Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 19

April 19

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Faf

Page was vanity article. By the way, I am the game's primary coder, although I did not create the Wiki article.

• Delete. Seems to have been blanked, original page in history did not show notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Author uses the word "we" at least four times within the first paragraph. Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Del per Starblind. (But not per Mgm: "we" is grounds for {{cleanup-tone}} not {{vfd}}.) —msh210 16:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Starblind. Master Thief Garrett 04:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Postdlf (nonsense) --cesarb 01:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Allied Republic

This article is just nonsense. It's obviously made up by some kid. Is this allowed to be speedily deleted or do I need to put it here? I'm putting it here just to be safe, since I'm unfamiliar with speedy deletion policies. It appears to be made in conjunction with The Great Hill, so I'm putting that here too. LDan 00:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete another typically goofy micronation article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. I love the fact that the word "piedmont" got in there though. Rje 00:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Ctrl-Atl and Delete Total nonsense. Delete this article and all articles linked from this. If the user recreates the page ban the user / IP. --DuKot 01:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So you think we should delete nation, president, monarchy, etc.? Be careful what you say. Eric119 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the hoax article, but not nation, president, or monarchy. Well, maybe president. I'll think about it. -- 8^D ^gab 02:36, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• I already speedy deleted this once. I shall do so again. Postdlf 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Postdlf (hoax nonsense) --cesarb 01:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ugotopia

This is part of The Allied Republic nonsense above. Rje 00:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete garbage. Slac speak up! 01:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoaxcruft. Fried spam. Not notable. -- 8^D ^gab 02:38, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as hoax nonsense. No need to waste time on crap like this. Postdlf 03:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Great Hill

Part of The Allied Republic nonsense above. Rje 01:02, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Central Park, where "The Great Hill" is a popular gathering place. -- 8^D ^gab 02:41, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• I speedy deleted the hoax article and recreated it as a redirect, per BD2412. Postdlf 03:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 11:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Atletico chalaco

you can link this article with http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_peruana_de_f%C3%BAtbol which you can find everything about the peruvian league or liga peruana - moved from above the header

This is the English version of Wikipedia --Durin 02:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm changing my vote to Strong KEEP. There's precedent. See this example. It might not be a top level professional team right now, but it has been historically. We certainly allow minor league teams like the Binghamton Mets from the U.S. Why not from Peru? --Durin 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the appropriate language Wikipedia (Spanish?) LDan 03:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English is the appropriate place to list this article, if it hasn't been so listed already. I'll look into it... android↔talk 03:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't read Spanish without the aid of Babelfish; apparently, this article is about a Peruvian football club. Beyond that, I can't establish its notability; I listed it for needing translation. Hopefully someone will take a look. android↔talk 04:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I pushed the page over to the Spanish edition, and re-instated the VfD here. --Durin 04:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Re-instated? I didn't remove the notice, although this article deserves its time at Pages needing translation into English before a VfD is done, unless you have already determined that it is not worth translating. android↔talk 04:24, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Lucky 6.9 put a speedy delete tag on it. I put a VfD tag on it earlier which I think was removed by a simultaneous edit by the originator of the article, 24.90.107.170. 24.90.107.170 then deleted the speedy delete tag. I reinstated the VfD tag.
        • As for it being worthy of being translated? I can't say with any reasonable certainty. However, I believe it's a local club in Peru. To the English speaking world, I imagine the club has very little interest. Quick Google check shows 75 hits in all languages, and only 6 in English. I don't think it passes muster. If we must, I can have a native Spanish speaking friend of mine review this entry. --Durin 04:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't have any particular attachment to this article. However, I think it was tagged as CSD when it shouldn't have been (sorry, Lucky) and the usual process for foreign-language articles is to attempt to translate them before VfD. If you can get a native speaker to look at it, that would be great. If it's too much trouble, though, I'll take your word as to the non-notability of the subject and change my vote. android↔talk 04:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, the original poster translated the article into English. I think it is still well beneath the threshold of acceptability. It's not a top league team, by the article's own admission. Strikes me more as a local club than anything. Is there precent-equivalent in articles referencing non-professional sporting clubs? There's nothing that links to the article's page yet, other then meta pages. I've removed it from the list of pages needing translation. --Durin 18:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Atletico Chalaco is part of the professional peruvian soccer league's history.So you can link this article with peruvian soccer league or peruvian soccer teams. — (Unsigned comment by 24.90.107.170.)
• Delete, in light of the translation that shows the subject to be non-notable. android↔talk 03:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. I meant to put the "notenglish" notice on this and instead put the "del" since I'd been tagging a bunch of vandal stubs beforehand. Must have gotten stuck in a mental rut. My bad. - Lucky 6.9 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 05:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matt Winterroth

Delete: Apparent vanity; hardly any hits on Google, and maybe none. --Durin 02:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it's a hoax by User:Holzp. "Article" states that this is an alias of David Kutcher. Image description of the image says "Matthew Winterroth, World Surfing Championships 2005." David Kutcher mentions nothing about surfing. The same image was uploaded by Holzp under a different name with the description "David Kutcher, after being arrested at the NYC RNC protest 2004." No relevant google hits for either name. These are Holzp's only edits, btw. Postdlf 04:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definite hoax. The picture is actually a police mugshot of Sollog. -- P Ingerson 11:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. You're right.[1] Postdlf 16:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we're not Snopes. Master Thief Garrett 03:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, 5 to 1. Postdlf 23:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Kutcher

Delete: Apparent vanity; hardly any hits on Google, and maybe none. --Durin 02:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it's a hoax by User:Holzp. Matt Winterroth states that it is an alias of David Kutcher. Image description of the image says "Matthew Winterroth, World Surfing Championships 2005." David Kutcher mentions nothing about surfing. The same image was uploaded by Holzp under a different name with the description "David Kutcher, after being arrested at the NYC RNC protest 2004." No relevant google hits for either name. These are Holzp's only edits, btw. Postdlf 04:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The picture is actually a police mugshot of Sollog. Definite hoax. -- P Ingerson 11:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. You're right.[2] Postdlf 16:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 23:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Because...?? Postdlf 02:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we're not Snopes. At least, not yet... Master Thief Garrett 03:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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; 40 votes to delete, 5 to keep, 2 to merge. Postdlf 23:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Worst United States President in history

