does then you should have given that as you reason for listing it here --Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article that is listed for deletion as "irredeemibly" or "inherently" POV doesn't have mere bias or POV problems—the allegation is that its very subject matter and defined scope is founded upon POV (not an NPOV reporting of notable POVs, mind you) and can't be extricated from it. An article that is incapable of being made NPOV is clearly unencyclopedic and therefore deletable. I believe it would also qualify as original research, because the content then entirely depends upon how an editor has subjectively chosen to theorize or interpret information. See List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made for a way out of this—that list functions as a report of rankings by notable judgments/standards. The delete votes here obviously do not believe this list is capable of being rescued in such a manner. Postdlf 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the Talk:List of tyrants

I have created this list to move the modern POV out of the definitions of Tyrant and Tyrannicide and to create a list of ancient Tyrants. To be listed here they ought to meet the definition of Tyrant as defined on the Tyrant page.

If the list is too subjective then it better that it is in a separate list than in the two other articles "Tyrant" and "Tyrannicide". If you vote to delete this list you simply vote to reinstate the POV into the definition page which IMHO is worse. The list which appears in this article was in the Tyrant page and I removed them from there. There was also a list with even more POV in Tyrannicide which I edited down but has been reverted. Go have a look and then decide if having one POV list broken out of the two definition articles is better than having them embedded directly in the definition articles. A similar tactic has been used in many articles for example military occupation and List of military occupations, Torture and Uses of torture in recent times --Philip Baird Shearer 22:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed, too subjective. El_C 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The objection seems to be to the term tyrant, rather than the persons listed in the article. Who more aptly could be included as a modern tyrant? Does Doc contend that there are no modern tyrants? As I have quoted elsewhere: "It's good to have an open mind, but it shouldn't be so open that everything falls out." Too Old 23:20, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Doc; this article is inherently POV. One person's tyrant is another person's great leader. --Xcali 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we can't even call those people dictators on their own articles. Unless we want to leave it to only the Greeks who were officially called tyrants, get rid of it. Rick K 23:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with RickK. Falphin 00:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ~~I change my vote to neutral I don't like this article but User:Phillip Baird Shearer has a point. I'm really undecided right now, I might change my vote again once I make up my mind.~~ Falphin 18:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I change my vote to Keep because I can across this List of purported cults and so why not have List of purported tyrants? Falphin 19:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, about as POV as you can get, who decides who's a tyrant and who's not? Columbia 00:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Deleteyou could make it NPOV but it would be more trouble than it's worth
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jats (talk • contribs)

Please look at the above this user's contributions, and then consider if this vote should contribute to the consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge back to Tyrant, and redirect list of tyrants to that page. --Idont Havaname 07:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral for now. Why do we have to have a list of "Tyrants"? Why not a list of "leaders" (or something more specific that ties them all together and isn't POV) and then you can point out all the (factual) nasty things about them on their individual articles. That way no-one can fight over who should and shouldn't be on the list. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is to remove the POV from the other two articles "Tyrant" and "Tyrannicide" which can then remain clean definitions with the POV restricted to List of Tyrants. For example at the moment the list of people on whom Tyrannicide was committed includes King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Two autocrats who are not normally defined as tyrants. If one can argue on the Tyrannicide page that unless the victim appears in the list of Tyrants then they can not be a victim of Tyrannicide it will help keep POV out of that article. If the definition of tyrant is changed on the Tyrant page to mean only true Tyrants as defined in classical literature, then all the better because the list would cease to have any POV. But leaving aside the NPOV issue of the of list of modern tyrants for a moment, a list of classical tyrants would in itself be interesting and useful, as I am sure that like me most people do not know who they all were. Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A list of Classical tyrants could be fine, and interesting, but I don't think we should ever include modern people. It's just way too subjective. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But this is something to be decided long term by the contributors of the page not by a small number of people who happen to be voting on the issue now. Also it does not address the issue of removing POV from the other two pages. Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV. Kaibabsquirrel 05:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Irredeemibly POV, which means that the article is necessarily unencyclopedic, and arguably original research. Postdlf 17:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I just added a bunch of ancient Greek tyrants, for whom the label is not necessarily pejorative, since it was just a title. If it needs to be moved to "ancient tyrants" or something, so be it, but I thought I would point out that there is a large list there now. Adam Bishop 18:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Inherently POV. I would, however, support a List of classical tyrants or a List of tyrants in antiquity. --Carnildo 18:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Classifying people into tyrants/non-tyrants will always be controversial, but if the general opinion among scholars of our time is that someone is a tyrant, he or she should be listed here. The list itself is a valuable encyclopedic entry. I may not agree with the inclusion of each and every person on that list, but I do recognize the fact that all of them are commonly accepted to be tyrants, which is the only thing that matters in a collaborative work such as Wikipedia. Please join me in keeping and expanding this list. OwenX 13:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 23:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't agree that this is unsalvageable POV. -Mysidia 08:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Irredeemably POV. Ambi 08:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further the list can be defined not to include modern Tyrants if that is what the editors of the list wish to do. But it should not be a candidate for Deletion just because it is only a couple of days old and contains an unbalanced POV. Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd be willing to support retention if, and only if, this was renamed to a list of clasical tyrants - or tyrants in antiquity or simmilar. The tyranicide argument doesn't work as it is also POV. Most political assasins have considered their victims as tyrants or oppressors. --Doc (?) 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone is defined as a tyrant then their death by another's hand can not be a tyranicide no matter what the thoughts of the assasin is, so a list of tyrants also helps to police tyranicides Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doc you have not answered the question of under which catagory for deletion you have placed this request here.

