The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 21:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Subject is daughter of VfD-nominated Joe Adams. An editor with a great affinity for William White (agitator) is adding articles about White's friends, ex-girlfriend's, and enemies. Jennifer is one of White's exes. Otherwise not notable or verifiable. No sources. Willmcw 18:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Adams is the former webmaster for the national Hammerskin website, Hammerskins.net (check the WayBack machine)
Willmcw is involved with anti-racist groups and is pursuing political motivations for deletions of critical articles. Joe Adams is a public figure. Jennifer Adams's involvement in the Hammerskin Nation is verifiable through news reports of the stabbing of two black men in Columbus, Missouri at a Denny's, and the resulting news coverage. She has also been the subject of public "research reports" on such things.
Willmcw is angry about comments made on the origin of the term "white supremacy" and editing out of material critical of his point fo view, and is pursuing personal political objectives.
Nomination to VfD regarding Joe Adams has been withdrawn by Willmcw.
I haven't found any source for the Denny's stabbing. The only source that I have found of any kind that refers to Jennifer Adams is this page of the One People's Project. However, in another edit you called their research "wildly inaccurate", so I don't know if we should pay any attention to it. [1] -Willmcw 19:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete lacks notability and this anon IP keeps on making personal attacks... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Willmcw. And besides which if this survives then all of my exes are gonna want in. hydnjotalk 20:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete who she dated/dates does not make her notable. --Etacar11 21:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In June 2001, an African American male was stabbed in a Denny's restaurant because he was in the company of a white female. Another African American male, who was also with a white female, was threatened with a knife. On the night of the incident, Steven A. Heldenbrand was arrested by the Springfield, Missouri Police Department. On February 3, 2004, Mark Thomas Kooms, Michael Shane McCormick and Michael A. Osorio were arrested by the FBI in connection with the incident. Kenneth Francis Johnson was arrested by the Belton, Missouri Police Department on February 2, 2004.
On January 21, 2004, all five subjects were indicted federally on one count each of 18, U.S.C. 241. All five subjects ultimately pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy Against Rights (Title 18, USC, Section 241). On August 2, 2004, Osorio and Kooms were sentenced to 51 months in prison while McCormick was sentenced to 24 months in prison. On August 13, 2004, Johnson was sentenced to 51 months in prison and Heldenbrand was sentenced to 32 months in prison.
Adams was detained as a witness in the case, but was later released without charges. She was scheduled to testify twice to the grand jury, refused, and was dropped as a witness when Shane McCormick confessed.
Adams is a key link between a number of white nationalist and Republican Party figures. I think the entry is important on that basis. Plus, she has been involved in publishing the webpage of the Hammerskins and did direct one of their regions, which gives her notariaty on that basis as wel.
However, I guess we can just link the Bill White bio to her father, who is now an official "keep", if people really don't want it.
However, on the yet another hand -- we now have as many hands as Kali -- the people voting in favor of willmcw, in at least one case, are friends and associates. Personal attacks have nothing to do with it, except that willmcw personally targeted all of my profiles because he doesn't like my statements on an article he contributed to. unsigned by user:68.10.35.153
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep; nominator withdrew nomination and there has not been a voter since. Zzyzx11(Talk) 06:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The subject is supposedly a "well known" mercenary who led the Contras, was later pardoned, and is now a friend of Arnold Schwarzenegger. None of this checks out and there are no references. Willmcw 18:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Once we got the name right and found a few sources there appears to be enough verifiable information about this person to keep the article. I'm going to remove the VfD tag from the article, but leave this here as it is tied in with two other VfD nominations. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Since there have been no votes, and since the subject seems have a verifiable and notable history, I am withdrawing this VfD. I hope we can get all of this info into the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's been less than two hours, so hardly surprising there haven't been any votes ;) Radiant_* 10:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KeepZzyzx11(Talk) 06:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to have been created for personal reasons, perhaps by an an editor who was personally involved with the subject. Not verifiable. Willmcw 18:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Note that I did not create the page in question, but merely added to it.
Willmcw appears to be involved with anti-racist groups (Public Eye, Chrip Berlet, anti-LaRouche groups) and has politically motivated reasons for recommending deletion, including a desire to protect one of their sources. It seems wrong to allow biased sources to dominate content on Wikipedia for personal political reasons.
Additional information on this page can be verified by multiple public sources, and I am curious as to what information Willmcw feels is "not verifiable". Specifics would help.
A short list of sources, using only mainstream and/or anti-racist information:
Marriage conducted by Matt Hale -- York Daily Record, January 13, 2002
Front page photo of Hardwick waving swastika flag at anti-Israeli demonstration -- Baltimore Sun, May 12, 2002
Hardwick as spokeswoman for White Revolution -- "Diversity festival outdraws hate rally", Indianapolis Star, August 25, 2003
I've now spent a good two hours doing this. If I wanted to write a research report on each of these people, I wouldn't have done biographical stubs.
Keep I've checked out the links and the info in the article seems to check out. Notability seems minor, at best, but we've included less notable people so this would seem to meet the threshold.Tobycat 23:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think that, to have a complete understanding of modern white nationalist politics, and particularly my Bill White bio, this entry is necessary, despite the minor notability. -- Baxter2
Comment. The article has grown considerably since nominated. Some of the sources are odd, not all of the material is NPOV, and some non-GFDL photos have appeared, but there does appear to enough verifiable info to make an article worthwhile. For the purposes of voting, I assume that User:Baxter2 is the same as the unregistered user who posted some information (but no vote) above. -Willmcw 18:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I am that user. Specific criticisms would be appreciated. Why don't you remove your delete from the article?
Specific criticisms are best dealt with in the talk page of the article. I don't feel comfortable simply removing the VfD nomination once voting has begun. However it appears that the result is likely to be "keep". Cheers, -Willmcw 21:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw has handled this properly. Once a vfd nomination has been made, even if the article is later improved or expanded to address the concerns of the nominator, the vfd process should be carried to its conclusion. -- BD2412talk 21:54, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Borderline notability. JamesBurns 07:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 21:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is already a link to this page in the external links section in the main Doctor Who article so at best, this page - which is just a description of another web page, with no notability beyond the fact that it holds a lot of reviews - is redundant. At worst, it's advertising. --khaosworks 00:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be shown that this article could be significantly expanded (in accordance with Wikipedia:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 00:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not everything worthy of mention on WP is worthy of its own article. ----Isaac R 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; already linked in the Doctor Who article. If someone really feels an urgent need, this title can redirect to that page. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I fail how else this web site is noteworthy enough to merit its own article. Zzyzx11(Talk) 02:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delele, doesn't seem noteworthy K1Bond007 05:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and Robert Smith? below for same reasoning as Khaosworks has outlined. --TimPope 06:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. 23skidoo 15:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- ?? editorial decision on whether or not to offer an external link litsing to this on a suitable DW page --Simon Cursitor 07:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 21:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
not notable person. originally I just redirected it to Doctor Who Ratings Guide but that has been VFD'd so best to VFD "Robert Smith?" also. TimPope 05:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If he's got a PhD in math, he might be notable for other reasons, but since notability is not asserted and this would not be useful as a redirect, Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 06:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability beyond editing a website can be established. 23skidoo 15:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Someone with a PhD edits a website. So? Average Earthman 16:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. Most of my friends have PhD's and they don't pass the bar either. --Etacar11 21:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Notability is not a VfD criterion. Ketsuban(is 1337) 21:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is, but it is buried a level down in the guidelines. On the VfD page "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)" is a criterion. On the WP:NOT page it says "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement". You'll find that under the heading Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base (item 6).Tobycat 00:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or, all one needs to do is look at the "-pedia" part of "wikipedia" and realize that encyclopedias do not include every fact or factoid in existence. And by the way delete. -R. fiend 06:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established.Tobycat 00:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Khaosworks (no meaningful content) --cesarb 02:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeleteVanity? or something... you decide... definetly not Wikipedia material. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Surely a candidate for speedy delete. ··gracefool |☺ 00:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete for no meaningful content or context. The subject is an actress from Land of the Lost, so not vanity. It's done. --khaosworks 00:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Khaosworks (no meaningful content) --cesarb 02:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Not vanity, but an insult page. --khaosworks 01:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
It was speedied. - BanyanTree 01:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep, and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
vanity.--Nabla 01:36, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC) Vote changed to keep.--Nabla 11:19, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Send to cleanup. Keep. This is a young actress in Zoey 101. Actually has some minimal content but needs to be cleaned up and stubbed. --khaosworks 01:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I rewrote the article to an {{actor-stub}}, removing the irrelevant content and adding {{imdb name}}. Zzyzx11(Talk) 02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good cleanup and stubbification. --Unfocused 04:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. JamesBurns 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, just added some bio, filmograpy info, and cats. Getting there. <>Who?¿? 07:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep now a good stub on actress. Well done Zzyzx11 and Who.