I can't see how this is a coherent topic worthy of an individual article. At best all it would do is collect criticism of each individual president found in their own articles. This is only going to be an echo chamber for the pundit spin of the year or the author's personal research. There are not any unified academic standards for analyzing this or even describing what it means to be the "worst president in history." Delete. User:Postdlf 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Now the list has nearly every president. It's just a horrible mess. Delete. Mike H 03:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is vandalism I have already reverted three times. Please judge the article on its original, not its vandalized, form. LevelCheck 03:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The original form is even worse. Delete in either incarnation. Mike H 04:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I've looked at your best copy. I disagree with you, LevelCheck, and agree with the person who posted the VfD. This article just isn't encyclopedic in nature. It's completely subjective. There just isn't any way to place an objective measure on such a subject. The title implies there is an objective measure. Also, the article is less than two hours old and already you've reverted it six times. You're in danger of getting a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. --Durin 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totaly POV in current forms, no sources or outside views. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. D. G. 03:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. No third party sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. Info about criticism of Presidents should go into their articles. Without that info, this list is uninformative. It is necessarily either POV (if you pick a few presidents) or trivial (if you list all or nearly all of them). FreplySpang (talk) 03:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Topic is POV by definition, no encyclopedic value. — Cortonin | Talk 04:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, irreparably POV. SamuraiClintonLevelCheckcruft. RickK 04:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Worst. Article. Ever. NatusRoma 04:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with most of the previous statements. Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. (vote by User:Firebug)
• Redirect to Ronald Reagan or else delete. Klonimus 06:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks potential to become encyclopedic. Charles Matthews 07:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV title. Totally subjective. Besides, if you list half the American presidents you're sure to hit at least one bad one. Lacks explaining references. Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, flamebait material. Megan1967 08:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title, content is simply all US presidents, useless for a redirect. Sjakkalle 09:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep rewritten version. Sjakkalle 14:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding Klonimus's--ahem--humorous suggestion, I say delete as spurious. What could anyone have against Coolidge anyway? Dave1898 12:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He was boring. ;) Dorothy Parker remarked upon hearing of Coolidge's death: "How can you tell?" Mike H 12:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this POV, but it also completely fails to explain why any of these presidents has been considered the Worst. United States President. Ever. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research, useless. --Bletch 13:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Looks NPOV to me, as every president I've ever heard of is on the list. Apparently they were all equal in 'badness'. Delete. Radiant_* 15:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Sir Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the rest." -- 8^D ^gab 15:37, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 21:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since many historians have ranked Presidents in various ways, it would be possible to have an encyclopedic article on "Historians' rankings of U. S. Presidents" that would summarize the opinions of these historians in the approved "X said Y about Z" formulation. However, every such ranking or opinion should have a good solid source citation, preferably a traditional print reference with book title, publisher, ISBN, and page number. An article that says "The following United States Presidents have often been suggested for that title" with not the slightest hint of who has suggested them, when, or where is not such an article, nor is it useful guidance to anyone who would want to write such an article. Thus, "Historians' rankings of U. S. Presidents" is an encyclopedic topic, but this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wipe the slate clean. Let someone start over from scratch if they want to. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any article other than the current listing of all presidents would be both highly POV and original research, and the listing of all presidents is useless. --Carnildo 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete extreme POV. —Seselwa 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Shimmin 01:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Slac speak up! 05:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Impeach and remove from office. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Childish vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense — Helpful Dave 01:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- POV titled, and I ain't even read it yet... - Longhair | Talk 11:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Leaving this would just spawn bad comments... "George Bush!" "no, Carter!" "No, Lincoln he sucked worst!" "no Bill Clinton he carried on in his office!" and so on. So to avoid the inevitable flamewars, DELETE. Master Thief Garrett 03:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. --Headisdead 15:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Strictly POV. Sango123 17:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, strongly, it's a perfectly good topic. I have often heard debate about who is the worst president we Americans have had (I voted against him last November, for the record), so it's definitely a historical issue with some currency. I believe there have been ranking systems and such established by historians, and I think there was actually at least one complete list of presidents published, which ranked them from best to worst. I'm concerned about the number of delete votes I see here, and the logic I see being used. Everyking 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly, it's not a perfectly good topic. I have often heard debate on what the best television show ever on American television has been (I voted on Six Feet Under last year, for the record), so it's definitely a historical issue with some currency. I believe there have been ranking systems and such established by media analysts, and I think there was actually at least one complete list of television shows published, which ranked them from best to worst. I'm concerned about the keep vote I see here, and the logic I see being used. JRM 17:07, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • You make a damn good case for that TV article. When are you going to write it? Everyking 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When I can cite notable media analysts, popular polls (I know there are some of the latter) with their views on and the best television show and whatever characters or plot lines made them be regarded as such. I really can see how a popular entertainment issue like this can be worth an article.
    • To sum up the silliness: the article we're voting on is rubbish under a POV title. I love eventualism as much as the next person, but there are limits. Here's one. Feel free to "properly do" the article you so vividly breathe a semblance of life into with naught but imagination. I sincerely hope this isn't supposed to be it. Delete. JRM 18:57, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
      • Sarcastically parroting my logic is really obnoxious, you know. And if you want to make it work you need to pick something more patently absurd. The TV example sounds like a perfectly good article to me. Everyking 23:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I know. It was supposed to be as obnoxious as your handwaving and patronizing "I'm concerned about the number of delete votes I see here, and the logic I see being used". Your concern is touching, but not productive.
          I'm sorry I couldn't go far enough for your taste. I thought it was already absurd enough, but it's clear to me now you're voting on the topic, while I'm voting on the article. The TV show example I did to highlight the massive difficulties (or sheer impossibility) of keeping any article with "best"/"worst" in its title NPOV and relevant. To then suggest as casually as you did that it's perfectly fine and should be kept boggles the mind, especially if you imply that everyone else is using faulty logic.
          I do not at all object to the article you allude to—but the article we're voting on has got to go. The only way you can "make" this into a good article is by completely replacing it, in which case you might as well send off a decent signal by deleting it. Had this article been improved substantially in the voting period, I would have voted keep. It wasn't. It's the same rubbish it used to be. Voting keep appeals to a level of patience and trust we shouldn't need to have for articles as clearly defective as this one is—not just in execution, but in the very approach. Again: nobody's losing anything over this. An article on the same topic, done properly, would sooner benefit from seeing this go than having it stay. This argument springs from incompatible assumptions, not because we really disagree on the conclusions. JRM 07:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
          • Update: I see SethIlys has made a start in turning this article around. I'm pretty sure this is pointless for this article under this title, but an effort is an effort, and it shouldn't go unnoticed. Changed my vote to Keep, pending further rewrite, and a move to a better title. I personally think something more general than "worst president" makes for a better topic, though (Historical assessments of United States presidencies?) JRM 07:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete. Since most people have no historical perspective (and since politics is all about exaggeration anyway,) I suspect that every incumbent president in the history of the United States was called the worst ever by some of his opponents. Isomorphic 17:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We have articles about fictional spaceships, and we're voting to delete this? Now that's a lack of perspective. I presume that such an article, if done properly, would cite notable historians and popular polls (if there are any of the latter) with their views on the worst president and whatever policies or actions made them be regarded as such. I really can't see how a popular historical issue like this isn't worth an article. Everyking 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Everyking points out, and although it may seem a little silly, it's a subject that *does* get discussed quite a bit, both in the popular media and in academic circles. The article can discuss the arguments and counter-arguments for naming certain presidents worst ever (and reference to Bush-43 as such, which may or may not be unprecendented in American history, certainly deserves mention). I'd take a swing at improving the article (which should be at a better title) along the lines Dpbsmith proposes, if it weren't obvious already that it's going to be deleted. Like Everyking, I'm slightly concerned about people voting delete based on what an article is, rather than was it could be. -- Seth Ilys 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And yeah, I'll put my money where my mouth is and work on it. -- Seth Ilys 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Good. You'll get to start from scratch after it's deleted, which it should be any time now considering how it's been six days since the nomination, and the votes are overwhelmingly to delete. Postdlf 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If it gets deleted, I will continue to work on a viable version and post it under a new title. I didn't know about this VfD until today. - Seth Ilys 20:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    BTW, we have List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever, List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever, and List of countries that are considered the greatest. This is hardly inherently worse than those. -- Seth Ilys 17:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Check the talk pages. Those haven't been so easy to keep straight either, and the titles still make people uneasy. It's hard work, but at least you're on the right track. JRM · Talk 18:07, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

• Merge with President of the United States - all of them seem to be double entries. -- AlexR 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Warren Harding was so bad, he had to be listed twice! Um, abstain. --iMb~Meow 08:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it wouldn't be "hopelessly POV" (no, I don't know if anyone's used that phrase yet but JRM hates it) to mention that one or the other president (or movie) is "often considered the best" (assuming there is criticism to back it up) then I don't see why we couldn't put it in its own article. Seth's version isn't there yet, but it shows the way. Demi ^T/_C 08:48, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete - I vote for Van Buren, myself. - Tεxτurε 19:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV titles make POV articles. -- Curps 19:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a concept. There is an issue surrounding the question of who was the worst president, and the title indicates that. I don't see how it's POV. You could write an article called "Warren G. Harding was a total loser" if that phrase happened to be notable enough for an article. Obviously the title would not be an endorsement of the view that Harding was a total loser. It would just be treating the concept. Everyking 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Straw man; obviously the phrase "Warren G. Harding was a total loser" would not be POV if the phrase were notable. Hitler has only got one ball is not POV. You forgot Poland is not POV. Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet is not POV. The article is not attempting to describe the phrase "Worst United States President in History", however, and it could definitely do with a better title. "Worst United States President in History" is hardly the best we can do as a label for a neutral concept. This notwithstanding the observation that a lousy title is not reason in and of itself for deletion. JRM · Talk 20:06, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

• Delete. POV, no potential to become encyclopedic. --Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I already voted to delete the Worst United States President in History last year. Unfortunately there was no consensus for deletion. added anonymously at 12:29, 2005 Apr 27 by Faethon387
• Comment: the article is poor. The subject is very problematic, since at least one very prominent candidate for the position of worst ever is alive, newsworthy, and, extraordinarily, still popular among many US voters who otherwise aren't obviously insane. (Forty years ago, this would have been much easier, as we'd be complacently -- too complacently -- chuckling over comfortably long-dead Pierce, Harding, and the like.) It would be flamebait. Then again, anything related to Israel, Palestine, Iraq, "Creationism", etc etc is flamebait; yet there's no consensus to lock these articles for long periods, let alone to do away with them. Reasoned claims are made about this by well-informed and thought-provoking writers (I believe I've seen Paul Krugman writing on it), e.g. in columns in non-tabloid newspapers; moreover, as pointed out above, it seems a subject of much wider interest (let alone importance) than plenty of subjects that get their own articles, e.g. fictional spaceships. The article is doomed, but I hope that a greatly superior replacement will soon emerge. -- Hoary 03:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Merge into President of the United States; this is a valid topic, but probably not of enough importance to warrant its own article. Psychonaut 23:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hog's Back Brewery