"inherently POV" is not given as a reason to delete a page Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category.
The title is not "inherently POV", it depends what is placed in the list. A title like "The Tyrant Hitler" is "inherently POV". The people who contribute to the page can decide if the page should or should not contain a list of "modern tyrants" as well as those in the classical period. Do you not see that you are trying to force your POV on others by using this deletion mechanism? Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some (a minority for sure, but they probably exist) who would consider Hitler a great leader and a savior rather than a tyrant. There's a difference between an article that currently has POV problems and one that will always have POV problems. The policies you site are not the end-all-be-all of the way things work around here. Deletions occur by consensus, not necessarily what is written down. Past consensus has typically been to delete articles that are inherently or blatantly POV. I think that is an accurate description for this article. My vote remains unchanged: delete. Don't take it personally. This is about the article, not about you. --Xcali 14:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is difference between an article name, which has NPOV the title and one which does not. "List of Tyrants" is neutral in a way that "The Tyrant Churchill" is not.
Explain how a title such as List of Tyrants will always have POV problems. It depends on how the introduction defines Tyrant. The introdution could define the a tyrant by using the Ancient Greek definintion or what ever. See List of military occupations as an example of how the definition can be a guide for the creation of a list.
If "list of Tyrants" is inherently POV why is the title "Tyrant" not? By the logic being expressed by some here, it should be moved to "classical tyranny".
What is the point of having policy guidelines for "votes for deletion" if people do not abide by them? Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article on ?tyranny? can discuss various definitions and concepts of tyranny - the concepts will be POV but an NPOV reporting of them is possible (just like definitions of Socialism, Christianity etc). A ?List of tyrants?, however, must per se apply one of those POV definitions - the selection is thus 'inherently POV'. You suggest the introduction can define tyrant - but that introduction will be POV itself - it will result in a dispute and there will be no 'neutral' ground to decide it.

The guidelines are guidelines - and an attempt to record community consensus. If you look back on the debates in VfD, you will find that there is a consensus that 'inherently POV' is grounds for deletion. --Doc (?) 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If they are only guide lines they why does it state at the top of the template in bold: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.? If it is policy which part of the policy are you following by proposing this page for deletion? Philip Baird Shearer 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The part that states: Is not suitable for Wikipedia. Consensus for/against deletion (or alternatives) will determine whether it is/isn't (~). El_C 13:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category says "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)" Which part of WP:NOT does this deletion come under?

PLEASE DO NOT ACTION ANY DECISION ON THIS PAGE UNTIL IT IS AGREED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR DELETION HAS FOLLOWED THE POLICY AS STATED ON THE "Votes for deletion" PAGE.