Keep, looks fine Everyking 03:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also think this is a really strange listing, because I don't see how anybody could think it's vanity to begin with. Here's the second sentence from the version that was VfDed: "She plays on the hit show "Zoey 101" as the ditzy, boy crazy preteen Nicole Bristow. Alexa has the same birthday as co-star Jamie Lynn Spears." Hit TV show? Co-star Jamie Lynn Spears? Doesn't sound like vanity to me. Everyking 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like you to either explain or remove your remark. Thanks.--Nabla 21:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
There's nothing to explain. The point was that you should be a little more careful in VfDing things. Apparently you didn't even read the second sentence of the article you were VfDing. Everyking 21:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well... that's all the explanation I needed. Yet I did read it, but I hope you understand that a nickleodeon show which started this year is not exactly worldwide famous, neither is Jamie Lynn Spears. Also most of the article was about a 13 year old girl who has a dog and likes to dance... Still I do agree it was a hasty nomination. Lesson learned, I hope. Thank you.--Nabla 01:05, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KeepZzyzx11(Talk) 06:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A lengthy article about a website that I don't think is really that notable. Wordy with it, and any notable information could easily be fitted within the LiveJournal article. Declaration of possible vested interest: LJ Drama (as it's correctly called) has often made a target of the furry fandom, of which I am part. Loganberry | Talk 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, vote changed to keep, but with considerable cleanup. Loganberry | Talk 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It could do with some cleanup, but LJdrama was prominent enough to cause quite a bit of a flap on LJ with its actions. Putting it in the LJ article would not really be relevant (not to mention bloaty) because it's a separate community with its own sites that just imports from and targets LJ. --khaosworks 01:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment It sounds more like internet jargon or slang. If anything, should just be added to a list of slang. The user account on livejournal has been suspended anyway. <>Who?¿? 07:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Keep it, I've heard of it lots of places. DS 16:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. LiveJournal communities are generally not notable. Almafeta 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Possibly the most notable lj community. It's not even hosted on lj. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above is fair comment... but your recent edit to the actual Ljdrama article is hardly NPOV. Loganberry | Talk 23:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If kept, needs cleaning-up -- some parts are severely POV (E.g. officially cementing LiveJournal's status as a safe haven where rapists and other convicted sexual predators could conveniently stalk new victims) --Simon Cursitor 07:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep but cleanup. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP seems like this a legitimate site that others are trying to supress. --The_stuart 15:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suppress? That's a bit of a loaded statement, isn't it? Loganberry | Talk 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While "suppress" is a bit much, and the article needs quite a makeover, it is indeed a notable site, and goes far beyond a bit of slang. Ambi 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Articles are about 1) a supposed graphic novel and 2) a supposed main character in that novel. Each gets about 5 Google hits. Both were posted by the same person who posted John Linton Roberson, the supposed author of the supposed graphic novel (that person also posted an article on the author's wife, Kelly Pillsbury, currently on VfD). Roberson's name pops up a bunch on Google, but the novel and the character barely show up at all. Smacks of vanity. In any event, not notable. Delete. -- BD2412talk 02:13, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete both. Non notable. Lack of sources. JamesBurns 05:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mergeto authors article, if created. The author has 8 published books, which could be added to works on that article, not knowing about something doens't make it non-notable. I personally don't trust google for all research, much less for books. However, I dont believe the book needs its own article at this point, unless cleaned up and provide ISBN and circulation data. <>Who?¿? 07:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll go with a merge, although I think even the author's notability is borderline. I don't trust Google for all research either, but graphic novels are very much a pop culture thing - if they're known, they're on the internet. I was unable to find an ISBN for this one, and it was "published by Bottomless Studio"[2], which appears to be the author's own company.[3] -- BD2412talk 15:19, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Merge Rick into Vitriol and Keep. Non-notability is not a VfD criterion. Ketsuban(is 1337) 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It has other issues - possible vanity (creator also posted an article on the author's non-notable wife), and lack of verifiability. -- BD2412talk 23:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete unless verifiability established. Radiant_* 10:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per JamesBurns and Radiant!. Quale 01:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable - SimonP 14:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 21:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. He created The Matrix? And here I was thinking the Wachowski Brothers had something to do with it. He's a minor production assistant on several projects. Non-notable. --khaosworks 02:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at this person's web site, he created The Matrix Special Effects Stunt Show in Universal Studios Hollywood. Zzyzx11(Talk) 02:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he created a Universal Studios-style Matrix Stunt "ride" in his garage, not at the park. [4] --khaosworks 02:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too precocious. -- BD2412talk 02:59, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete per khaosworks. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 21:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Ingoolemotalk 00:45, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Had to have a look when I saw a deadend stub with no vowels in the title. Google shows zero relevant hits. Delete. --InShaneee 02:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-verifiable. --khaosworks 03:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 68 irrelevant Google hits (unrelated pages, Wiki mirrors, or foreign language). Some fishing site copied this from Wiki; oops. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete (Note, a different bit of dubious nonsence with the same title was deleted back in November.) -- Infrogmation 04:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mergetofishing or steelhead. It is listed on Dictionary of Fishing, but its too small for its own article, however its notable to the fishing community. <>Who?¿? 07:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Fishing site is a Wikipedia mirror; the reason why they have an entry is because we have one, not because it's a real word. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 11:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Khaosworks (nonsense) --cesarb 02:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zero hits for "Yppotryl "Oakley County". All 12 hits for Yppotryl are at "Cryptozoology" sites. No relevant hits for Yppotryl remains found. From same IP as Devil dog above. Niteowlneils 04:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A joke article. See Ypotryll for the real thing. Apparently, this was deleted once before? (see previous comment's date) Delete. Emiao 03:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't this be redirected to Ypotryll to avoid recreation? Mgm|(talk) 11:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
... especially as there's now a dangling hyperlink in cryptozoology that someone will otherwise eventually try to fill in (again). I agree with MacGyverMagic. Redirect mis-spelling that people have actually made in creating articles. In fact, as the prior article has been deleted, I've been bold. Uncle G 15:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Khaosworks (advertising; includes telephone number so expedited delete.) --cesarb 02:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. --khaosworks 03:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Should be speedied in my opinion - the kid left his phone number on his first edit and who knows who might start calling that number. For his sake, get it out of here ASAP. --Barfooz(talk) 04:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the kid is stupid enough to leave his number he deserves what he gets... but on the off-chance that someone else put it up, I'll speedy it. --khaosworks 04:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Please tell me which one of the speedy delete criteria it meets. Denni☯ 19:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KeepZzyzx11(Talk) 06:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unnotable North Carolina state representative. Claim to fame is having been voted into office. Google search reveals 61 results. [5]. Note that other state houses' representatives have very few articles: check Michigan State House of Representatives for an example. Not noteworthy. Barfooz(talk) 03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep state representatives, past and present. Public figures, even those of only regional interest, are encyclopedic. Needs some major cleanup, though. I wouldn't oppose a merger into a larger article on the NC State House or state politics. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with a merger, but I can accept your criterion with some qualifications. You say public figures, but I don't think that local government figures are encyclopedia-worthy unless they have other claims to fame, or they preside over major cities (e.g., Tokyo, New York, London). Anything at the sub-unit-of-nation level (e.g., state, province) or above is reasonably noteworthy. --Barfooz(talk) 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep state reps. Also wouldn't oppose merge. --Unfocused 04:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all state reps; strongly oppose merge. The deficiency of other areas of WP is hardly a reason to avoid keeping this article. I'll give it a once-over for wikification and such. Meelar(talk) 05:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable state representative. Klonimus 21:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on a scheme for organizing information about USA state reps and senators, doing it by district rather than by politician, which will allow for historical info and discourage vanity. I believe a similar thing was done recently for legislative divisions in Canada. Naturally, I'm starting with my home state and district. Rough first draft here. Let me know what you think. (I just need to find a good resource for maps that go down to the township level...) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
No vote but note that all members of the 2003-2004 North Carolina General Assembly (House and Senate) have stub articles about them; unfortunately, the user who contributed them has not yet updated them to reflect whether these people are still in office in 2005, which is an inherent problem with this type of article. If all members of all state legislatures (and that would imply members of all comparable sub-national legislative bodies in other countries), past and present, are considered encyclopedic, we are talking about adding tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of additional articles to Wikipedia. Russ Blau(talk) 14:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Why is non-updating stubs on elected representatives an inherent problem? If information is missing from an article, this "problem" can be "solved" by editing the article. This applies to all biographical articles. It's a Wiki, folks!--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment As one way of avoiding the Is this person still in office? Has this page ever been updated? problem while still making information available on state (or equivalent) legislators (which is undoubtedly encyclopedic) how about a page with links to the member information which I suspect all state legislatures maintain. I'm not volunteering to do that now but maybe in the future if someone doesn't beat me to it. -EDM 17:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Remind me, why was this article on a representative in the North Carolina General Assembly listed for deletion? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If so few members of the Michigan State House of Representatives have articles of their own, perhaps someone should get to work on that. --PHenry 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Member of legislative body. Capitalistroadster 07:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:46, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Even less notable than Bryan R. Holloway (he lost the election against him). Not noteworthy. Barfooz(talk) 03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No elected office. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Could be mentioned in the Bryan R. Holloway article, but isn't notable otherwise. --Unfocused 04:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; losing candidates for national legislatures are encyclopedic, as are winning state reps, but the union of the two sets is the line for me. Meelar(talk) 05:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Having worked on the United Kingdom General Election results recently, I disagree. There are an awful lot of losing candidates for national legislatures, I suspect more than you think. See some of the candidates listed in Newbury (UK Parliament constituency), for example. Would you really have an encyclopaedia article on someone whose sole claim to fame would be that 49 people (out of 57,399) voted for them in 1993? If the only thing (apart from raw genealogy data) that can be said of someone is that they ran for national-level political office and lost, that doesn't warrant an encyclopaedia biography article — unless, of course, they lost repeatedly in a deliberate and spectacular fashion, and gained notoriety for exactly that. This person ran for state-level office and lost, of course. Delete. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Should have qualified that, my mistake--major party candidates are notable. Obviously, some college student running under the Pimpz 'n Thugz Party is not. Meelar(talk) 19:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, vanity. And overuse of boldness. --Etacar11 21:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I agree that simply losing an election does not establish notability. Indeed, I've argued as much here and here. Alas, I was shot down both times. But this time poor Mr. Mitchell seems to be destined for deletion! The only difference I can see is that he ran for office in the U.S. and the other guys ran for office in Canada and the U.K. Could it be that unsuccessful U.S. politicians are less notable than unsuccessful politicians in other countries? ----Isaac R 02:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's way too many failed politicians in America lol. It's too big.