This is a very small brewery, and is not notable as per the requirements set out in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beer (it produces around 7,000 barrels per year, and we set the cutoff at 15,000 barrels per year). To judge for yourself, go to their website at http://www.hogsback.co.uk —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep! I think you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. However, this says nothing about any cutoff at any number of barrels. A good thing too, as in my opinion (very likely no more valuable than yours) the product of this brewery is considerably more noteworthy than the uninteresting fizzy stuff churned out by Anheuser-Busch, Asahi, and the like. If it isn't so popular, blame mass stupidity, the power of advertising as applied to rivals' near-beer, etc. Hogs Back Brewery -- as it should be retitled as soon as it has survived the indignity of VfD (though I notice that the company itself sometimes uses an apostrophe) -- makes superb ales, among which I particularly recommend "Brewster's Bundle". Here we see a Hogs Back beer winning a silver award from CAMRA. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer really has this criterion, it's a damned silly criterion, In My Haughty Opinion. I'd say I'd buy a (virtual) pint of Hogs Back for anyone voting "keep" if I didn't worry that this might be regarded as undemocratic. And no I'm not related to the company other than as an occasional (since I live half a world away) but very happy customer. -- Hoary 07:22, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Abstain, I'm not entirely sure about this one. It's got a lot of weasel terms and not all that much info. I'd be more inclined to keeping if a brewery infobox was added. That said, I do agree that a production cut-off isn't really the best way to determine notability. Is it on sale worldwide? What is it's market share in the UK? Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Answers: You can buy Hogs Back beer here; this page says (via various, perhaps beery spelling mistakes) that the company ships outside Britain. The market share within Britain will be very low, of course -- isn't this obvious from the production figures? But let's consider music for a moment: the market share of Harrison Birtwistle would appear infinitesimal beside that of, say, the beloved diva Ashlee Simpson; but WP contributors realize that in music, if not beer, there's a certain notability in quality and originality as well as sales. -- Hoary 08:59, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Keep part of the importance of English beer (currently working on expanding this) is in its diversity and craft traditions, and almost none of the important breweries are large. Hogs Back is very widely available compared to many other beers. Justinc 10:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: as an illustration, it's the one interesting (non-mass-market) beer available in the restaurants of several National Trust "properties". That's where I first encountered it. -- Hoary 11:06, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Keep! Level of production should not be a criterion of notability when judging craft breweries. Many award-winning beers are produced by very small breweries. --Ascorbic 11:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with the above. Production should not be a criteria for judging these breweries, there are many award-winning breweries I can think of in the UK whose production is very limited in material terms. This article does need some cleanup though. Rje 14:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Comment Well since I nominated it, I guess I should vote, if just to have a dissenting view. I certainly agree that volume of sales isn't the only mark of notability, but it is an important one. But I do disagree that the taste or quality of the beer matters. I mean... I make a damn fine homebrew, but I bet you guys won't let me include it ;). Something tells me this article will happily see the light of day... next time I'll post VfD on the project page first. —Sean κ. ⇔ 14:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: When your homebrew wins some national awards, then go ahead! ;) --ascorbic 18:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, you don't get to vote here, since you nominated it. If you had comments to add then you're supposed to add the comments without an additional "keep" or "delete". Tempshill 18:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Shows what I know ;) —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You did fine. It's just so that when admins look over the votes, it doesn't look, at a glance, like there's an additional vote weighing one way or the other. We need better beer articles here, by the way; glad you're on it. 208.57.241.45 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems like a regionally popular brewery in part of the UK, not unlike, say, the Sprecher Brewery of Wisconsin. Shimmin 01:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there should be a low bar of inclusion for beer, as for almost everything else. Kappa 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "bar" (?) already is low: Miller Lite [sic], which is about as low as what's ever called "beer" can get, even gets its own article. It's described as a "popular pilsner beer". (I wonder what the good people of Pilsen make of that.) -- Hoary 03:25, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
    • Comment I have been trying very hard to keep individual beers out, and removed most of the rest of the Miller product range stubs, merging them in the main article. Miller Lite did however have quite a large number of links to it, so I judged it had some cultural significance. As for the good people of Plzen, for some reason there is almost no Czech beer coverage at all, which is embarrassing and I intend to rectify it soon. Justinc 10:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Inclusionism for Beer (To be said with an autralian accent). Klonimus 08:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cburnett 01:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 23:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Loew

Clearly this is nonsense, either created by someone named Benjamin Loew or by others wanting to have some fun at Wikipedia's expense. I believe the page should be deleted. Billlund 03:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. This has alternately been an attack page and a page with little or no context; it used to have a CSD notice on it. I've restored it. No need to go through VfD for crap like this. android↔talk 04:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was UNANIMOUSLY DELETE. Postdlf 23:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smartass

A half-assed dicdef followed by a long list of supposed smartasses from American popular culture. Delete. Postdlf 04:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, really really unencyclopedic--nixie 04:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Well below threshold of acceptability, imho. --Durin 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Firebug 04:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 郵便箱 07:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Best article ever. Gamaliel 07:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, unverifiable, no sources. Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and so close to being worth of inclusion in the BJAODNonica, too. But not quite. —RaD Man (talk) 08:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic, POV. Secretcurse 23:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this smartass non-encyclopedic entry. 205.247.102.130 14:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above smartass vote was mine, not logged in. Barno 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the compilation of the list MUST be based off POV. I'm sure 99% of humans have at some point been what you classify as a "smartass", and the other 1% are still babies so don't know how to yet. I don't even know where to BEGIN on what's so wrong with this article... Master Thief Garrett 03:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reasons as mentioned above.SlaunchaMan 03:13, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm gonna vote Keep and let's have a huge, violently nasty series of edit wars over who REALLY belongs in this article! Not to be a wiseass or anything. . . . . Soundguy99 05:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 12:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Templates are pages like any other, actually. The transclusion code {{somepage}} operates just as well on any page within the wiki. There is nothing a priori about pages within the template space to distinguish them from any other page. Deletion of a page within template space should be considered here, on Votes for deletion -- with the same consideration given any other page.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion was created to take some of the load off VfD workers; the idea was to deal with obviously malformed templates quickly. But it has degenerated into an angry, biased forum for the deletionists, who run roughshod over all other voices. There is no longer any discussion, no attempt to reach consensus; members simply weigh in with their votes, often without explanation. I have seen no evidence whatever that any member bothers to attempt to improve a malformed template. The process has devolved into a kangaroo court that recalls those of the French Revolution; a steady stream of heads are shoved through the thirsty guillotine. See: "...the decision to permanently delete an article is not taken lightly, and the deletion process is followed..."

The page itself is an embarrassment. Compare it to VfD. What ought to be an orderly process is barely sketched out. The last attempt to reform the process was obliterated by a faction that found its terms insufficiently ambiguous. The dead bodies of its victims are not even carried out with regularity.

The sad truth is that what ought to be a fair and honest process has become the little empire of a few strong opinions, who simply go ahead and do what they like, oblivious to any dissent, let alone the principle of consensus. Templates are nominated on shaky grounds or none. Nominations that fail to reach a consensus to delete are not relieved from the onus of TfD, either; they often languish indefinitely, as it were in a dungeon without trial.

Some TfD regulars have begun to pick up on the fact that any page may be transcluded, and are pushing to expand the scope of the process to include other pages which have been used as templates. By that logic, TfD's scope includes the several subpages of the Village Pump!