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I would say that it increasingly falls under WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX, Philip Baird Shearer. WP:NOT is in parentheses and it most certainly dosen't say that 'suitability' is limited to its provisions. Again, consensus will determine whether this article is "suitable for wikipedia." This is policy, and I urge you to desist from these senseless procedural circularities. El_C 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In what way is "List of Tyrants" anything to do with a soapbox? If you are refering to what I have written here, I have asked a reasonable question and your answer is that there are no policy guidelines to follow other than whatever is placed on "Votes for deletion" and votes which take place. In which case why have a Policy statment on the template? If the policy guidelines are not being followed why have them at all? Philip Baird Shearer 09:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the bolding and CAPS seemed a bit of an overstatement, is what I mean. And, no, what I am saying that consensus can play a loose role in the realm of suitability, beyond perhaps all the provisions of WP:NOT, fitting 'precisely' for every subject. In this case, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base seems to be fairly applicable, but my point is that so do other policies mentioned in WP:NOT, such as: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. El_C 09:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said above the title "is neutral in a way that "The Tyrant Churchill" is not". A list of tyrants is no more "Origial Research" than many other lists (please see my comments on list under Wikipedia talk:No original research). So I disagree with you. The title is not related to any of the subsections in "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" nor was that the reason that Doc gave as his reason for posting this request. He wrote "This is inherently POV" which is covered in the Policy "Procedure for deletion" under "Problems that don't require deletion"->"Article is biased or has lots of POV" with a solution of "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention." The policy does not advocate deletion. So This request should be withdrawn as it does not following policy. What is the forum for putting requests to delete "votes for deletion" pages? No action should be taken on this request to delete until it is agreed that it is within policy --Philip Baird Shearer 20:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prove me wrong by gathering the consensus to dismiss the VfD on those grounds. Otherwise, it stands & will be followed through. El_C 00:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where should this consensus be gathered? If the request does not follow policy, why should it stand as it is? Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know where does one post a request to have a page like this one removed as it has not followed the policy guidelines for RfD? Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

further remarks I have serious doubts about the very possibility of a NPOV in many cases. See my remarks on the article's talk page. Too Old 17:18, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Nearly all lists are shit. They are all too often POV -- for the reason stated by Doc glasgow (they apply one definition out of many possible). One person's tyrant is also another's benevolent prince. The big problem with pages like this is that they are sinkholes for shitstirring and editwarring. If I added George W. Bush, someone would take him off. If someone else added Fidel, I'd take him off. But I daresay we could each find someone somewhere who calls both a "tyrant". However, the problem is with the modern guys. Greek tyrants, I think, are not something we're liable to squabble over. There's a case for moving to List of classical Greek tyrants or something similar and editing out the modern stuff. Banning a page title just to avoid the POV pushing doesn't strike me as a great solution. But if it's that or this page, delete it has to be. Grace Note 08:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Graceful phraseology, Grace Note, but you could have said not worthwhile. El_C 00:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page and mentioned higher up this page "I have created this list to move the modern POV out of the definitions of Tyrant and Tyrannicide and to create a list of ancient Tyrants. To be listed here they ought to meet the definition of Tyrant as defined on the Tyrant page.". All the modern tyrants appeared as a list in Tyrant. The list in Tyrannicide has been restored since I chopped it and includes Louis XVI of France. It is better to have the POV in one "sinkhole" than in the defining articls. Also the list now contains many people who were classical tyrants, so only one small section at the end will have POV if the editors of the page define tyrant to include modern ones. I think this is better than the solution proposed by those who whish to delete this page. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As long as the list of "tyrants" have citations then there is no way a list like this is "inherently POV". This type of issue has come several times before and I wish people would stop making the same mistake over and over and over. Pcb21| Pete 12:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question - I don't think I understand your remark Pete, what type of citation would neutrally verify that some one was a tyrant? If I can find a few cites calling Bush or Blair tyrants, can I add those names? If this was a list of 'leaders who have been described as tyrants', then fair enough (although most leaders have been at some point). But the lable tyrant is just far too subjective. What criteria would we agree on? --Doc (?) 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about using the definition(s) given on the Tyrant page and altering that if it throws up too many matches with which you disagree? The other way to do it is to find definitions from respectable organisations/publications like people have done for the Definitions of terrorism article Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pseudo-keep as list of Classical tyrants per Silversmith. Listing "modern tyrants" is inherently POV.--Pharos 23:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but cut out the hnadful fo modern ones and turn this into a list of classical tyrants per Silversmith. - SimonP 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Michael A. Joyce