Delete - Definately non-notable. I've added his name to Bryan R. Holloway in case anyone wanted to know. Celestianpower 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable. Joolz 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:35, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 04:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete just someones imagination. Unverified. --Etacar11 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Outer Banks. Ingoolemotalk 00:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
At the very least this needs merging with Outer Banks - it's not enough to stand on its own. I don't know enough about the local advertising, but it may be that even merging is giving it too much. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Outer Banks. --khaosworks 04:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I second khaosworks' suggestion. Merge and redirect to Outer Banks. There's an interesting little blurb on this topic at License plate#Imitation International codes; I added the part that mentioned the usage of OBX in the Outer Banks. Dale Arnett 06:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:42, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
First and only edit. Possible sockpuppet? Besides, just because N-Insanity exists still doesn't mean Selvakumar is notable. --khaosworks 05:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 16-year-old vanity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 21:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Despite the details, and "quote," googling various combos of "Trevor Mark," "Shattered Faith" and "Shaak" turn up no existence of this supposed novel. Unless the author's name and/or book's name has been seriously mangled, I don't think this novel exists.MakeRocketGoNow 04:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete don't trust google book results, however I searched every other db, and got nothing. non-verifable. <>Who?¿? 07:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Possible keep I swear I've heard of this before. Unless I read it here and that's where the memory comes from. Yeah, possibly the title/author are wrong. I will do some checking. --Etacar11 21:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Make that Delete, I can't find anything on it or the author either. Weird. I must be just remembering it from seeing it on Wiki and Wiki mirrors. (It's mentioned in the Titan article too) --Etacar11 23:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Searches of SF sites, book sellers, the web in general find nothing on this guy, even on variants of his name (i.e. Marks instead of Mark). Searches using the title or some of the content in the article produce zilch.Tobycat 00:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Shattered Faith is a song by Bad Religion. A non-Notable B-Side at that. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Ingoolemotalk 00:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Delete prank/vanity. --Etacar11 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:51, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notability is a de facto criteria--probably the number one reason articles get deleted. Also, Wikipedia:Importance, and "Zachary Soza" footloose ren=zero hits=UNverifiable. Niteowlneils 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Liquid Tension Experiment. It seems to me clear that the band is notable (64,000+ hits on google for "Liquid Tension Experiment"). The album certainly deserves to be covered and should not be deleted. If you want to merge it with the band page, I guess that is OK but it should really be kept as a separate article and cleaned up with the album format. see WP:ALBUMS. DS1953 06:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If kept I recommend a rename to Liquid Tension Experiment (album) according to naming policy. If the mentioned links are relevant to the band I'd say this deserves an article. Keep or merge (rename first, so redirecting is possible). Mgm|(talk) 11:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: Hm, we seem to have two different albums by the same name. Can anyone clarify why this is the case. Maybe we need to disambiguate using (1998 album) and (1999 album) instead. Mgm|(talk) 11:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are two albums, so you have the band, album # and album #2 all with the same name except that the second album has a "2" in the name. DS1953 13:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep rename and expand. There seems to be some interest in this album. Capitalistroadster 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I added much more album info, and will do the same for their first album. If needed I'll add more to the article about the band to distinguish the pages. I'm new, so I'm not knowledgeable on all the processes here, so let me know what needs to be changed. LTE is linked to from the Dream Theater site, and is somewhat historic to the band. They occasionally play some of the tracks live today. Justabaldguy 00:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Change my vote to Keep. Adequately cleaned up. Andrew pmk 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keepSjakkalle(Check!) 11:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Granted they are new, but they seem to be on the radar of all the major comics sites on the web (even some in Europe) and have a physical presence at many shows, including LA and New York. They seem notable to me on that basis. DS1953 05:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - agree with the user above. Djadek 10:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. New but notable. 23skidoo 20:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 03:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page noted by Andrew was the first cut. More information has been added on the film. It's an important and popular film in Malayalam, from the state of Kerala, India. 66.74.197.42 05:37, 2005 Jun 4 (according to edit history. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC))
Keep. The page has much more information than the IMDb article, though, so it's impossible to verify. Nevertheless I'm going to assume good faith and not wonder whether the author found an obscure movie name at IMDb and then made up a plot and a cult following for it. --Angr/tɔktəmi 05:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I checked a couple of South Indian cinema forums, and it seems to be a big deal. Hornplease 06:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but expand: Possibly popular south indian movie, but article needs to be expanded and cleaned up. --Ragib 05:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemotalk 00:53, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Not notable. There were a number of hits for that name on Google but only a few were him. Apparently the article says it all there is to say. See [7]DS1953 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and lack of notabilityTobycat 00:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
POV, original research. RickK 05:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per RickK -- Dvyost 14:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete all articles about individual Bible verses, especially POV ones. — JIP | Talk 16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this is not an article on a verse but an important and highly influential biblical chapter (in literature, art and theology). Yes, it is/was highly POV (I’ve done a quick basic clean-up). But tell me is POV content now a reason for deletion rather than clean-up??? There is nothing POV in the title or existence of the subject matter. --Doc(?) 17:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Blasphemy and abomination. However you cleanup, it is still POV, unless you present the opinions of reputable theologists, not suspicious wikipedians. mikka(t) 21:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but this still goes to content, and not to the suitability of the subject for an article - is it thus a grounds to delete rather than rewrite?? --Doc(?) 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable Bible Chapter. Individual verses need articles too. Klonimus 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Individual selections from the Bible can be notable in their own right. As explained in the article, this chapter distinguishes itself as the source of notable themes in Christology, Christian art, memorials, and trinitarian theology. As encyclopledic explications of Biblical passages go, this is actually not bad. Dystopos 21:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When they don't source material in them, articles about important bible verses should be kept. Mgm|(talk) 23:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as article is original research. Kel-nage 23:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete no individual articles for Bible verses! Please! Revolución 23:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Highly encyclopedic. The Christian Bible is among the world's most influential books. Articles on its content are very relevant. If the content itself needs improvement or POV correction, then it should go through a cleanup process, not the VfD process. There's tons of potential analytical, historical, and sociological content for every chapter of the bible (and the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Tao Te Ching, Book of Mormon etc. I'm truly baffled by those that want to avoid religious content on Wikipedia. Ironically, I'm an atheist. Tobycat 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 03:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - User:Doc glasgow has drastically improved the article since it was first nominated. I see neither POV problems nor original research in the current version. As mentioned before, POV and original research are problematic, but are not cause for deletion. Deletion is for articles with no prospect for becoming encyclopedic. Blanket votes against individual chapter or verse articles should address that question alone. This article is a decent example of why particular passages can be notable in their own right. Dystopos 03:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Perfectly fine article. I fail to see what's POV about it. --Fazdeconta 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You don't see anything POV about John 15 is a chapter in the book of John, found in the Holy Bible- the source of pure Christian teaching. and 1) the greatest command: "Love each other as I have loved you." (vss 12, 17) and 6) Jesus' promise to give us what we ask for (in his name- meaning that what we ask for would be inspired by him) when we cling to him and obey his command to love each other. (vss 7, 8, 16)? RickK 22:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
NB that was in the article before clean-up - since removed as POV material --Doc(?) 22:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 07:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True, but Fazdeconta doesn't seem to understand why the article was initially listed here. RickK 04:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the cleaned up version. Incidentally, for all of you voting "no bible verses", I agree with you, but this is a chapter. That's a slight difference. --Scimitar 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep now that it's been cleaned up. I also somewhat agree with Scimitar's above comment. JYolkowski // talk 20:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This has been here since February, once went through VfD, survived the VfD, and still consists of almost nothing but red links. RickK 06:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As Rick said it already survived VfD once... the same arguments still apply. In addition to that, many links wouldn't be red if there wouldn't be fear of being deleted in 20 seconds of being created, articles have the instinct of self preservation also, you know? Beta m (talk)
Keep. I just expanded it to include all 50 states and DC. One problem with the original page was that the few articles there were were called "High schools in XXX", instead of "List of high schools in XXX". A quick count tells me that the ratio of live links to red links is about 50:50. Dale Arnett 06:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lets abide by the decision to keep with my suggestion that it would seem a better use of time to instead concentrate on other articles that may, or may not, be in need of deletion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes things are kept with the assumption that they will improve "organically", if that doesn't happen it can be reasonable to re-nominate. Kappa 08:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If none of the people who voted keep the last time around did anything to make this page an encyclopedic page, and it just sits there with nothing in it but red links for four months, then it deserves to be re-VfD'd. RickK 08:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have promissed myself to keep away from high school articles but, really, do we need lists of lists of lists of lists? IMHO, it is kinda ridiculous... Sarg 09:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replace with categorisation. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Usually, I'd reply we can have both lists and categories and that they serve different purposes. Unfortunately, I can't see what this list adds a category can't. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A list can show redlinks, a category can't. There may be an argument for deletion when there are no more redlinks (as one would remove the framework upon which an arch is built when the keystone is in place). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A category can include to-do lists of redlinks on its category page or on its talk page. This is not exactly an unknown practice. My comments from the previous VFD stand. Delete in favour of categorizing the individual lists into Category:Lists of schools, and make use of the (currently blank) category page and its (currently non-existent) talk page for recording work yet to be done. Uncle G 16:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Comment What's the big deal with having a list of lists? Is the presence of this perfectly good article actually doing any harm to Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you think that lists of lists containing redlinks are "good articles", which they are not (You yourself described this as a "framework", effectively no more than a to-do list sub-page of a Wikiproject that has been put into the wrong namespace.), then I suggest that you argue with the authors of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_lists, who write "On lists of lists, nonexistant lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red).". Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
I have no argument with the authors of any Wikipedia document, but observe that the document that you cite also incorrectly states that lists of lists are obsolete. If something is wrong it's wrong. I don't need to argue with it, just go on ignoring it like everybody else does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first half of your sentence is belied by its own second half. You patently do have an argument. You are claiming that what they wrote is incorrect. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
No, I'm happy to live and let live. The document can continue to exist and I will continue to ignore it where my commonsense says there's a better way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, categories full of lists are incredibly ugly (like Category:Lists of schools, and this list can be edited without using a bot. Also someone may wish to annotate it, for instance to include the number of schools in each state. Kappa 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I find the assertion that the category is "incredibly ugly", whereas the list is (by implication) not, to be rather bizarre, given that the only significant differences between the two right now are the number of columns and the greater breadth of the category. (It's indicative of the way in which the category is better that for months, up until this article was nominated for deletion, it had only 10 states listed, whereas Category:Lists of schools had grown as new articles were added and had 27 states listed.) Moreover, if people wished to annotate this list of lists, they would have, in the months that this list of lists has lain fallow. They haven't. Instead, they've have in fact added such data to the individual list pages, as you yourself did to List of high schools in Alabama. I strongly suspect that readers are more likely to expect a table of the total number of schools in each state somewhere such as Education in the United States, or somewhere referenced from there. I think it unlikely that they will think that this list of lists will be the place to look for such a hypothetical table, or even that this list of lists even exists. Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Convert into a category, with subcategories (e.g. schools in particular geographic areas) for simplicity. ~~~~ 17:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and live and let live while we're at it. sjorford→•← 21:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This has the combined notablitly of each of the listed school. Klonimus 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would be zero, then, given that there are no schools listed in the article. It's not a list of schools. It's a list of lists. Please actually read the article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Delete. In my opinion, nearly all high schools in the United States fail to qualify for mention on WP for lack of notability. There was a similar debate when List of shopping malls came up on VfD a while back and the consensus was to limit to notable malls. But then we have had a big fight over what is a notable mall. Deciding what is a notable high school would be even harder. --Coolcaesar 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria for schools don't apply directly to this article. It's not a list of schools. It's a list of lists. Please actually read the article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep, I see nothing wrong with the list, one advantage of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia/almanac is that we don't have space contraints. Surely with effort being used in even less appropriate places, we can stand to keep this article. Where is the harm in it?--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, that's the same question sometimes asked by the writers of vanity or neologism pages. Now ask: Where's the benefit in it? What purpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? It's obviously not development, for starters, given that 25 of the 27 per-state list articles weren't even listed here until this article was nominated for deletion. Development appears to have progressed just fine without reference to this article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: your point is that if we follow the rules concerning vanity articles then my comments are irrelevant? I suppose if it actually were a vanity article...the fact is that many school district articles are beginning to appear in Wikipedia. This is a great crossreference list. It actually is serving a niche purpose. Let's not be in a hurry to tear it down just yet.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