I nominate the page in question for deletion, on grounds that it has now become a mere POV soapbox for deletionists, a hazard to the larger community. It is frequently employed merely to vandalize properly-working, useful templates; it is seething with uncivil remarks. There are a limited number of Wikipedians with the willingness to fairly deliberate page deletions; they concentrate on VfD. TfD is left as a neglected backwater in which bad practice festers. The page itself should be deleted and all pages nominated for deletion here only. — Xiong熊talk 04:11, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a policy page, and VFD isn't the proper place to debate the underlying policy. This nomination should be cancelled. Firebug 04:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is not a policy page; it is a process page within the Wikipedia namespace. There is no underlying policy; the page has no foundation.Do you assert that VfD has no jurisdiction over pages in Wikipedia namespace? If you can get any sort of consensus on that point, I shall withdraw the nomination. — Xiong熊talk 13:40, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Keep. If I weren't so darned full of good faith, I might be tempted to suggest that this nomination is meant to make some kind of WP:POINT. I also concur with Firebug's remarks; this isn't the proper venue. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Invalid VfD. Discuss this on the Talk page. RickK 04:35, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid nomination. Concur with Firebug; not the appropriate place to air grievances about TfD. Take it to an RfC or something. Also, WP:POINT. android↔talk 04:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Firebug and RickK. If you want to get rid of WP:TFD or even just reform it, create a Thinktank article and seek consensus—don't nominate the page at WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 04:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is disruption to prove a point and unacceptable. Postdlf 06:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and was I just called a deletionist? - lol) -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Invalid; vfd has no jurisdiction over policy pages. —Korath (Talk) 09:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever. --Joy [shallot] 10:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination is as silly as the attempts to nominate the VfD page for deletion. Sjakkalle 12:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I might agree with that TfD is a bad thing (but I don't know if nominating the templates hare is a solution) but putting the page on VfD is the wrong way of voicing your oppinion about TfD. Jeltz talk 14:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• TFD is de facto policy. That's how the Wiki works. You don't like it? {{sofixit}} and propose a change (such as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring). Keep. Radiant_* 14:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • That is exactly what I am doing here: proposing a change. — Xiong熊talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
    • No, that is exactly not what you're doing here. Policy proposals go on the Village Pump policy pages. You do not request for an old policy to get deleted before you have consensus on a new one. Radiant_* 08:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't we have Wikipedia:Users for deletion or something like it to deal with this sort of thing? --Carnildo 21:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See WP:PFD. —Korath (Talk) 01:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. WP:POINT. --cesarb 01:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ultra Strong Keep - Templates are templates, and articles are articles. BTW, placing the vfd template on another template is awful. The tfd template is small and compact. Andros 1337 03:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is not technically true. I agree that VfD tags should not be placed on any page which is used in transclusion without carefully considering the possible side-effects. The page's Talk is a fine place for a tag. — Xiong熊talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no good reason to make VfD even bigger and slower. Wmahan. 04:12, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• keep--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep keep keep keep keep. But get rid of this ridiculous listing. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Oklonia 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. As per everyone. FreplySpang (talk) 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

"Comments" section moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Please continue the policy discussion there. FreplySpang (talk) 02:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Crescent School

Non-notable private school. Firebug 04:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tad POV as well, isn't it? Not only that, they don't say why they're notable or why anyone should care. To our esteemed inclusionists: Please judge this article on its encyclopedic merits and not its subject matter. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 04:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if you could just get people to nominate the article on its encyclopedic merits, not its subject... Kappa 11:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The post VfD editing has brought this article up to snuff. Congrats to User:BaronLarf for a nice save. The current version passes the Toowoomba Grammar School test as expected of a school that has frequently topped the list of best private schools in Canada.. Naturally all school's are worthy of inclusion into a truely great encyclopaedia. But you already knew that. Klonimus 06:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you think all schools should be included, why do you have a test for them? Radiant_* 14:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity. Jonathunder 06:53, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor improvements don't keep this from being anything more than a useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Minor improvements improve the quality of the article, IMHO this is a Good Thing (tm). What makes this school both notable and distinguishable from others within the region of Ontario is that it received the highest rating possible from the Fraser Institute, 1st place (out of 568). [3] These facts are neither generic nor useless. —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This nomination was made by yet another account created in the past six weeks that immediately gravitated towards VfD (within 3 days of account creation). This is the third one this week. *sigh* —RaD Man (talk) 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Pardon me, the account is only 2 weeks old, not six. —RaD Man (talk) 01:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Stop trying to intimidate VFD contributors. Firebug 03:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable enough. 郵便箱 07:12, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to turn out more than its share of notable people: a bigshot member of parlement, the founding president of a university, a noteworthy author, publisher, and television host, and others. --Carnildo 08:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 08:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all schools where there's an abusive attempt to manipulate the vote. [4] —Korath (Talk) 08:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So are you going to delete valid school articles too, if someone tries to manipulate the vote? That would be a great way for a deletionist to get something deleted. Please judge the article, not on user actions. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would be happy to judge the article on its own merits, if I had any confidence whatsoever that the Schoolwatchers were. I no longer do. —Korath (Talk) 11:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, tops the Fraser list and has notable alumni. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has non-generic and useful information. Kappa 11:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable school. (If the deletionists really want to get rid of all articles about buildings/institutions why not leave the schools alone, and delete some of the non-notable railway stations clogging up Wikipedia?) P Ingerson 11:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At least this boats some alumni and a reason for notability (Fraser), rather than yet another unencyclopaedic high school. Not all schools are worthy for inclusion... but this one just might be. The JPS 11:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article is still too short for my tastes, but topping the list of 'best private schools in Canada' does make it notable imho. Can someone BEEFSTEW it please? Keep. Radiant_* 14:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • BEEFSTEW: 5 (A, B, D, F, H). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to keep. Notability established. In fact a BEEFSTEW of 5 is the highest I can recall seeing. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: BEEFSTEW of 5 is a reasonable target even for an average school, would you be prepared to vote keep for one? Kappa 22:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent question. I try and base my votes on these school articles partially on their encyclopedic content. In all fairness, a good article on a so-so school should probably be considered as a keeper. It's the "bored student substubs" I vote against, especially if there's no information online to expand the stub. However, I think that a so-so school had better represent itself well, avoiding "weasel" words and phrases like their mission statement. I try and look at some of these from the viewpoint of an advertising copywriter. One of the biggest no-noes is unsubstantiated claims to greatness. School articles are usually rife with these. Hope I answered your question. Ask anytime.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. Schools should not need to prove notability, even though this one is notable. (I researched school, found and added the alumni, and plan to do more. This is not a mindless, inclusionist vote)--BaronLarf 22:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being rated as the best private school in Canada by a reputable source and notable alumni establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination does not conform with deletion policy.--Gene_poole 23:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there is no deletion policy for schools. Unless we have a real policy in place for all of these articles, these arguments will erupt whenever a school is put up for VfD. Firebug 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So how about WP:BEEFSTEW of 5 gets an article, substubs are deleted, less than 5 gets merged if it isn't growing? Kappa 05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not in its current form. As mentioned on the BEEFSTEW page, only criteria H, J, and sometimes G would be accepted to show notability for any other subject. I've had pet fish about which I could write articles that meet criteria A-E. —Korath (Talk) 06:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Make a mention on Toronto, Ontario and delete - Skysmith 07:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is notable in Canada, even if isn't notable in the US. Ground Zero 16:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep- the school is probably notable enough. --G Rutter 18:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, this does not seem right Yuckfoo 21:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established. N-Man^talk 11:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nicely improved and further expandible. Samaritan 11:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a run-of-the-mill public school; obviously the article needs expansion, but given time it should grow properly. --NormanEinstein 19:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)#
• Keep Why do people want to delete school articles when it is policy that all railway station articles are kept? Oliver Chettle 02:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep award winning schools are certainly notable.  ALKIVAR™ 09:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This one actually seems notable, and is almost a hundred years old. Noisy | Talk 11:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it still seems short to me. --MikeJ9919 00:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Spinboy 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm sorry but I don't see how this needs to be here. Who's ever going to look it up? Master Thief Garrett 01:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone interested in private schools in Toronto, or the best private schools in Canada. Kappa 01:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, articles on all secondary schools should be included in the encyclopedia. over the years thousands graduate from any one school - to (most of) those alumni plus hundreds others interested in education or the community in which a particular school is located these pages are (theoretically) important. there should be a policy put in place allowing articles on sec schools to exist (and railway stations too!). Mayumashu 16:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[A review of the deletion policy confirms my gut reaction. It is clearly implicit by what wiki provides as criteria for deletion that an article on a secondary school is, in and of itself, worthy of having in wiki. firstly, the number of articles that wiki can have is explicitly stated as a non-issue in judging an article's worth. secondly, an article on any school does not fall under any of the categories listed at WP:NOT as what wiki is not. moreover, its worth reiterating that any one school will mean something to literally thousands of people (the majority of which are not present wiki contributors or even users no doubt, but are nonetheless, potential ones). this is a cut and dry case Mayumashu 16:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 23:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NADD