Notable only as a town councilor NatusRoma 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
weellllll... god's gift to man. Must be notable then, especially for his plumbing consultancy. Not. :-) Doesn't appear too notable. Delete — RJH 20:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people, and elected at-large by a constituency of the same size. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Seth Ilys, verifiable information like this should not be wasted. Kappa 21:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 20:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jennifer Robinson

Another town councilor, nothing more NatusRoma 21:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — NSN. — RJH 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people. Elected out of a district of over 20,000 people. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Seth Ilys, important to over 5,000 people thus passing WP:BIO. Kappa 21:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Since the vote total is 4 to delete, 4 to keep, 1 to redirect (and don't worry El C, if you had voted keep or delete, it would still be too close to call) the result is to maintain the status quo. --Golbez 08:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Protestantism

Seems to be one person with an axe to grind. I don't think this article can be salvaged. --Xcali 21:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Persecution of Christians. El_C 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but fix. This is awfully POV, but as an anti-Protestant myself :-) I think there's something encyclopaedic in the concept of prejudice against or hatred of Prots. Er, Protestants. Hey, maybe I should write the article! Frjwoolley 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but fix. I agree with the Prot-hater. Anon-
Keep but please someone rewrite. --Doc (?) 22:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I was going to change to rename and rewrite - but then it occured to me that would be a totaly different artice - so just delete --Doc (?) 00:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional delete. If a rewrite with scholarly references occurs, switch to keep. --Scimitar 22:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep . Alternatively keep a POV warning until cleaned up. -Fred
Delete POV original research. Not even accurate: only slightly more than 50% of Americans are Protestants[17], which hardly constitutes a "supermajority". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is accurate. "Protestant heritage" (the term used in the article) is not the same as "Protestant by current religious affiliation", as you are trying to claim (many people who are not religious today are, e.g., the children or granchildren of Protestants, today they may identify themselves as non-religious but they are Protestant descent.) The fact is, it is indeed true that the large majority of people in the USA are of Protestant descent: perhaps 75%+ or so of US whites are Protestant or of Protestant descent, and almost all religiously affiliated US blacks are Protestants.

By that logic you may as well say that the vast majority of U.S. white Protestants are of "Catholic heritage" since their ancestors were Catholic before the Reformation. Or of "pagan heritage" since their ancestors were European pagans before Christianization. Likewise the vast majority of U.S. black Protestants are of Muslim or animist heritage. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the Angr fellow has it in for Protestants! Even if a bare majority, that's probably because many Americans are agnostic. Nobody really debates that there are more than twice as many Protestants as Catholics, or that Muslims and Jews are at most 2 or 3 percent. I'm ok to change author's supermajority to distinct majority, but Angr's assertion that America's heritage is Catholic is ignorant and probably shows some Anti-Protestant pro-Catholic bias.

LOL. I never said America's heritage is Catholic. I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument against the idea that people identify with the religion of their ancestors without practicing it themselves. I don't know what "religious heritage" you would call me, since my parents grew up Baptist, converted to Catholicism after they were married, then later converted again to the Episcopal Church (i.e. neither Catholic nor Protestant), into which I was baptized and of which I am still a practicing member. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from wikipedia, the name of your church is: "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America". Many protestant churches (Lutheran) use the word Catholic, but they have not joined the Orthodox church and have broken with Rome, and most folks would call Episcopals Protestants.

Then it should be clear that I as an Episcopalian am not "anti-Protestant". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep but fix or send to the Clean Up box.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad Shahruz Jaharat

Semi-notable 20 year old "philosopher." only 5 Googles for his name or philosphoy. --Xcali 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Xcali has prejudices. He himslef is not learned. --Doc (?) 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn/unverified (don't know much). --Etacar11 23:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unverifiable, original research, but dynamic. --bainer (talk) 23:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think we should consider new philosophies with respect. No philosophy goes in vain as the history says. As far as I found out, his philosophy is original, and dynamic, he even has some followers, try google again (btw, google is not the only source of information). --Kurt 21:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brittany Lahm

member of a band that haven't released an album - and don't look like they will. The band (Huckapoo) might just be notable - due to a Disney connection, but individual members surely are not. --Doc (?) 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable member of a not notable band. Since when do bands have cheerleaders anyway? --bainer (talk) 23:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I thought it was a cheerleader character in the band, kind of like the cop in the Village People. --Xcali 23:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeletePointless, non-notable.--EatAlbertaBeef 23:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, come back when/if she is. --Etacar11 23:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Julie Aberg Robison