No. The first point is that "Where is the harm in it?" is the question often asked by those who don't understand that what we are writing here is an encyclopaedia. And the second point, a question that you have not answered, was to ask what purpose of lists this list of lists fulfils. Furthermore: False. This is not a "great cross-reference" list. The "cross-reference list" was, and is, Category:Lists of schools, which is being actively maintained whilst this article is not. The fact that Category:Lists of schools listed all of the school list articles whilst this article did not speaks for itself. If you are going to assert that this list "serves a niche purpose", please answer the question. Whatpurpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
It's not actively being maintained? I think we need to delete half of the articles on Wikipedia then. That is not a criteria for deletion. The purpose is a place for the lists to be linked to (for instance, Education in the United States can't link to each list, but this list of lists is relevant to the article; a category is unlikely to be found by someone not familiar with Wikipedia, making it a less than ideal choice.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's not actively being maintained, whilst the pre-existing category of lists, being a category, is being automatically maintained by the software. And again you state a purpose for this list that the pre-existing category can, and does, accomplish. Are you under some confused misapprehension that Education in the United States cannot link to a category page? It most certainly can, and does. Furthermore categories can be easily found if editors don't use your brand of circular logic: "We don't link to categories, therefore categories cannot be easily found, therefore we don't link to categories.". Uncle G 08:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Oh yes, and its maintained so well. I wonder why so many of the lists fall under "U"? Maybe I'm just seeing things then. Automation is not the key. Then there's List of schools in Australia, which is under "*". Very effective.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Very effective and organized with the knowledge that there are many countries in the world, even. The United States lists of schools fall under "U" because "United States" (and hence "United States, Arkansas", for example) begins with "U". Did you think that the United States was the only country that had schools? You make my point for me. Uncle G 03:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Unfortunately nobody's first instinct is to look for Texas under "U". It isn't a list by country and then states, it is Category:Lists of schools. Nothing in the title says by country. And you still can't explain why Australia is under "*" (edit: Oh, and Hong Kong is under "H", and Hong Kong is a city). It's okay, but it leaves the impression of disorganization. And yes I understand the different country lists. Also, on a side note, what is the automative feature called that does this automatically?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a perfect example of a subject area where list and categories complement each other usefully. And as for four months! Please be patient. Wikipedia isn't working to a deadline. Oliver Chettle 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how to respond to this comment. I am flabbergasted. We're supposed to leave absolutely ridiculous articles lying around forever on the off chance that somebody some day may do something with it? RickK 21:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
It's not an example of that at all. This list of lists provides nothing that the category of lists, which existed for months before the list of lists was even created, does not. There is demonstrably nothing useful in this list of lists. The fact that the only expansion to it when this nomination was made was to populate it so that it listed everything already listed in the category, speaks volumes. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Keep As has been said before, what harm does it do? This is obviously not a spam article or a vanity article of any kind. You 21:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neither was 11111 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/11111). "What harm does it do?" is the wrong question. We're not writing The Big Book of Harmless Link Farms. We're writing an encyclopaedia. Our list articles have to serve a purpose. We have a defined set of such purposes of lists. So far, no-one has put forward any purpose whatever for this list of lists. And I suspect that no-one can given that we already had a category of lists that was better than this list of lists, and can do everything that this article does and everything that it is claimed this article can do. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated both by Beta M and Rick K. --Bahn Mi 22:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for reasons stated by Rick.--Centauri 04:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, far too broad. We already have lists for individual states and such. Radiant_* 10:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
How would I find a list for an individual state? 10:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs)
By looking at Category:Lists of schools, the list of articles that the MediaWiki software automatically generates (without the need to manually create and edit a list article), and that already existed at the time that this manual list of articles was first created. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Delete. List of lists of redlinks. Let it burn. --Scimitar 14:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. RickK, Uncle G and others are correct. Categories serve this purpose better. Quale 15:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a useful research tool, and there are plenty of other similar lists on Wikipedia. --newsjunkie 15:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Or, create an article on school directories and sources of school information like www.greatschools.net make this redirect to it. This is not a useful research tool, because the lists are maintained by hand and are grossly incomplete. Incomplete lists are worse than useless when very accurate, up-to-date lists of this kind can be obtained online at no cost at sites like http://www.greatschools.net. Finally, although there is no consensus regarding what should be done with articles about non-notable high schools once they have been created, there is a rough consensus that the creation of such articles should not be encouraged, so redlinks to schools that serve no other purpose should be avoided. Dpbsmith(talk) 10:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'keep this again please it is helpful Yuckfoo 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was: merged & deleted, by author's request; see WP:CSD
A list with one member. Not encyclopedic. Unless you want me to put my nieces and nephew on there, too. I'm not even so sure the individual who's already there is particularly notable, most of the information in the article is of the "supposedly" variety. RickK 06:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into homeschool. I am the creator of the page, can we change this to speedy delete? --NectarflowedT 08:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge a list of notable homeschooled individuals (eg the kid who wrote Eragon) might be worthwhile, but this looks like it's mostly duplicate contet. Nateji77 10:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into homeschool as a list of notable homeschooled individuals. Zzyzx11(Talk) 10:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge it and provide some basic info in this list why the individuals listed are notable for easy identification. Mgm|(talk) 11:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REMOVE content with PREJUDICE, RESTORE uncontested former content Jerzy·t 19:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A question of notability - no allmusic.com or artistdirect.com entry. No albums. Possible vanity/self-promotion. Nicholas Stern + musician turns up 15 Google hits some of which are not related, [8]. JamesBurns 06:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity promo. --Etacar11 22:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how to vote on this thing, but Nicholas Stern did not write this. I'm not exactly sure how to prove that, but there are plenty of outsider artists that have no albums that would'nt be found on either of those sites you mentioned. I was adding this to the growing list of outsider artists, not trying to promote someone, whom I'm assuming doesnt even wan't to do music anymore. If you were to delete this article on those grounds, it would only be fair that you delete Shooby Taylor as well. Only it can basically be proven that his was not a vanity page as he is dead. Also I think you would have better luck in the searches if you looked up: Nicholas Stern+Slapshot Rock as this was his most recognized song. (comment by Aubin)
I only get 7 hits on the above search. Considering that one of them calls him "not-so-famous", it's still a question of notability. --Etacar11 22:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again however fame is relative. He is famous in the outsider world as is Shooby Taylor but he obviously isnt on MTV. I did'nt know that fame was the prerequisite for being on Wikipedia. After all if everything on here was famous, there would be no point in posting something. (comment by Aubin)
But Shooby Taylor gets thousands of hits when you search on his name. Yes, fame is relative. --Etacar11 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Shooby was included in the first wave of Outsider interest sparked by Irwin Chusid's book "The key of Z". I guess if we're talking amount of hits on websites to justify being on Wikipedia, whoever is typing has got me beat, however I don't see how this justifies not keeping an article on especially from the prior reasoning of "not having an album" which has now been replaced by "Does not have a lot of hits when searched for". I may have misunderstood but were you being sarcastic when you reitterated that fame is relative? (comment by Aubin)
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just pointing out a comparison between the two. All I'm sayingn is that Shooby Taylor seems more notable. WP:MUSIC has some guidelines on notability for musicians. To me, it seems like Shooby passes. Nicholas Stern doesn't. (This is all just my opinion, of course) By the way, sign your comments with four tildes (this char: ~). --Etacar11 23:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I mean it would be really hard for Shooby Taylor to legitimately live up to those standards with the exceptions of websites. Nicholas Stern was at one point featured prominently amongst a lot of the outsider pages such as "worst of the worst" and "Incorrect Music" and is still featured in the Outsider Music Group. I mean if this is going to be a standard, you have to put up notice that says "You must have X amount of hits in order to qualify to be on Wikipedia before you can post." Also would it make a difference in fame if I mentioned the fact that Steve Pascuito did some sidework on some 90's television shows as a stand-in and extra? Which is the case.
Del, sort of. This is overdue to be called, and no one has mentioned that the article was created by removing long-standing content on the real Nicholas Stern, and turning his lks into false lks. It doesn't seem worth going thru the motions of deleting just to restore the old one, so i am calling this VfD & construing the result as "remove all mention of the non-notable one, with prejudice, and revert to the version that made no mention of him." ("With prejudice" means in this case that any article restoring essentially the same content under a different title would be speedy-deletable.)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 15:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Florence Paulene Hendricks" gets zero Google hits. "Polly Hendricks" get 54 unique Google hits, most of them to genealogy sites. "Polly Hendricks" +multimedia gets one Google hit. "Polly Hendricks" +Chuck gets four Google hits, three of them to genealogy sites and one to someone who isn't this person. RickK 08:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was userfy --cesarb 13:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I originally speedied this as it only consisted on a single line, but now the author has added more info. However, it is still vanity. I suggest a deletion or userfy. Sarg 08:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy is a good solution, since the user doesn't currently have a user page. Quale 09:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If User:Shahrooz wants to userfy, that's ideal. otherwise delete.Nateji77 09:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy or delete, unless they've done something remarkable, students usually don't get encyclopedia articles. Mgm|(talk) 11:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Main claim for fame is him being a "film producer" as can be seen in an contribution by the same anonymous editor at December 26, but neither Google nor the IMDb have heard of him. -- Eugene van der Pijll 09:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. it states that he hung out in pools as a child, but doesnt bother to name any of the films he's produced. Nateji77 09:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should at least be on IMDB before being on WP. Zzyzx11(Talk) 10:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
no, it shouldnt. if you submit to IMDb and wikipedia at the same time, the submission will display here instantly, but will have to wait to be reviewed by an editor at IMDb, which sometimes takes several weeks. but if he was submitted to IMDb, that submission would have to include names of his films, which this article doesnt yet do. Nateji77 10:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, my original arguement may be flawed. But I still say delete since Google has not heard of him either. Zzyzx11(Talk) 20:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Your argument is tantamount to saying that it's all right to accept unverifiable material because that pesky process of getting something known outside of Wikipedia takes so gosh-darned long. That's false. It's not all right. Uncle G 05:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
"teamed up with a proven veteran" again unnamed. Sure, we don't need IMDB per se, but it would help greatly with verifying. Delete as being unverifiable. Mgm|(talk) 11:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. If he's been in the film biz for a while (and not just several weeks as per their turn around time ;) ), you'd think he'd be in IMDB. --Etacar11 22:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Notability not established. Certainly the illustrious Mr. Sharon can wait for inclusion until he develops some credits on the IMDb. carmeld1 21:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
promo. nothing here, including the ex link, that wouldnt be more appropriate in an article on Anime conventions. Nateji77 10:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Searching the web shows it to be a real event with an established history of annual gatherings. There were over 4,000 references to it. Granted, that's not a high number but what I found interesting was that there were very few overlapping domains. That tells me that there is genuine chatter between attendees and fans about this event. I would change my vote to Redirect if there was an Anime conventions article already.Tobycat 00:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notanbility not established & promo. JamesBurns 03:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 14:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
1.I have no finished education
2.I'll never have a job
3.I am too fucked up to finish me education
4.I want to to drugs really bad but I'm to afraid to do them anymore cause I'll end up in the hospital with doctors yelling at me again
5.I want to be loved so bad but I'm not
6.I lost Kenny
7.I am going nowhere in life
For the sake of myself and others I would be better off dead. I only wish I knew how to do it right, and I wish I had the guts to do it. I just have to get out of this this is all too much for me. I can't stop crying anymore, I just can't stop.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