Neologism, invented by a blog. Neutrality^talk 04:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Neutrality^talk 04:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, article even admits it's a neologism in the first line. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Del per nomination. —msh210 17:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.--64.254.131.80 18:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Master Thief Garrett 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 05:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Skrull. Postdlf 23:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

War Skrull

Minor Marvel Comics villain(s). Not notable. Firebug 05:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Skrull. — JIP | Talk 06:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per JIP. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Skrull.17:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Not notable"...in your opinion. Merge with Skrull. --Myles Long 20:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --NormanEinstein 19:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --Pc13 12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Skrull Master Thief Garrett 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claremont School of Theology

I initially tagged this as a speedy (ad spam), which the poster objected to. So I'm posting it here instead. Non-notable. Firebug 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 08:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• List of degree programs with a link isn't an article. Contains next to no info about the school. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Although the brevity of the article wouldn't make it big deal if were to be deleted, I will still vote keep here: This isn't exactly the University of Tübingen or Harvard Divinity School, but it appears to be a real degree-granting institution, with faculty members who have been published in scholarly journals. I think there is an established consensus here that real institutions of higher education are inherently notable. Even community colleges count, and this is something above that level. - Uppland 10:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • PS. You should probably have given it more than two minutes to develop before stamping it with a speedy delete tag. - Uppland 10:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would think this a perfect example of linkspam, thus delete. Radiant_* 14:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but note that advertising is not grounds for speedy. At best you can throw a nowiki tag in. Meelar (talk) 15:07, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uppland 10:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC). —msh210 17:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've now stubbified it with some real information. Keep —Wahoofive | Talk 17:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Schoolwatch to further "stack the vote". Kappa 18:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real tertiary institution and well done Wahoofive for his additions. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep current version --Carnildo 00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep. The article needs expansion, as at present it just scrapes over the notability bar for me. Thryduulf 00:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep institutions of higher education. Shimmin 00:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I didn't know that colleges had a notability standard, too. --BaronLarf 00:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Stack 'em up, baby! —RaD Man (talk) 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They're affilliated with the Claremont Colleges, they're an accredited school, and they educate half the non-reactionary clergypeople in Southern California. Submitting an advert as an article is lame, but not proof of non-notability. ---Isaac R 01:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This nomination was made by yet another account created in the past two weeks that immediately gravitated towards VfD (in this case, within 3 days of account creation). This marks the third incident of this type this week. *sigh* —RaD Man (talk) 01:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I've been doing plenty of non-VFD-related edits, and I have voted Keep or Merge on numerous articles that have been put up for VFD. I'm not sure what you're stating or implying here. I put a lot of articles up for VFD because I have been doing RC patrol, and it is very common to see articles that are either nonsense or content-free (and thus candidates for speedy deletion), or articles that are unencyclopedic and have thus been posted here for consideration. If the consensus is to keep this article, I'll go along with this. But I will not be bullied. Don't make veiled threats again. Firebug 03:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not supposed to be a threat, just an expression of (hopefully) paranoia. It's related to the fact that we're not doing very well at establishing a consensus on schools. Please continue nominating and voting as you see fit. Kappa 05:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If you view my observations as threats you have problems. Seek help. —RaD Man (talk) 01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's keep this civil please. Gamaliel 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep My understanding is that a concensus had been reached that all tertiery eduction was notable by nature. VfD is articles that are not verifiable, informative, or encyclopedic by nature. Klonimus 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Firebug the article as it stood when he nominated it was not encylopaedic it was an advert. Thryduulf 08:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but I think we're a little too quick to VfD advertising web pages. We tend to assume that they're a kind of spam. Which they often are. But they're also often articles about notable topics that are simply written too subjectively. Very often people VfD them when they should clean them up or make them into stubs. Or maybe just add an "explain significance" notice. ---Isaac R 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Claremont, California and delete - Skysmith 07:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this because it is a degree granting institution Yuckfoo 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . N-Man^talk 11:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly more notable than Chumbawumba Grammar School. Gamaliel 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Institutions of higher education are inherently notable. -- 8^D ^gab 13:25, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. --Myles Long 15:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very well-established school with some ties to the Claremont Colleges (though it is not a full member of the Claremont group). An entirely legitimate institution, worthy of an expanded article. BTfromLA 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep there arent that many graduate level schools with degrees in Theology worldwide, this makes Claremont a notable case.  ALKIVAR™ 09:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia not a directory. Sorry. Master Thief Garrett 01:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The account User:Master Thief Garrett was created 2 weeks ago. This now marks the fourth such incident. —RaD Man (talk) 06:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • um, I'm sorry, but your point is...? I spent most of my "fledgling" time revising other articles etc. and have only moved onto Vfd now that my "pet topics" are pretty much complete and I'm a little more acquainted with the workings here. Is there some problem with me being new to Vfding? That I am misvoting? That I am voting too much and/or too often? That I shouldn't dare suggest a Schoolwatch article be deleted? ....orrrr what? Since you chose the word "incident", your comment sounds fairly negative in tone. Please explain, as I am curious as to what exactly you meant (or didn't mean) by this comment. Thank you. Master Thief Garrett 07:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Welcome to Wikipedia, n00b. *hug* —RaD Man (talk) 07:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • okayyyy... despite the negative connotations others have meant on forums when referring to me as a n00b, and normally I'd be quite offended, I know Wikipedia isn't like that at all, and I'm hoping you're not implying something similar... and you still didn't answer my question, not that it matters... Master Thief Garrett 08:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there are many university and college articles out there that look much worse than this one currently does (just look though some of the categories), and there are probably thousands of institutions less notable than this one too, but they have so far been left alone because of the consensus that institutions of higher education are inherently notable enough to have an article. If some people want to change that policy (or at least de facto policy), I think the right place to do that would be on a policy talk page, not here. Uppland 01:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Defence of Marxism

While it's mildly refreshing to see an ad for a Marxist site rather than just for yet another capitalist one, WP is not a web directory. -- Hoary 07:03, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) ....I've never understood what "strong keep" means (or indeed "strong delete"), but anyway I'm certain that WP should keep the article as has been revised since I posted my initial whinge. -- Hoary 07:08, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Committee for a Marxist International XmarkX 17:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable/ad. See also Google: no one links to the Web site the article is about.
  • unsigned comment by user:Msh210. please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~.
  • Quite wrong. [5]. And they have a Google page rank of 6/10.---Isaac R 01:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Convert into an article about Leon Trotsky's work In Defence of Marxism. —Seselwa 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN website. Firebug 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as XmarkX suggests. Both CMI and their web site are notable,but there isn't enough to be said about the web site to justify it having its own article.---Isaac R 01:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Change that to Keep. AndyL's changes turns the thing into a useful article. ---Isaac R 19:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website promo. Megan1967 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've replaced the article with a disambig page given the variety of items In Defence of Marxism refers to.AndyL 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete commie propaganda. Grue 18:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful disambiguation page PatGallacher 21:13, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Keep as revised. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Charles Matthews 13:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it is revised. Well done, whoever did that! Master Thief Garrett 05:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good disambig. page. --Dcfleck 14:41, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep, serves valuable function. --Headisdead 15:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

E Clampus Vitus

This was tagged for speedy as nonsense, but it does exist; hence I listed it here. No vote. Xezbeth 07:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup. It seems to exist and to be notable, but much of the history sections smells like a hoax. Martg76 08:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and revert/clean-up. Jeez, a little quick with the VfD. Take a look at the page history. It was a perfectly servicable page before the massive edits on the 17th and 18th of April. Note that the ECV's most famous activity is to pull pranks on historians. (See Drake's Plate of Brass.) No surprise they have found their Wikipedia page and had a good time. I am going to revert the page. This will have the side effect of wiping out the VfD. If you think it should be re-applied, go for it. Thanks --Chris vLS 15:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've reverted even further back, to a more likely version. If somebody disagrees, go ahead and revert my reversion. As the author of the original version, I vote Keep. RickK 19:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please see talk page for reversion/copyvio discussion between ecvjackass and RickK. Chris vLS 04:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but clean it up, and keep an eye on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that there's very little chance that this is going to be manageable, and the organisation may exist but (as the current, somewhat obsessive, editor has admitted) it's largely known for pranks and hoaxes. This looks very much like one of them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and concur with Mel Etitis. It seems like we have here a user who is determined to rule over this article as his personal fiefdom, and has no regard for the way things are usually done around here. It is next to impossible to get anything of value out of the article as it stands, and when I read it I have no idea whether I'm looking at fact or fiction. I don't see it becoming worthy of being called truly encyclopedic or useful to the reader. We are better off without it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reverted version. RickK appears to be an impartial observer interested in writing an NPOV article, whereas the other author appears to be a prankster with an agenda. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because it's just... just... weird... and probably not very historical, and so obscure that very few of us can verify alterations to it. For some odd reason this smells to me like it's copyvio'd, but I'll have to check... Master Thief Garrett 03:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have a hard time gauging the reasons for deleting this article. We have an article on much less distinguished jokes. -- Cimon
  • It's not a joke. ECV is a historical society which refreshes old gold rush historic sites and puts historical plaques up. RickK 06:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why you people are trying to delete this article. E Clampus Vitus is a well-known historical society in the California area. I know that the User has given us a bad article here, but it needs cleaning up, not deleting. What makes it weird? OK, I've reverted Ecvjackass's changes again. Please review the current version as of this date and time, and discuss the article based on that. This is definitely a notable organization. RickK 05:55, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• • Infamous and renowned organisation - a definite keep. If I've heard of it 9and the famed Drake Plate Hoax) several thousand miles away on the other side of the Pacific, then it must give you some indication that it's pretty well known. Grutness|^hello? 13:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Josh Madden