Only notable as a town councillor. NatusRoma 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep we have many articles on city councillors (Category:Toronto city councillors alone has 60) and they are a valuable part of the encyclopedia. If you want to reopen this debate please revive Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians rather than debating councillors one ar a time. - SimonP 00:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I hardly intended to force another policy discussion by listing these articles. I only listed them as twelve different pages because past discussions on the VfD Talk page seemed to discourage bulk listing, and I only listed them at all because I happened to come across Jack W. Smith while sorting people stubs. To consider your example of the Toronto City Council, it seems to me that there is an order-of-magnitude difference between that council and the one on which Ms. Robison sits. Cary, North Carolina has just under 100,000 people, while Toronto has 2.48 million. I have not visited either municipality, but Toronto is far more important than Cary, a significance extended to its elected officials. Moreover, the subjects of articles in the Toronto council category have, in some cases, served in that body for decades, or have run for national office, or have done other, additional newsworthy things. Ms. Robison, by contrast, has served in her office for only a few years, and has done nothing additionally newsworthy. NatusRoma 06:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete — Insufficient notability as a politician. — RJH 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people, and elected at-large by a constituency of the same size. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, locally notable, coverage of local politics is a valuable part of wikipedia. Kappa 21:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nels Roseland

A town councilor, not otherwise notable NatusRoma 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — I rate as less notable than the average professor. :-) — RJH 19:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people. Elected out of a district of over 20,000 people. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, sufficiently notable for an unlimited, open encyclopedia, no reason to delete this informative article. Kappa 21:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jack W. Smith

A town councilor, not otherwise notable NatusRoma 21:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — commendable career, but still not sufficiently notable. — RJH 20:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 100,000 people. Elected out of a district of over 20,000 people. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Best, Jr.

A city councilor; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 21:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — less notable than average professor even. — RJH 20:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of about 60,000 (about the same size as a state legislative district). -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough for wikipedia. Kappa 21:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eugene A. Brown

A city councilor; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — NSN. — RJH 20:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of the same size. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable, locally important, Wikipedia is not paper, no reason to waste this information. Kappa 21:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diane Catotti

A city councilor; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — NSN. — RJH 20:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of the same size. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable, locally important. Kappa 21:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howard Clement, III

A city councilor; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Borderline Keep — very slightly more notable than an average city councillor. — RJH 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of about 60,000 (about the same size as a state legislative district). -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, locally notable. Kappa 21:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cora Cole-McFadden

A city councilor; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep-- a city councillor of Durham, North Carolina (notable enough on its own, in my book), considering that the article has details about her beyond that one sentence. Meelar (talk) 00:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jacob1207 01:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of about 60,000 (about the same size as a state legislative district). -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there are thousands of them. Grue 09:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable to the world at large. --Xcali 20:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Stith, III

A city councilor and unsuccessful Lt. Governor candidate; not otherwise notable NatusRoma 22:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He's notable in North Carolina, the article is NPOV and verfiable. No reason to delete. Ground Zero 18:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Borderline keep. Slightly more notable than a typical council member by running for a state position. — RJH 19:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Member of the governing body of a town of over 180,000 people, and elected by a constituency of the same size. Recieved over 60,000 votes in a statewide race. -- Seth Ilys 01:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comenius Hall

Subject's not notable. Djinn112 22:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, very short page with little content. Martg76 23:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Grue 09:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Optimal Span

Vanity article about author's doctoral dissertation. Google for ("Optimal Span" "Hierarchy Theory") gives 2 hits. --Xcali 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete (No original research.) You 22:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's original research. Jacob1207 01:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. Vanity references have all been removed from article. Ira 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tim Moffat

Delete, vanity. Was marked for speedy but doesn't meet conditions. FreplySpang (talk) 23:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't see why this can't be speedy. It's just a longer version of "Tim is a great guy." I don't think we should give credit for verbosity. Vanity is vanity. --Xcali 23:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And until we change the rules, vanity is not a criterion for speedy delete. I wish it were, but I'm not the majority. Denni ☯ 03:47, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Speedy Delete its just vanity. Falphin 23:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 00:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why are we having to debate this?? - delete of course --Doc (?) 00:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, man. Tim Moffat has memorized every line in Return of the Jedi! Well, I guess we're just gonna hafta delete the "kickass kid". Jacob1207 01:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jenkins Boys Club Bears