The Church of Reality ironically doesn't appear to exist within the realm of reality. it appears to be someone's idea of a joke religion, that isn't very funny. 3,300 google hits, mostly on infidel message boards and the like, and it is POV. Dunc|☺ 10:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly just one man trying to get tax exempt status. Jimbobsween
Delete. I think the guy is probably San Francisco-earnest, but I don't think he's gotten enough attention to be notable yet (i.e. like the Church of the Subgenius), and Wikipedia is not a place to promote something not-yet-notable. The user who created this seems to be the same fellow who founded the religion, never a good sign (see the talk page).--Fastfission 14:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The Church of Reality has existed for 7 years, it returns 2610 hits on Google and has been granted a registered trademark by the United States. This is just an attempt by Christians to suppress competition. These same people are attaching anything relating to the Church of Reality See also: doubt based --Marcperkel 15:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not religious in the least, so you needn't worry about that being a motivation (I was actually quite active in the Bay Area freethought communities when I lived out there). I have here a page from your blog which says that the Chuch was about to launch in December 2004, and another from July 2004 saying you were still working on its "doctrine", so claiming it has existed for "7 years" seems like a bit of a stretch. Most of the Google hits are either a few bloggers saying "huh?" or things that you seem to have posted yourself to open directories. Trademark status means nothing other than that you filled out a form. We're not "attacking" anything, we just don't think it conforms to Wikipedia inclusion requirements. No need to get paranoid. --Fastfission 16:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you do a whois on the domain churchofreality.org and you'll see it was created on 11/08/1998. You can also search archive.org and see old versions of the web site. In the Church of Reality we are always working on our doctrine. --Marcperkel 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Under what standard is it "established" except that a guy has self-promoted it on the internet, has made a website for it, and has registered its name as a trademark? None of those things make it very "Established" in my mind. If you look at the sites linking to his website, none give the impression that this is a phenomena nearly as well-known or notable as Landover Baptist. This looks like just one guy to me. --Fastfission 16:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And you looked at all 2610 Google references and came to that conclusion? I was interviewed on Air America Radio by Mike Malloy who did a spacial show on the Church of Reality. What does it take to prove to you that it is big enough for your tastes?--Marcperkel 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement and use of the Wikipedia for promotion or gain of notability. --Sn0wflake 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And when we advertise Wikipedia for gain of notability, it's not ok? I've been an active member of the IBS Self Help group and I posted an promotional offer to the Church of Reality in two places: Church of Reality - my way of life and Invitation to the Church of Reality. Ironically I link to Wikipedia for promotion and gain of notability. So what I'm doing is not kewl eh? --Tommynchucky
Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Doubt based. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is a precedent that 1430 google hits are sufficient for an article to be noteworthy. ~~~~ 17:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's no hard-and-fast line on Google hits - it's just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at the main site itself, and at some of the links Google comes up with, it seems that it has made some waves in a variety of places. It needs severe cleanup - "we believe" has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm hesitant to vote for something that has generated so many sockpuppets (mostly on the votes below so far), but I'm going weak keep. ESkog 17:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But there's also the issue of the quality of those hits. As it stands, most of those hits are just messages he's left on message boards all over the web. It's a tactic that gets ultra-vain Shawn Mikula 78,000 hits. By comparison Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) gets 7,000 hits but many from different sources. Dunc|☺ 18:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. On the surface level, the Church of Reality appears Discordian but if you examine it is a serious competitor to the marketplace of religion. I am a member and am also a secular humanist. What makes it different is that has a different leadership. It is a memetic splinter off of it. A similar thing happened when the Secular Student Alliance branched out of the Campus Freethought Alliance (under the direction of the Council for Secular Humanism). The SSA wanted to be autonomous and many of the members have dual involvement. Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 2:43 EST
A sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Where is your evidence that I'm posting under multiple usernames? Do you have proof of IP logins from any of the admins? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 3:15 EST
Gosh, you know a lot for a complete newcomer. But then, your first and only edits were here, so you're very special kind of newcomer... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion "It is difficult to tell sock puppets from newcomers. If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front, and please don't become offended if another Wikipedian points out your lack of editing history." I am a newbie. Capishe? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 5:10
Quoting from the top of this very page: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm a member of this religion, and although unusual as far as religions go, it is certainly very real.
Keep Their are actual hits, and while it is not very notable their is info on the church and the webpage is developed. I don't believe someone would put that much work into the webpage if the church didn't exist. Falphin 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 20:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, advertising. —Xezbeth 20:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Use of wikipedia as advertising; sockpuppet abuse. — Asbestos | Talk 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The raw number of Google hits can be instructive but alone it can just mean that someone has been agressivley posting links on blogs and forums, sending out press releases that are automatically picked up on some web sites, submitting listings to various directories, etc... That is what this looks like to me. No real third party comentary or other validation that I could see. One person can get a couple of friends together call it a religion - that is exercising freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc... However, it should have some broad support before it gets an article in Wikipedia. If 10 people form a local club in S.F., I'll bet it would be deleted. If 10 people with common beliefs call themselves a religion, I don't see how the group is any more encyclopedic. DS1953 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This seems like an attempt at promotion. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Paul August ☎ 20:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. no notability presented mikka(t) 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - significance not yet verified, self-promotion --Doc(?) 22:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this. — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth. The only member of this purported church appears to be Marc Perkel. The only evidence of its existence stems from that same, single, central source, either from his own vast flood of web log postings and discussion forum contributions, or from other people simply citing the several web sites that he created and owns (perkel.com, churchofreality.org, and bartcop.com, for starters). Marc Perkel doesn't seem to be lacking the ability to create his own soapboxes. Looking at the discussions that Tommynchucky points to above (where the tag team is exactly the same as it is here), people seem to be ignoring what he cries from atop them, rather than joining his purported church. The other two purported members of the purported church's "Council of Realists" are strangely quiet about the entire thing, too. One doesn't even need to read the "Tithing" section of the purported church's "Fundamental Concepts", where it says "I am a person who has unusual mental talents. I think science should study me to see what it is about me that gives me my unusual mental abilities." to know that this is a religion of 1 adherent. And now we have these articles submitted here by User:Marcperkel. Unverifiable to the point of autobiography; and of course Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Delete. Uncle G 22:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete vanity, ad, self-promotion. And I'm agnostic. --Etacar11 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have heard of this before, so that established notability for me. Revolución 23:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see nobody has attacked this vote, though they're more than willing to attack other people by putting up the strawman argument that their vote is "I haven't heard of it, so it must not be notable." RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting a new religion or a place to attempt establishment of new concepts.Tobycat 00:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't understand the arguments for deletion. They are primarily "vanity" and lack of "notability". It seems that the argument from vanity would imply that if I, someone who is on the emailing list for the church, wrote this thing then it wouldnt be vain and it would be acceptable. And the argument from notability would imply some objective standard of notability, which there is not. Those arguing from notability are just declaring their own ignorance. And those arguing from vanity are just arguing their own contempt. It is just an article about a very real existing church, one that is obtaining IRS status, and one that has a very sympathetic membership. Delete it now, it will be back later, perhaps written by someone notable and not so vain.By the way I am not a "sockpuppet" but I am a new user with no notoriety. And I only know this this article because I am on the CoR mailing list, which says something about how known it is.--Asklocus 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well if we do delete it now and it does come back latter, because it has become more well known … well that's the way it's supposed to work. But — it is no part of our mission to help it become more well known. Paul August ☎ 02:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the Universist Movement is getting the same sentiment for this entry as this one. They have a discussion here with references. They are more notable than the CoR and have gotten publicity in a relatively short period of time. I guess even an article in the New York Times is still not good enough. Also interestingly enough there is an entry for Bright which was started in 2003, and they seem less notable then the Universists. There is overlap in principles in these groups. What is notable is that Starblind and other made the allegation of sockpuppetry without providing any evidence in these talk pages Talk:Universism, Talk:Universist_Movement, Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/Universist_Movement -- Tommynchucky June 05, 2005 1:45AM EST
Tommynchucky, If you are not a sockpuppet — and I see no proof that you are — then I'm sorry, and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia, for those who are calling you one. For the record, I don't see Starblind (explicitly) calling you a sockpuppet, it was user Duncharris, who did that, although others have (naturally enough) expressed their suspicions about a new user with no previous edits. Nevertheless, it is a well-respected Wikipedian practice to assume good faith, and we may have fallen short of that here. In any case, as Starblind pointed out it is our policy to listen and consider the comments of new users, but, in our efforts to reach a consensus, we sometimes give less weight to their votes. Paul August ☎ 15:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
User:Asklocus's only edits are to this page. RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Popular religion for sockpuppets and no evidence of notability for humans. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, seems to be vanity. Martg76 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep I don't even know what a sockpuppet is but I am a human and I am not one. I am the original author and as you can see several church members have verified it is real and notable. I acknowledge how some might think it's self promoting because the founder, me, is the one making the entry. However, who knows it better than I do? Would Bill Gates be prohibited from writing about Microsoft? The membership and the thousands of Google hits and the 7 years of existence make it real enough to keep. --Marcperkel 22:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've edited "strong keep" into "comment" as you've already voted above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not verified. carmeld1 23:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and nonnotable. --Angr/tɔktəmi 05:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No references other than the home site. Quale 02:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Pro Christian dominionists want to suppress the competition and are trying to use censorship to oppress the CoR like they did the Universalists. --Marcperkel 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no evidence it's real, and the irony is too feeble to be funny. seglea 18:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Marcperkel is a serious contributer - he seems to have done nothing on Wiki other than promote this piece of vanity. seglea
Delete There may be a number of Google hits, but I don't think they refer to this same "church." It seems to be a one man religion at this point. --Xcali 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete--Wikipedia:Autobiography--Mark Perkel registered churchofreality.org and is initial/primary author of Church of Reality and related. Also "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." from the new-article edit page. Niteowlneils 21:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Church of Reality has thousands of members and thousands of links to it on google.--Marcperkel 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke. There shoudl be option Move to unencyclopedia available. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, not notable, not verifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
The central dogma of the Church of Reality, (also on vfd). It is also nonsense since evolution does not entail progress. Dunc|☺ 10:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At first I thought it was just going to need to be a redirect to either eugenics or orthogenesis, but then I saw it was just tied up in this Church of Reality nonsense and didn't seem well formulated at all. Prefer to just delete for simplicity's sake. --Fastfission 14:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or at the very least Merge back to the Church of Reality. NO need for both articles. Guettarda 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Paul August ☎ 21:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism.mikka(t) 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with the Church. Same reasons. --Etacar11 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Widipedia is not an appropriate place to establish new words/concepts/ideologies. Tobycat 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into the church article. I voted keep for the church but this isn't notable. Falphin 17:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. carmeld1 23:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Even if it wasn't a doctrine from a one man church, there's no reason for it to have its own article. --Xcali 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What is so threatening about a different way of thinking? Just because a term is relatively new that does not mean it cannot possibly be valid. The number of votes for delete here just go to show that most people have such small/tiny minds that they blindly follow what they have been taught their entire lives, then...when someone has an alternate view they feel threatened and attack viciously because by god if it isnt what they have been taught it must not be right. Please.--Lish 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's only edit. --Etacar11 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patent nonsense - atheism is NOT a religion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Just another attempt of Mark Perkel to promote his fake Church of Reality. - Jimbobsween 12:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At best, it's a dictdef, although I wouldn't go that far. --khaosworks 12:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While it is clearly meant as a contrast to the common Faith based buzzword, it is, as of yet, not a phrase with any notability or use outside of this one fellow's unnotable parody religion. --Fastfission 14:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a new term and it is totally valid. The Church of Reality is a new religion and it has some new original concepts that don't exist in other faiths. I think the concept of doubt based religion is totally valid. I figured that Christians would want to supress this. They are also attacking the Church of Reality definition. I don't claim Atheism is a religion. Note it says "or groups". Google - 314 hits on doubt based charity --Marcperkel 15:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a self-described neologism. It hasn't caught on, it isn't notable yet. If it someday becomes common, then it will be then quite welcome. Until then, it doesn't belong here. The #1 entry on those "314" hits is a parody, many of the others are for unrelated phrases (such as "there is no doubt, based on past practice"). Searching for "doubt based morality" gets 19 hits, searching for "doubt based charity" gets 4 hits. --Fastfission 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mark: Your "new term", may very well be "valid", but for now it is still a neologism, and Wikipedia is not the place for those, please see Wikipedia:No original research. Paul August ☎ 20:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although the Church of Reality is new, it is a genuine religion. Therefore, the term �doubt based religion� is a legitimate, real concept and should be kept. --daze79 4 June 2005
Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Church of Reality. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. - it is good to see the alternative to "faith-based" a type of religion that has been used to justify slaughter through the ages. 63.203.231.61 17:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Henry Schwan
First edit by anon user. Possible sockpuppet.--khaosworks 17:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I say keep because it has already been in past use. An Article Japan: Buddhism meets Shintoism in Japan By Marvin Olasky refers to a doubt-based religion, Zen Buddhism. A quote from the article says " "Zen says, 'You doubt? Great. You haven't doubted enough.'" The article can be found here [9]
Another first edit. --khaosworks 17:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This vote made by anon IP 66.244.72.236. Paul August ☎ 06:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The link above isn't good enough for me - I need to see someone referencing "doubt-based religion" in an academic context outside of this one guy's web page. ESkog 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --Angr/tɔktəmi 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, have you read the article about "Faith-based"? It panders to the Christian fundamentalists, by claiming to be about "societal universal benevolence", when it's really about people who can't tell fact from fiction. Don't help them work on their
Newspeak. Don't let them censor CONCEPTS that point out the errors in their thinking. 209.237.225.251 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the other delete voters. Quale 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I doubt it should be kept. --Xcali 19:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Is this vote ever going to end? Jimbobsween 01:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 14:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just because an article is too long or not wikified is no reason to delete it. I searched for "Chito-ryu" and clearly this is a notable style of karate with its own federations in Canada and and the U.S., local chapters and many Senseis. It is not appropriate to VfD this article, in my opinion. However, this article borrows heavily (though not an exact cut-and-paste) from the web site of the United States Chito-ryu Karate Federation [10]. The history there runs to ten pages this size, so this is heavily edited down, but many passages read the same. So there seems to be some plagiarism, perhaps even rising to the level of copyright problems WP:CP. But those issues are not to be addressed in a VfD. DS1953 13:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is this article? There is no information here at all! Supersaiyanplough 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and possible Speedy candidate. No context here (I presume it's Simponscruft) and even if there were, there's no potential content. (A list of unimportant street names in the Simpsons! Yay!) A Man In Black 11:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With context, it is no longer a speedy candidate. Even given this, it's not worth merging into Springfield (the Simpsons) and it's certainly not worth keeping on its own. My vote stands. A Man In Black 00:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Speedy) delete. Even if it was a real town called Springfield, the article fails to mention the state, or even the country it's in. Also, listing streets doesn't provide the reader with any useful information when their locational relationsship isn't apparent. Mgm|(talk) 11:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. It says "Map to come soon" but it's been lying there for about a week. --khaosworks 12:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I speedied it because there really was no context. Tony Sidaway then restored, then inserted the line about it being streets in the Simpsons Springfield, so obviously then it didn't qualify. I still stand by my original decision to speedy it as it was. That being said, I still say it should be Deleted as it is a simple listing and provides no useful information aside from that. It's not even good enough to qualify as cruft. --khaosworks 16:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good article. Restored as it surely doesn't qualify for speedy delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the parent article Springfield (the Simpsons). Would we allow a separate list a streets from any real small town? --Doc(?) 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Well it's not a real small town. If Simpsons fans want this kind of thing I see nothing wrong with having it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should, more so than this. --SPUI (talk) 21:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't encyclopedic even if merged. RickK 20:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. My thought here is that the Springfield article is long enough. I would guess that most people looking at the Springfield article are not necessarily going to want to see the names of all of the streets. If the text is going to eat up a valuable 700 valuable bytes on the server, why load it every time someone looks at the Springfield article. My assumption of course is that this minutae important information will exist somewhere even if the page is deleted and not merged right now. DS1953 20:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a list of streets in Springfield is not encyclopedic per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 01:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Tradnor 02:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If the data really is needed, then Merge. Vegaswikian 04:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. carmeld1 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encylopedic. -- Joolz 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 03:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment How is this spam? --khaosworks 12:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
How exactly is this not spam, or - more accurately - an advertisement and a promotional? - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems like a legitimate file system to me, part of the Linux kernel, non-commercial, and appears to be widely used. I think I see what you mean by promotional, but this should be sent to the appropriate Cleanup crew. --khaosworks 13:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't a "promotion" (before I rewrote it). It was a copyvio of an information page on the subject written by techies for techies. I write this kind of stuff all the time. The purpose is to get someone else up to speed in a few sentences by giving him the essential information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Could I ask editors please to use a little more discrimination when deciding whether list articles for deletion. Look in Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a good, clear presentation of when VfD listing is and is not necessary. This article will never be deletable, it's about part of the Linux kernel which is in use in embedded devices, such as JPL's Mars Rover prototypes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I've rewritten it. I'd like to remind my fellow editors that we all have the capacity to edit, should we choose to exercise it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why didn't you follow the proper procedure and rewrite it in the /Temp page so that we can get the copyvio out of the history? RickK 20:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a bugger like that. I fixed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There seems to be plenty of information about JFFS that could be incorporated; there are respectable articles on other relatively obscure filesystems (see Comparison of filesystems for links) so there's no reason not to keep this one. Perhaps the article should be moved to JFFS and discuss both 1 and 2, though. -- Wapcaplet 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 03:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and continue expansion. ElBenevolente 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and continue to expand. Falphin 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess listing on VfD may not have been an appropriate way to fix this article, but it worked anyway. Keep - and I guess the discussion can be closed now. - Mike Rosoft 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete, not notable
Blatant vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (no useful content). (Note: nominator failed to list this article on the main VfD page.) - Mike Rosoft 13:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete (though I'm surprised no-one notable has been called Jon Davies. There is Jonathan Davies I suppose, and several chaps called John Davies.) Dunc|☺ 18:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added the VFD tag because i think this is supposed to be a joke. Is there something to this? please delete unless there is actual valuable content. freestylefrappe 06:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep i think the author might have followed a red link from Human sexuality and written a stub, as opposed to having made a joke. Nateji77
Keep. I agree with Nateji77. I just added some links on the subject matter to help anyone who can clean this up. DS1953 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can't imagine how this ended up on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Interesting. JamesBurns 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean/up expand. I'm sure this topic has potential for an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the topic has potential, the current content doesn't however. --W(t) 08:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep -- and expand / cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, its notable and deserving of an article -CunningLinguist 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename, title is ambiguous (could refer to old people, or earlier periods in history?) Radiant_* 10:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This page is listed on Template:Sexuality so it it is to be removed or renamed that template should be amended (or abandoned and merged into Human sexuality or Human sexual behavior — those three seem rather confused.). I agree that the name is ambiguous and a rename could be useful but the topic no doubt has some potential. --Douglas 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep if it's totally re-written - current content borders on BJODN. Blackcats 07:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. JeremyA 03:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Everything in this world is being "criticised", and we don't need articles on that. Besides, as this article is now, and as it has been for quite some time, it's just a collection of links. The intro is the only thing that isn't, and I say that part is redundant and being covered elsewhere. I'm only surprised this hasen't been up for deletion before. I say it's time. DeleteShanes 13:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a collection of links. --bainer (talk) 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This doesn't really say anything Islam doesn't already say (see "Islam and the clash of civilizations" in that article, in particular), so there isn't anything to merge, unless someone wants to save those links, which don't seem that notable to me. If this can be speedied, so much the better. -- Captain Disdain 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not an encyclopedia article. A simple solution is to merge the contents into main Islam article. - Mike Rosoft 15:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comments if this is merged into Islam, as has now been done, then it can't be deleted for copyright reasons. In theory this is a legitimate topic and there is still no section of criticism of Islam in the Islam article, however nobody seems willing to write decent material in anything like NPOV so I'm not going to actively oppose this deletion. Until there is material to censor, nobody can cry censorship. Please note that this page used to be longer; I personally, deleted non NPOV material from the page earlier. Mozzerati 16:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Abstain - but certainly don't merge with Persecution of Muslims - criticism and persecution of a religion are two different things. --Doc(?) 21:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as POV attack. Revolución 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useful stuf to Islam. Other stuff can go. DJ Clayworth 03:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a collection of external links. JamesBurns 03:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge useful links to Islam (if any, that is) and delete - Skysmith 09:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
please note that you can't "merge and delete"; the VFD guidelines say this should be taken as "merge and keep". For copyright reasons, I plan to revert the merge if this page gets deleted. Mozzerati 09:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
If you believe this page is a copyvio then it should be deleted, otherwise I do not understand why you would revert the merge for copyright reasons: if you have written submitted the content yourself to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia foundation now owns the copyright. Axon 09:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also you are mistating wikipedia policy: this can be read as either a Keep or Delete Axon 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV link collection. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Islam and then protect the page. Blackcats 06:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a highly disturbing trend. Wikipedia has been hijacked by Islamists. First some Islamist proposes a page for deletion, and then invites others to vote. Islamophilia is another example. Administrators should do something.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete not so much "no assertion of notability" as "positive assertion of non-notability. "New and emerging" indeed... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 04:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable vanity. -- Herrhav0k 14:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was USERFY
Looks like vanity. I can't estabilish notability; only claim to fame seems to be that he created this nickname 10 years ago. ~1200 Google hits, but most seem to be his forum postings. --Xcali 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. I'll do it right now. --khaosworks 17:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Usefied and Speedy deleted. --khaosworks 17:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 04:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Never before has the phrase "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs" been more appropriate. If this is notable within the GameFAQs community, then it can be mentioned in the main article. —Xezbeth 16:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and thenDelete - I'm not a "everyday" GameFAQs visitor (just when I'm stuck on a certain video game) but there is already a section for "Message boards" on the GameFAQs article and it briefly mentioned "Toaster Oven." As the article stands, just not justifiable to be stand a lone. The reason for the deletion is that it is an orphan article --Chill Pill Bill 17:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some newcomers to the VFD process tend to combine shorthands in ways that are self-contradictory or contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policy. The following votes incorporate mutually incompatible things or are contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policy, and should be avoided:
"Merge to Example and Delete". Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. It is not allowed to delete the editing history whilst retaining this content. -- Mgm|(talk) 17:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think it's necessary to delete or merge the article, certain boards on GameFAQs should have an article mostly because they have a history... (unsigned Wikilord)
Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete GameFAQs is notable, it's specific subforums are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And this vote comes from a regular GameFAQs visitor. TheCoffee 03:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Martg76 09:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect wouldn't be a bad idea.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Capnography for deletion. It appears to be an advert by a quack doctor for his own medical method. I did originally put this up for speedy-delete, but one user objected, so I am submitting it for voting.