The brother of the guys from Good Charlotte, aspiring make-up artist and club DJ, non-encyclopedic, delete--nixie 09:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Being someone's older brother doesn't exactly establish notability. Anilocra 09:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, contains little info. If his job in MADE is notable it can be merged there. His DJing isn't notable as is everything else. Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good Charlotte cruft, at best. -- 8^D ^gab 20:58, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable on his own. Megan1967 05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. --Idont Havaname 15:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 23:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Online opticians

Delete Crystal-ball-esque advertisement for a number of online spectacle and sunglasses sales websites, masquerading as an article. Anilocra 09:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hasn't happened yet. Is ad for linked sites. Question: Do you have to pay for an eye examination by an optician in the US? Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, you do. —msh210 16:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, you pay for an examination from an optometrist; an optician only dispenses glasses, although there are some offices which do both. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite right, sorry. My point, though, was that one pays, which, I think, is what Mgm was asking. —msh210 18:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del. Perfectly valid article (not advertisment) imo, but utterly unencyclopedic. Shall we have articles online hardware stores, et al.? —msh210 16:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree w/msh210. Edwardian 07:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ole Martin Pettersen

Delete I find one reference to this person online at this website [6]. Not being Norwegian I cannot make head nor tails of it, but strongly suspect this is a vanity article or self promotion by a non-notable actor. The phone and fax details make the website look like an actor looking for work. Along with this article an entry has been made in the June 16 article recording a time of birth by the creator of this article, 152.93.4.33. --Randolph 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment creator of the article blanked the page. --Randolph 17:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure Vanity. That link is to a different Ole Martin Pettersen (someone in the board of the Norwegian Farmers Organization)), but neither of those are notable. Shanes 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The only meaningful content (in other words, everything but the sub-stub tag and the VfD tag) was blanked by the original author. I think that's reasonable evidence that this qualifies for speedy deletion under case G7. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad and pretty lousy. Pavel Vozenilek 09:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Puffy Party Of Canada

Formed a day before the article appeared. I can't find confirmation on Google or in any major newspapers. Lotsofissues 11:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A "political party" founded late last week, unregistered with Elections Canada, and not likely to run candidates. Hm. Vanity/hoax/not notable. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Puffycruft. -- 8^D ^gab 20:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ground Zero 15:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Come back if the party actually does something, like becoming registered as an official party and/or running a candidate. Intentions != actions. GrantNeufeld 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. (In my original vote I stated I would vote for such a party given the alternatives -- that was based upon the name, as opposed to their intentions. (Just thought I'd toss that in there so I don't get any angry PMs from people checking out the history ;) ). 23skidoo 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shades of Falcon 51, or whatever that made-up party in British Columbia was called ... CJCurrie 01:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And it's no Parti Populaire des Putes. Delete. Samaritan 12:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vapour-party. --Deathphoenix 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Cynthia Sycip

Person does not exist on Google - at all. Lotsofissues 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I assume vanity or invented, unless the name is spelled differently in Filipino. — Asbestos | Talk 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article claims there is a book, but I can find one hit in a Googlecache for it, which doesn't shout notability. The name does not exactly send google spinning (Cynthia Y Sycip gives 4 hits) Delete unless some citations are provided. Average Earthman 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've now posted requests for a defense of the page's existence at User talk:210.23.171.221 and User talk:63.170.236.196. —msh210 17:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes lets give sufficient time for those users to find this page and respond. Lotsofissues 00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. At present, the article cannot be deleted due to block compression errors and has been blanked and protected. Postdlf 00:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mike Bennett

Vanity page. Advertising. Subject is only notable for founding E3 Media, which is currently pending deletion for not being notable. Page was created from a IP owned by a company in the same offices as E3 Media. --Ascorbic 11:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Del per nomination —msh210 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Stuart Avery

Vanity page. Advertising. Subject is only notable for founding E3 Media, which is currently pending deletion for not being notable. Page was created from an E3 Media IP. --Ascorbic 11:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Del per nomination. —msh210 16:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Schwehr

Non-notable college athlete.

From the people who brought you Bryan Schwor, Silly Goose Productions, Mark Soissons, and Neil Vanos...

Ryan "Cameron" Schwehr (1984-) is a semi-famous NCAA runner. He is an NCAA Cross-Country and Track runner from Spokane, Washington. The no-budget movie Bryan Schwor is loosely based on him.

I say, delete this latest vanity attack. --Calton | Talk 12:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is some evidence of him achieving a high level finish (e.g. top 3) in a national level competition (e.g. NCAA championships). Average Earthman 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Vanity attack" pretty much sums it up for me. We got Schwor, we got Schwehr, we got a user with very selective ideas on the rules of this site. Sheesh. These articles are formatted, wikied and even have photos. Seems he missed the part about no self-promotion. - Lucky 6.9 22:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "unless there is some evidence of him achieving a high level finish (e.g. top 3) in a national level competition..." [[7]]--Jim8675309 23:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User had 11 edits before this one: 6 to Bryan Schwor-related pages, 2 to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Soissons, and 3 to his own user page.--Calton | Talk 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (this comment deleted by User:152.163.100.138 [8]
• Delete in spite of that (or put on a list somewhere) until he reaches olympic level. For reason that there are zillions of colleges and each has its own athletes. Radiant_* 09:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For his own sake he does not specifically warrant an article, but due to his relation to the Bryan Schwor movie it is worth keeping. --168.212.165.131 17:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean the doomed article with the sock-puppet-infested Vote for Deletion? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the rule should be this: so long as the Schwor article is up, the Ryan Schwehr article should remain. If anything, he is the only personal affiliated with the film to have noteworthy accomplishments. --Fritz9000 06:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity (anon user deleted my vote from here). Megan1967 05:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Dcfleck 14:45, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Gerald T. Watkins Jr.

Delete. Non-notable, vanity. -- P Ingerson 12:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, non-notable, no stated achievements of any kind whatsoever. Average Earthman 16:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• del nonnotable —msh210 16:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Magic sword