Team vanity. Not notable. 0 google hits. --Xcali 23:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not So. I've heard of these guys. They started a team when they all got cut. From savannah, GA. It's a nice story. Let 'em stay. --VandyMath05

Keep, this is a really great story. It's about keeping your head up, fighting through adversity, and making the best out of nothing. Not anything unlike a cheesy Disney movie, except in real life. I agree with Mr. VandyMath, let them stay. I heard about them through word of mouth (granted, I live 30 miles away from their hometown) and this is definitely something moving through the streets. RWallace31

Delete. Completely non-notable. It's not hard to conclude that VandyMath05 has some sort of connection to this "club", being this his or her first edit - and it being extremely unlikely that someone not involved with the club itself would know who they are with 0 Google hits. Nufy8 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, extremely non notable. Rick K 23:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Completely and totally not notable in all respects whatsoever. If it's a nice story, make a TV movie out of it. Jacob1207 01:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 20:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doulos SIL

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "vanity/spam/link farm". Spam may be applicable, but "vanity" isn't (the font is a product of SIL International), and I'm not sure what is meant by "link farm". Linked from List of typefaces and Template talk:IPA. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There aren't many Unicode IPA fonts out there. - Mustafaa 23:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable font face. Not spam, because the link takes you to a free download. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this is an important typeface, and I see nothing in this article that meritcs deletion. 200.74.190.200

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 19:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Esafono

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Advertising. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vegaswikian 06:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EYE Magazine

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be the international review of graphic design. Tentative keep unless proven non-notable; most published magazines are encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 00:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a good stub because you can't tell what magazine the author is talking about. There is a design magazine with that name, still being published. There is also magazine with that name published in London for education of 0-5 year olds (EYE perhaps for "early years education"?). There have also apparently been a "a girlie magazine from the 1950s [and] a Canadian music magazine" [18]. It may be that the author is talking about Eye Magazine published by Hearst in 1968-1969 as their take on youth culture. Only 15 issues were published. It is difficult in any of these to see where the author came up with " published through 2001." Since there are many magazines with the name, I would delete this and wait for a real stub (or even better, a real article) on one of the magazines with that name. It's not our job to read the author's mind. - DS1953 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per DS1953. Jacob1207 01:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can quickly expand this into an article that actually has information. 23skidoo 02:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see why this isn't a candidate for a speedy delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep EYE Magazine was a culture magazine, available in places like Tower Records, Barnes and Noble and the like, published in the late 1990s, through 2000. Its old website was http://www.eyemag.com. Apparently, several other magazines have born its name. 68.10.35.153 18:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bob program

Non-notable, possibly nonsense. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claims to be a religion/exercise program that uses pushups to help people gain sexual prowess, but "Your search - "Bob Program" "push up" - did not match any documents." Smells like a hoax; delete unless verified and proven notable. Meelar (talk) 00:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Meelar. Jacob1207 01:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
redirect to Microsoft Bob SchmuckyTheCat 04:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep! I've heard of this program. Arizonaland 23:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pool party

another group of friends declares their lifestyle to be a movement. Ineffable, perhaps, but not encyclopedic. FreplySpang (talk) 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete or speedy as joke. Obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Excerpt: "Official Urniating: The Tinkle Official Bowell Movement: The Dump" I'm sure there could be a real article about pool parties, but we'd be better off deleting this one first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete this nonsense before someone edits these comments again. - DS1953 00:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Joke. --Xcali 00:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WTF? Speedy Delete as patent nonsense! --Doc (?) 00:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (and block the vandal!)
- Added vandal to WP:VIP --Xcali 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This article is complete crap. Jacob1207 01:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect the phrase to Party, maybe adding to that article the statement that some parties are held in swimming pools. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:51, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- Added that info to party, redirect away. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:54, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as nonsense, though I think vandalism would have been a more appropriate reason. Denni ☯ 03:54, 2005 Jun 7 (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) 23:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sibiran.com

This page is apparently self-promotion and vanity. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Davood Firoozian. AI 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad. And the site is just contact info. --Etacar11 00:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad --Xcali 00:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jacob1207 01:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad, vanity, no content, seems to be non-notable. Aecis 13:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-promotion with no content. Falcon 23:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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