Speedy Delete (obviously, as Im the one submitting it) ~~~~ 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. This is bad-faith nomination by someone who seems to be a reincarnation of banned user Lir. After wrongly placing PoV and Speedy tags on this, he replaced the PoV tag three more times, despite offering no reason; I've since looked up and supplied a link to a search page on the American Society of Anesthesiologists [11]). He has no reason other than a hunch for his reason for the VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not Lir, any more than you are a reincarnation of Sitite Lem. ~~~~ 17:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, p.s. I've just noticed your greek is wrong for your name, try iota rather than eta.
In Greek, the eta is pronounced the same way a iota is pronounced. Therefore there is nothing wrong with Mel Etitis' name. Btw, I abstain from voting. Aecis 23:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard did an IP lookup and decided this is not Lir. He is, however, making a lot of suspect edits. Keep. RickK 20:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm no doctor, but there is a lot of literature that looks pretty legitimate for this term. Seems to be pretty standard practice in anesthesiology. Keep. ESkog 18:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Google turns up quite a number of legitimate hits. --khaosworks 17:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong speedy keep. This is part of the basic standards on ventilation of the American SOciety of Anesthesiologists. DS1953 20:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Speedy Keep highly respectable 34,300 Google hits including legitimate medical and government sites. A book on this subject was published by Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0521540348). If the submitter has reason to believe this medical technique is less than sound, they should let us know why (hopefully backed by some sources). It certainly isn't an advert or non-notable by any stretch of the imagination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable medical topic. JamesBurns 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, ceartaintly a notable medical topic. Falphin 17:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Charity-bike-ridecruft. Some Google hits but I doubt that charity rides across part of a US state are inherently notable. Hedley 17:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notible. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question: Are all these links relevant to the article? Mgm|(talk) 18:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
423 unique Googles for "bp ms 150". Most appear to be relevant. No vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Legocruft. Reads like nonsense but seems to be something to do with a character from the Lego series Bionicle. Delete. Hedley 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Repair or Delete. This one reads worse than the one listed after it to the point where it makes no sense as it stands. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as no context, near nonsense. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged - SimonP 14:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
More Legocruft, or more specificially Bioniclecruft. Theres a whole category of it at Category:Bionicle, full of quite poorly written articles on characters from Bionicle. Far from notable and probably worse than Pokémoncruft :/ As a side note, i'm only adding this one and i'll leave others to decide whether its worthy VfDing some of the other 57. Hedley 17:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. <Insert fiction here>-cruft is a scale issue which is defeated by the very small cost of this being on the server. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If someone can expand it, it would be nice. But can people please stop using 'cruft' as a reason for deletion! Sonic Mew 20:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per WP:FICT. <old coot>Back in my day, our Lego didn't come with stories. We had to make 'em up ourselves. You know, imagination.</old coot>AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. First I've heard of it, but the Google hit count is respectable (1,290 hits). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge Legocruft. Lego stuff was designed to be put together. (No, really, this stuff would be far more useful in one big article than in many little ones.) Mindspillage(spill yours?) 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, fictional thing from notable universe, or merge if someone thinks that's the best use of their time. Kappa 23:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge all Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Proto 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know this'll start a huge controversy, but whatever. This article is nothing about a long non-encyclopedic essay on why the creators of Star Trek don't have gay characters. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm half expecting a 'discrimination' stance for any keep voters. LGBT articles can go too far - Category:Gay icons genuinely annoys me. Hedley 17:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's actually an interesting essay with real world connections, and analyses the series and its attempts to introduce gay characters quite well. Could do with a less clunky title, maybe, but I don't see why it's "not encyclopedic". --khaosworks 18:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I expected visiting the article to confirm my instinct to delete, but it does at least a fairly good job of explaining an issue with appropriate citation. Wikipedia is not paper so it's not like the servers can't absorb this work. I see no reason to delete it: it doesn't violate any policies, even if it is narrow in focus. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suppliment: Perhaps we could rename to simply "LGBT Characters in Star Trek"? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this renaming. DemiT/C 18:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Category:Gay icons and other homosexuality-related articles aren't really part of this discussion. The article needs some editing--it is not unbiased, but at the same time seems to be describing a real debate, and has sources to back at least some of this up. I'm not even sure it needs a {{cleanup}} tag, so I'm voting Keep. DemiT/C 18:11, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep that is a debate that I already encountered years and years ago, and this is not an essay, but a summary of all the related things, both in the series and behind the screen. -- AlexR 18:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I say that almost reluctantly, because it's a long, thorough, well-written and presumably well-researched article. However, the whole thing could basically be summarized by "Star Trek doesn't have any gay characters" though it takes quite a few paragraphs to get there. Much of the padding material consists of speculation and descriptions of characters who kinda-sorta might have been gay. At best, it's a well-intentioned article which really needs to document its sources better. At worst, it veers dangerously close to libel: "Some fans feel that...Berman and Paramount of selling out the progressive Roddenberry dream in favor of contemporary bigotry and a hypocritical commercial cop-out." See also Weasel words. I definitely feel this is an interesting subject and should be posted and discussed somewhere, but isn't an encyclopedic topic. If it absolutely must stay, I suggest squeezing it down into a paragraph or two and putting it in one of the main Trek articles or into a GLBT in culture article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite somewhat as the insertion of sections looks somewhat forced in the flow of the text, and they should be able to be read out of order. ~~~~ 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Liberally condense and Merge. There's not much meat to this article, and most of it is original research couched in language like "some fans believe...", etc. This whole concept could easily be summarized in a paragraph or section in one of the main Star Trek articles, such as Society and Star Trek. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but revise to remove original research and filter for possible POV. There were some attempts to add LGBT sections to each of the series articles, but I think the issue is best left discussed all at once, as is the case here. I don't know if it's necessary to have subcategories. 23skidoo 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, why not? Hooray cruft~! Sam Spade 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wow. Brilliant article, could do with some POV tweaks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not move to a title that does not assert that there are, in fact, such characters? Although I would also support deleting. I'm wavering on whether it is encyclopedic, but the current title doesn't make sense. 68.165.6.18 02:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, that was me. platypeanArchcow 02:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Could use some work, but it's quite a bit better than a lot of articles here. Give it some time. Ground Zero 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. this article is interesting, and although it could use some work and perhaps a name change, it is informative and discusses an issue that apparently exists in the Trekkie community. Bonus Onus 03:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: interesting. Give it a better title, though, without an unpronounceable acronym that sounds like a kind of sandwich. No Account 03:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep interesting. JamesBurns 04:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, especially notable given the press coverage received when DS9 scripted a lesbian kiss. Xoloz 05:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but the article does need plenty of references to back up it's claims, otherwise my vote should be changed to a merge. Axon 13:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is a good one and has plently of references to back up what it claims. I fear that some homophobia is at work in the efforts to delete the page. (unsigned comment by 216.239.18.174.) Xoloz 21:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Well argued and interesting essay on a legitimate and not particularly POV. carmeld1 23:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems well-written and encyclopedic to me, not to mention notable and definitely tied into real-world events. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It comes close to being original reserach, but doesn't quite cross the line IMHO. --Angr/tɔktəmi 06:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An interesting topic, and a fairly unbiased approach. Oddly enough, by restricting itself to the TV series, it ignores that controversy about a TNG movie character who was supposed to be "gay", and the overt gayness of one of the SCE characters, in the (supposedly) authorised Pocket e-books series. --Simon Cursitor 07:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the article now addresses Lt. Hawk, of Star Trek: First Contact, the "almost" gay movie character, under the TNG section. I'm not sure if this is a recent edit. Xoloz 08:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am going to have a section on the Star Trek comic books/novels and one on the video games. Both are brief. I fail to see how my article has "gone to far" it is simply explaing the factual history behind the controversy (among fans) over how the franchise has dealt with LGBT people, and why. (This comment added by 199.17.94.37DemiT/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
Keep. This is a valid and ongoing point of contention regarding the Star Trek universe. -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Interesting, well-researched and important because of the iconic status of this TV franchise. --Ian Pitchford 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As said above, this article is quite interesting and well-researched. --Doradus 15:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment for the author: I would like to see as many references as possible. For one thing, it will help to prevent this page from reappearing on VfD. It can also help people who are interested in the topic do research of their own. Thanks for the contribution! -Seth Mahoney 19:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I absolutely agree with Ian. --62.245.160.218 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very weak keep, as long as this essay can be turned into a proper article, removing speculation and adding properly referenced facts. Exploding Boy 22:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Wikipedia:No original research and it appearing to be original research. I'm surprised no one has linked this policy yet, but it's clear to me that it should be deleted. In fact, I'd consider renominating this for VFD when this one is up simply because this has a) been over looked and b) has a lot of votes. Other than saying "there are no gays in Star Trek", I don't see much that isn't original research. Cburnett 06:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think you can safely assume that most people who voted here know about the "no original research" policy. Hence, re-nominating this article for deletion would be completely unnecessary, to say the least. -- AlexR 07:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The article has plenty of sources - they just need to be worked into the text. --Ian Pitchford 10:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Highlights an important aspect of Star Trek in popular culture. The article has plenty of references that need to be linked and referenced more thorougly..Melvakar 11:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is an important slice of science fiction Americana. The article has provided numerous cites to back up each and every quote and statement.
Comment:I don't think that this should be an article merely because it's not encyclopedic; additionally, while some of the information presented here is useful, much of it is mere speculation or discussion thereof. Moreover, I don't think that the title is appropriate for Wikipedia- not everyone knows what LGBT stands for (I myself can only hazard a guess as to its meaning given the context and still haven't figured out the T). In summary, this article should not continue to exist as it is. M412k 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The T is for "Texan". ;-) Ground Zero 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kpet - SimonP 14:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the same reasons. In the end, however, it still needs to be written in an encyclopedic style, clas project or not. DS1953 20:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Interesting project. JamesBurns 04:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tried to read the article. It starts without any context. It also reads as original research. It also appears to present opinions as fact. Given this, it would seem to be a Delete unless it gets a major overhaul. Not deleting, still leaves the question of this being an encylopedic topic. I'm not sure. Vegaswikian 04:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this a copyvio? It looks like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere. Average Earthman 09:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. Comes off like a term paper and would need a lot of copy editing to make it encyclopedic. There are nuggets of useful information throughout, but more as notes for other articles than in some rehabilitated form of this one. I'd vote keep if "This article should be transwikied to Wikitermpapersource" were an option; anyone up for starting a new sister project ... :-) 66.167.141.93 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (contributor since May 2003).