Delete. Another nanostub from SamuraiClinton/SuperDude115. If Wikipedia needs a separate article on magical swords, this ain't it. android↔talk 14:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Axe it. —Korath (Talk) 15:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) Keep now, of course. —Korath (Talk) 22:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm strongly opposed to fancruft and articles on items from specific games, but magic swords have a presence throughout mythology, fantasy literature and role-playing games, so I think there is potential for an article with enyclopedic value. Martg76 15:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need an article on magic swords, but this isn't it. Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 17:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree on both points. An article about magic swords would be useful, perhaps even overdue, but this is not that article. I mean, where's Excalibur? I'll bet Japanese mythology is loaded with references to enchanted samurai swords, which is ironic given the name of the user who posted this article in the first place. I'd like to see this deleted to get it out of the edit history, but I'll abstain for now since I might turn this into something resembling a stub article later instead of what we currently have, namely a few fragments of fact gleaned from someone's mind. Where else but Wikipedia can you learn that a magic sword can be used to stab the enemy? - Lucky 6.9 17:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — current article is highly non-informative. But I agree that magical swords are a common element in mythology, history, and in fantasy literature and games. So it could use a proper article, or at least a section on the sword page. — RJH 17:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• OMFG Keep!!! Magic swords are, like, soooo freakin' awesome!!! Seriously, I added a few mythos refs - of which there are plenty. -- 8^D ^gab 17:54, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Rewrite - the video game Magic Sword is fairly notable, but this article is nearly unusable in its original form. Firebug 18:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Who says VfD isn't cleanup? Sonofagun, we have a new short article with references to the term! I've cleaned up some of the style while I was in there. Keep rewritten article and expand. Fantastic job, all. That includes the original contributor for uncovering a glaring red link. - Lucky 6.9 19:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Postdlf 19:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still not convinced that this article ought to stand on its own, but it is now in at least good enough shape to be merged somewhere at some point. I withdraw the nomination. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written by BD2412, Lucky 6.9 and other contributors. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cap. Usually I'm the one thanking you for the rescue (blush)! - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Shimmin 00:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man^talk 11:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have just reworked the article Tyrfing and the two articles complete each other.--Wiglaf 21:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've gotta admit, I like the fact that VfD frequently inspires people to be bold and clean up an article that could be useful. --MikeJ9919 00:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No original opinions. -- Kizor 16:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was INVALID NOMINATION; should be listed on RFD instead. Postdlf 00:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Neumann-Bernays-Gödel Axiomatic Set Theory

this redirect page has a completely wrong name, so it is hardly usefull to redirect to Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory, so I suggest to delete it. MarSch 15:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as invalid nomination; list on WP:RFD instead. (This is not an RFD vote.) —msh210 16:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Noah Parsons

Vanity or prank. / Uppland 16:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Del —msh210 16:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and direct the creator to Uncyclopedia, which would appear to be more their style. Average Earthman 19:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 11:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

KISS Radio Tower

Nonnotable del —msh210 16:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — As notable as a hundred others on List of masts — RJH 17:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with your comment, RJH, but does thta make it notable (in an encylopedia-inclusion or any other sense)? —msh210 18:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's on the list of masts. Feydey 18:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination does not conform with deletion policy.--Gene_poole 23:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What part specifically? ---Isaac R 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The part that says "Nonnotable". According to current policy "non-notability" is not listed as a valid deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The deletion criteria are not all-inclusive, and notability has been a de facto criterion for well over a year now. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and procedural errors are not grounds for keeping anything. Radiant_* 09:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Besides, I don't see a procedural error. "Non-notable" is just shorthand for "not important enough to escape the 'not a general knowledge base' rule". ---Isaac R 16:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, "not notable" is shorthand for "not notable to me", which is nothing less than intellectual chauvinism. Lots of people find lots of "mundane" subjects perfectly "notable", and they can and should be able to write about those subjects in Wikipedia without having their work casually dismissed by ill-informed or ignorant contributors who possess a misplaced sense of their own importance.--Gene_poole 04:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure if the nomination conforms with policy or not, but things that tall are pretty much all notable in my book. Kappa 00:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The lists of masts doesn't belong either, because we're not a general knowledgebase. (Though the page itself is worth saving as a non-list page.) ---Isaac R 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why are any of these towers noteable? Being on a list is not noteable. Is every minor league stadium noteable? Is every street noteable? Is every election district noteable? Vegaswikian 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In answer to your questions: yes. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be encyclopedic.--Gene_poole 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, every tower, every stadium, every street, everthing that is verifiable belongs in wikipedia. Klonimus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In answer to your questions... 1) they're not. 2. that's not a question; 3.Yes. 4.No. 5.Yes if on a list, rather than on separate articles. Of course that's my POV, but I do hold that information is more accessible and, well, informative when merged into comprehensive lists. Radiant_* 09:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Everything that is verifiable"? So you advocate importing phone books, broadcast schedules, class syllabuses, restaurant menus? ---Isaac R 16:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I see no logical reason why articles about telephone directories, restaurant menus and school syllabuses should not have a place in Wikipedia. Such subjects are as much a matter of interest to lots of people as are railway rolling stock, computer games and public institutions. --Gene_poole 04:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So you think Wikipedia is a general knowledge base? If so, you should be working to get that section removed from WP:NOT.--Isaac R 20:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I suggest you re-read my comment. I did not say we should import the content of phone books etc. I said that we should have articles about them. A significant difference you'd do well to grasp.--Gene_poole 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I suggest that you re-read mine in context. I was responding to a guy who said "everything that is verifiable belongs in Wikipedia". My point was that he was not making the very distinction you just made. ---Isaac R 23:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable tower. Klonimus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of masts, which already has all this information, except that it's in San Antonio, which a link to the station article will cover. I imagine the same can be said of most of the masts on that list. The article is currently a substub with a collection of external links, and I really don't see it growing. -R. fiend 14:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect per R. fiend). I'd still like to hear why towers are considered more notable than, say, satellite dishes, telephone poles, or sewer sections. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep why make the list of towers incomplete? --Mattwj2002 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of masts per R. fiend. Otherwise, del. —msh210 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirecting would be confusing. N-Man^talk 11:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems important Yuckfoo 00:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not inherently notable. Megan1967 05:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major physical infrastructure is notable.--Centauri 09:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, both because the topic is not encyclopedic, and because the article itself is poor. --Dcfleck 14:50, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Merge to the list of Masts and redirect--nixie 03:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Schoelkopf's law

Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank fiction. Zero hits for "Schoelkopf's law" or even "qubit coherence increases". Niteowlneils 18:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, but I get a couple of hits on "Schoelkopf solid-state qubit coherence" and what comes up looks legit, though it doesn't refer to "Schoelkopf Law" per se. Check out [9] I know I'm not in a position to judge it. -- Mwanner 22:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• It's an attempt to apply the concept of Moore's Law to the advancement of qubit technologies. (see also quantum computing) When it's been around for a decade or two and proves even half as useful or popular as Moore's Law, the article can be recreated. Until then, it's unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 DELETE. Postdlf 00:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Electric Vomit

Apparently obscure band from California. I've heard of one of the bands they played with (Throwdown), but I think it's safe to say that they're not notable themselves. Isomorphic 18:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No allmusic, obviously amateur entry on Ultimate Band list, and their website doesn't seem to be functioning--only 128 googles on "Electric Vomit", none of which appears to be an official website or something of that sort. Delete. Meelar (talk) 19:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No way, they were the most innovated band around. They had a huge following and are still a cultural icon in Ventura County. The band has broken up due to creative differences. Justin is currently living in the desert experimenting with alterative life styles. Shaun is climbing the corporate ladder at a major California company. Noah was last seen wandering the streets of Tijuana Mexico. If you have any information please contact his mother. He still looks the same as he did in 2001. EVFL must never die.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

30 mph

• Delete as non-encyclopedic, POV rant. The encyclopedic content has already been merged with speed limit, so it seems to be an easy delete. Feco 19:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the above reasons. P Ingerson 19:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Much better to have a single "speed limit" article than one on each of the twenty or so commonly used speed limits (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, and 70 mph, and various kph counterparts) -- 8^D ^gab 20:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Comment: It's very naughty to merge, then delete. Kappa 21:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If you actually merged anything, then we must redirect as the easiest way to preserve the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL). Rossami (talk) 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic Dsmdgold 12:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic, POV --Ebz 08:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speed limit. dramatic 21:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move any relevant information to the pages Speed Limit or 30 (number)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan

Basically nothing but a bunch of quotes. Maybe move to Wikiquote? RickK 19:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Ronald Reagan. World leaders reacted to his death precisely because of who he is; the reaction is inseparable from the man. -- 8^D ^gab 20:30, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Please do not merge. That's what we have Wikiquote for. RickK 22:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Wikiquote: Ronald Reagan if it's okay to have quotes about the person on that person's Wikiquote page as opposed to quotes by the person. This page, even if it consists only of quotes attributed to specific leaders, is going to be pretty POV. The introductory paragraph is already extremely POV, implying as it does that Reagan contributed to "winning the Cold War". And anyway, a list of quotes isn't encyclopedic, even if it were NPOV. --Angr/_comhrá 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wikiquote and delete. Gazpacho 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article offers a significant snapshot of how different world leaders reacted to an event, it is of historical value, and contains more than just quotes so just a wikiquote would result in the loss of information. Moreover, articles like this exist elsewhere on wikipedia, see List of war apology statements issued by Japan. Combuchan 01:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wikiquote and delete. What info that isn't quotes are POV or covered in the main Ronald Reagan article. --drew1718 02:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. There is really not a lot in regard to the quotes that could be kept or merged. Megan1967 05:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Straight delete because I don't think these kinds of comments meet the goals of Wikiquote. The "reactions of world leaders" should be discussed in the Ronald Reagan article but do not need quotes to do so. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wikiquote sounds like a reasonable plan, although I have some worries about the transwiki system being in a perpetual traffic jam. Sjakkalle 07:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. I'll keep an eye out for it in Wikiquote's transwiki space. We can decide how we want to process it over there (and in fact are already talking about it). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as whether the article meets Wikiquote goals, the WQ community should decide this, so transwiki-ing it would give us a chance to do so. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiquote. My understanding is that WQ articles can contain also quotes about a person. jni 10:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Let the other project decide if it wants it, we don't know what their standards are. Rmhermen 14:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Merge relevant content to Ronald Reagan and Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. --Idont Havaname 15:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikiquote and delete. I'm not sure all of it should be moved, but they appear to have already volunteered to sort it out there. --MikeJ9919 00:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before we start having lists like Reactions to President Bush's speech on April 27th, 2005 and Reactions to the Braves Cardinals game on April 30

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Idiot film

Original research and/or too subjective. "idiot film" doesn't get many hits for this usage. Also, seems entirely too subjective to be useful or encyclopedic: Fast Times at Ridgemont High (not on the list) has several characters none too bright--is it an 'idiot film'? The titular characters in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (included in the list) seem to me more like 'slackers' than 'idiots'. Niteowlneils 20:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What you said. ---Isaac R 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC).
• Delete, POV, original essay. Megan1967 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Idioterne (European film with the English title, The Idiots). 23skidoo 00:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Truckee lake music

Another un-signed band (see also Rob Stephen below). Only two relevant hits--from Wikipedia and truckeelake.com. No allmusic listing. Niteowlneils 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vandalism if possible. This same booshwah was first listed under Truckee lake which I redirected to Truckee, California. - Lucky 6.9 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not fullfill requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines -- Egil 04:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Rob Stephen

Another un-signed musician. Only two relevant hits--from Wikipedia and truckeelake.com. Only 17 displayed hits for phuzzbot, and they're all from phuzzbot.com/ and forums. Niteowlneils 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible for reason stated at "Truckee lake music." - Lucky 6.9 21:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the useful comment there, Froggy. Delete, not a notable musician. -R. fiend 23:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Froggy has suddenly gone on a "Keep all vanity articles" spree. RickK 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sorry, i understand your policy now, but i also think unsigned music has as much right to be included in a database of knowledge Phuzzbot
  • comment: this is the user's first and so far only edit
  • Sorry, Wikipedia is not a PR firm. RickK 20:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not fullfill requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines -- Egil 04:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Egil. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia (at least for now) is not, repeat not, a "database of knowledge". --Dcfleck 14:58, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by people from all around the world - Wikipedia:about

encyclopedia:n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty Phuzzbot

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Tutoritool

• Delete. Advertisment. Copyvio: [10] "The Tutoritool™ - the worlds first interactive Turntablism tutorial record" -- Mwanner 21:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure Advertisement. There are ways around the copyright problem, but that's a moot point.---Isaac R 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Recreation of deleted page: "11:53, 19 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Tutoritool" (advert/copyvio)". --cesarb 00:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The prior deletion was a speedy delete. Since it was recreated by a different user, no mention was made at the original anon user's talk page of their error and there is no obvious evidence of bad faith, I do not believe that this qualifies for the recreation case in WP:CSD. However, both versions are still copyvios. Current version now marked as such. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks (I can't see how the page was; I just looked at the log). --cesarb 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by SWAdair (Indisputable bad faith addition) --cesarb 16:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pat alton

{{{Not notable. Vanity. Delete}}}

• Speedy Delete I was going to do that but the VfD tag was alreadty there. It also looks like someone is having a problem seting up the VfD. Vegaswikian 22:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's this newfangled vfd shortcut routine. Driving me haywire. Feel free to speedy. -- 8^D ^gab 22:06, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted. The deletion log shows it was deleted the same minute that the VfD tag was added (thus unknowingly recreating the article). I concur with the original deletion, and am deleting it again. Indisputable bad faith addition. SWAdair | Talk 06:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel bad for having delayed the deletion this long!!! Sorry about that. -- 8^D ^gab 16:42, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
    • LOL! No problem. I still remember how confused I was the first time I had to learn a new VfD routine. It took a while. SWAdair | Talk 02:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Allison Prosser

Not notable, probable vanity. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 22:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Support. Vanity page. --Coneslayer 22:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • ...assume this means "delete". — Asbestos | Talk 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes--I support the deletion! At least I didn't not use no double negatives. -- Coneslayer 22:29, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a memorial to a departed friend. ---Isaac R 00:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 13:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Brad Hauch

Looks like vanity to me. David Johnson [T|C] 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, it seems like that to me too. (LittleDan forgot to sign)
• Delete "Looks like?" I think even Brad would agree that it is!---Isaac R 00:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. -- Egil 04:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, undergraduate vanity. Average Earthman 10:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Voting is now closed. The consensus is to delete. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia

Non notable micronation. Move to MicroWiki. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Spinboy 22:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. RickK 23:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lost interest in defending the lesser micronations from deletion. But as a compulsive nitpicker, I have to point out that one or two micronations are actually notable. Sealand for example. ---Isaac R 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, Sealand is a notable micronation indeed. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't consider Sealand a micronation, since it has a phyisical presence. RickK 21:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • A micronation can certainly have a physical presence. In fact, many if not most do. That's not we are debating here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I wasn't aware that we were debating anything. RickK 22:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • We're debating whether or not to keep this article, and why. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • You and I aren't debating that point, we're in agreement. RickK, posting from another account 66.60.159.190 16:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a notable micro. -- 8^D ^gab 00:20, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Delete this one since it is not a micro-nation that deserves an article in Wikipedia. Zscout370 01:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sealand is notable because it has a large tower in the sea and has been notable enough to spawn the odd news article which isn't of the 'send the rookie journalist to interview a loony' type. This one isn't notable at all. Average Earthman 10:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KEEP- O f course we should keep this article, I mean does it hurt Wikipeida? (unsigned from 24.181.239.120)

• Delete, but a pretty weak one. They actually seem to have a lot going on, judging from some of the web activity I've Googled. (They actually seem to be locked in some kind of virtual civil war!) I'd vote to keep the article if it contained anything of actual interest. But as long as their activities remain mysterious to outsiders, they ain't notable. ---Isaac R
  • The article used to include information that made Cyberia's activities unmysterious. That information was deleted by an admin on grounds that it did not reflect a "neutral point of view." The "virtual civil war" is well-known to the entire community at Micronations.Net. It's not really a civil war, per se. It's more that some other guy keeps putting up websites claiming to be Cyberia's legitimate web presence. (unsigned, by 66.130.8.96)
• Delete, not notable. --Dcfleck 23:06, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. None of them are notable. Master Thief Garrett 01:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've actually learned a lot of things about this micronation lately, and I have to doubt all the "loonies" we have right here when their judgments call for getting all micronations deleted. What about Sealand? What about Talossa? Wiwaxia 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think looniehood is the issue. We can judge an organization's notability without passing judgment on its self-justification. So we can decide that Sealand is notable, but that some other micronations aren't. ---Isaac R 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Micronations will stay mysterious while Wikipedia does not describe them. The article used to be more informative before Gene Poole of Atlantium decided to add to the mystery by cutting much of the article. I see that no-one's proposing the deletion of the Atlantium article. If micronations are generally not notable, then surely that rule has general application?---Alan 06:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This micronation is no more intresting or legitamite than any other micronation, and there has to be a general rule enforced, either to delete all micronations viligante-style, or let them be. Honestly I think Wikipedia is used by many people to explain intresting Internet phenomena, and having the many micronations explained gives us this service to people. If we don't seperate ourselves as a complete source for all things, then how are we the best encyclopedia on the Internet? Jan Bei

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 00:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mia Spy and Mia Starr

• Note: There's an entry for them in List of secret agents. Should be removed as well in case of deletion. Rl 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A "little known, and fairly new" comic and its star. Nn. RickK 23:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've been meaning to bring this here myself for a couple days, Google'd this in all sorts of combinations and the only results I got were for a porn star. Rx StrangeLove 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find any evidence that either are real, certainly through no lack of trying though. Does anyone have any knowledge to the contrary? Rx StrangeLove 13:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If no notability can be shown, then delete. If any evidence of notability is found, merge at Mia Spy Grutness|^hello? 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Grue 19:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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