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Crap article about another nn school. Dunc|☺ 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, a school article I'm familiar with. It's not called "Clockhouse Primary school", it's either Clockhouse Infant School or Clockhouse Junior School, so move it to one of those when this article is kept. —Xezbeth 19:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, please note that Xezbeth has not voted. RickK 21:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I expect that the closer of this listing will be able to determine whether a person who says "move it to one of those when this article is kept" is voting or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We're going down to the preschool level now? --Carnildo 22:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many schools do educate young children. This one happens to be a complex of two schools (infant and junior) that occupy the same premises and educate children up to age 11. There is a nursery, but what of it? How does this affect the fact that it educates 11-year-olds? Should a university that shares premises with a kindergarten be deletable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge if not Delete. Verifiable is not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 04:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, not important to a significant enough number of people outside the immediate geographical area to warrant a separate article, and since Collier Row is so short it can happily accomodate it. Average Earthman 08:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
With respect, I think you only needed to point out that the article was "verifiable, NPOV and about a school". :) Wikipedia hasn't deleted a single school in over seventy nominations for deletion, and looking at the 25-or-so pending discussions I don't think that's about to change soon. I have no idea why anyone would want to vote on a number article; presumably people who are interested in numbers know which ones they think are interesting and which not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apart from the ones that don't endure, and are closed. Uncle G 09:11, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Primary school vanity. Interesting fact - they have had 2 headteachers, and it only gets worse... Dunc|☺ 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lovely article, though it could do with a bit of trimming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Tony, do you really believe any article which uses first person is lovely? RickK 21:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Various stylistic quibbles aside, I do really think it is a lovely article. The solution to bad style is editing, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It definately needs to be put into the third-person. But that is no need for deletion. I am not swaying either way, so no vote for the moment. Sonic Mew 21:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
In case it will help, I've copy edited for third person. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. Vegaswikian 04:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Reading the article makes it clear why it is a VfD selection. Quale 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge a trimmed down version to the appropriate geographical article. I mean, seriously, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, of what interest is it exactly that we need 'When it is sunny and nice they go on the field and when it is wet they go on the playground'? This sort of patently obvious statement is what you get when you start judging articles by length. If the authors want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd rather they expanded the Bicester article than write overlong websites for their primary school (don't they have their own website for this sort of thing?). Average Earthman 08:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is too much. Grue 13:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless blather. Gamaliel 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup as necessary. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Bicester and delete - Skysmith 09:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please but clean up too Yuckfoo 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is improved by keeping this. Nobody said everyone has to read every article they find. If you're bored, move on. --Unfocused 05:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. If delete fails, Merge. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Primary schools are almost always not notable. Proto 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Normal keep. If the article doesn't meet your personal criteria for style, try editing it next time. —RaD Man (talk) 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Rewritten. Please vote on the stub, not the deleted article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Delete, non-notable school. RickK 23:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: What do you mean, non-notable? Its a Singaporean school. We also need it as a starting point for development, not to mention, its one of the original schools of the Ang Mo Kio town, which was only developed until recently in the late 1970's. I will work on the article if I have time, but the idea that its not distinguished from "thousands of other schools" doesn't apply because this school isn't in the United States. -- Natalinasmpf 03:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you asserting that, unlike the United States, Singapore only has a very few schools? Education in Singapore begs to differ. Uncle G 05:42, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Does this also suggest we should create articles on, say, bus drivers in Liechtenstein since there aren't many of them ? Average Earthman 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools belong in Wikipedia. Important, NPOV, and verifiable. Unfocused 05:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another non-notable school. If that fails, merge into relevant article; I nominate trivia, but any will do. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Compromise. Delete and create new article on Schools in Ang Mo Kio, then include this school and subsequently add other schools in the town. -Hmib 16:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not just vote keep and move the school article to Schools in Ang Mo Kio, which will keep the article history, then add other schools? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Cos we don't need 50 pages, one for each school in Ang Mo Kio. To do so would be like creating an article for every housing development in a town. -Hmib 23:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My proposal would result in one single page for all schools in Ang Mo Kio but without the unnecessary step of deleting the current text and its history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cast my vote.Mr Tan 14:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem to be one of the more famous schools (Nanyang, Tao Nan). Frankchn 02:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important, verifiable, and NPOV. That's good enough for me. Unfocused 05:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP and people need to stop doing this. Ketsuban(is 1337) 03:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep and please stop this Yuckfoo 22:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why does it deserve deletion? Whoever added it took the time to add a nice picture, and it's not notably usless like the Sam Toupin page. -- Quagscorner 04:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. RickK 21:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Oh for heaven's sake. --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Okay, it looks like I've expressed myself in an inappropriate way and this has only served to raise the emotional temperature. I apologise for my inappropriate behavior on this deletion thread an others. I'm deleting my unnecessary comments and apologise to all involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. School districts are a mergist alternative to having information on each school in separate articles, unfortunately this district only has one school but it would break up the structure to delete it. Kappa 23:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No Account 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Weak because it is so weak of an article. Just adding the list of schools should be all that it would take to make this a Keep. Vegaswikian 04:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools and their organizational hierarchies are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Alpine County, California or keep. Not much content here, but the school district (as opposed to a school itself) is definitely of local notability in my opinion. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This school district in Santa Clara County, California was originally misfiled under Alpine County, which accounts for the different merge recommendations in some votes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is already a school district article for an unusual district. One school in a district all by itself. I've never heard of that before. LSNED --Unfocused 05:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are students there? You don't say. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. School districts are notable. --BaronLarf 02:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain on the usual schools debate - but can you explain what is 'crap' are you suggesting that the article is bogus? --Doc(?) 20:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I refer Mr Dunc to WP:SCH, which contains advice he may find more productive than his current activities. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. May I refer Mr Sidaway to the discussion at WP:SCH in which he has been repeatedly told that the page is neither policy nor guideline. RickK 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to differ on this. Clearly it's a guideline, as it's widely cited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, we disagree. May I direct you to my "non-notable primary school" guideline, which has been much more widely cited. Quale 07:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cited widely, but utterly failed to prevail. Seventy closed school VfD discussions since April 22, and not one single deleted school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point being, that by your definition WP has two guidelines in direct conflict with each other. In fact WP:SCH is not a wikipedia guideline. "Guideline" has a technical meaning in WP which WP:SCH doesn't meet. Quale 02:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there are no such technical meanings that apply here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article contains no useful information. --Carnildo 22:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, contains useful information and a nice picture. Kappa 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No Account 03:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but it still needs cleanup. A nice start. Vegaswikian 04:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable primary school. Quale 07:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with local geographical article or create one for the area. As it stands, is far too granular to stand on its own. Average Earthman 08:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hee hee We'll soon be getting articles on daycares, and the usual crew will be voting to keep. Denni☯ 18:47, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep I should start making stubs about daycare centers soon.SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. If there is more than one primary school in this district (particularly ones that feed to the same middle school), this seems like an ideal candidate for a merged article. - DS1953 21:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Delete after merge in this case would probably breach GFDL as there's a non-trivial amount of material in the article. I can't see the point of deleting the link in any case as it would only end up being recreated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please this article seems nice to me Yuckfoo 21:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think something that couldn't achieve consensus by discussion or voting has been demonstrated by this series of nominations. Unfocused 05:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. If delete fails, merge with local geographical article, or Trivia. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn as well). Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Surprisingly, this television show gets 0 google hits, other than two wikipedia ones. That's low even by public-access standards. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rhyanne Wheat for one of the hosts. —Xezbeth 19:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Some of this doesn't even make sense, e.g. it's called a Comedy Hour and is "a comedy-themed talk show" but the article says it has a "serious tone"?!? What the heck? Even if we're assuming this serious comedy show exists, a public-access show would have to be really notable to get an article on its own. With no Google hits and only 6 episodes over its month-long run, this one just doesn't have what it takes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless proof of the show can be found. Its a decent article(despite being contradictory) but there is nothing on it at all. Even local shows usually have a google hit or 2. Falphin 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I posted a comment on his/her talk page. Falphin 19:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Allow The show actually did exist and I watched it several times (5) when it aired earlier this year. It was a live call-in show and I did call in several times. Though it was called a comedy hour the hosts (David and Rhyanne) did reserve time for the serious dicussion of the topics they were ridiculing during their episode, which did include abortion (they had some whack-o pro-life nut on) and suicide (it just happened to be some angsty kid for this one). Rhyanne did go on to be part of several other local shows as a guest for months following and another season of the show is alloted for next season's line up according to Comcast. They hosts (David and Rhyanne) tried several times during the season to get big name politicians from the area on such as (Gov.) Mayor Wilder. It would be good to see an article like this to remain on Wikipedia for it makes the site feel like a place where one can go to find knowledge even on one's own community. Jahar 01:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Above users only edits. JamesBurns 07:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No verifiable information even after on VfD for 5 days. The included link to a cable TV company has no mention of this show on its website. Doubtful notability even if verified anyway. Quale 16:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DeleteZzyzx11(Talk) 06:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 23:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 04:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mel Etitis (recreation of deleted article) --cesarb 02:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be vanity. Dunc|☺ 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The original speedy seems to have been correct, so far as I can see; there's not enough here to say who she is or what exactly she does ("model" covers a multitude of sins). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've speedied it. I'm not sure how to close a VfD that's ended like this; anyone? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Is Lazlow really a talk show host? If so, can someone flesh this out a bit? Or should it just be deleted. Shoaler 20:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A fictional talk show host from Grand Theft Auto 3, and as the article is content-free then speedy delete. Keep now. —Xezbeth 20:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
A DJ on GTA -yes. Fictional - no. He is the host of Techno-File, a nationally syndicated radio program. www.lazlow.comKeepDS1953 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You learn something new every day. Still, the article as it stands is speediable. —Xezbeth 21:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Someone should expand this article - DS1953 seems to know a bit - as the fact that this guy was good enough to be hired for a huge video game establishes notability. Harro5 22:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I have expanded this article somewhat - please have another look and try to expand on what is there. Thanks. Harro5 23:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable fictional DJ, also moderately notable real person. Kappa 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lazlow Jones is most definitely real, and even if he wasn't doing a radio show that is syndicated on 80 stations in America, considering how much critical acclaim and attention the GTA series' radio shows have garnered, being the guy who co-wrote, produced and acted in them oughta make him notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've always wondered about this guy. Maybe if the article is fleshed out I may learn more. --Bletch 01:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nationally syndicated radio hosts are notable enough for mine and he has done other stuff of note as well. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete
I'm not certain, but I think this is either a fantasy or a hoax. First off there's no Google hits for "Sara Scorner". About.com claims that Margaret Hughes was the first woman to act on the English stage, in Shakespeare's Othello in 1660 (14 years before the article says Sara Scorner was born). And the external link in the article goes a site which seems to have extensions for The Sims...or something. I'm guessing this is some character from some sort of history fantasy...thingy.
I think I'm trying to say unverifiable. sjorford→•← 20:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed with the unverifiable part. Seems to be a slightly elaborate hoax. Kel-nage 21:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
delete to wiktionary. Dicdef in its best. Also, the definitions seems to be quite suspicious to me. I looked up a couple of dictionaries at hand and didn't see the "metropolitan state" meaning presented in the article as main. Native Englis speakers: please verify. mikka(t) 21:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Err, "metropolitan state"? That doesn't appear anywhere in any version of the article that I can see. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
metropolitan state redirects to colony. I think that mikkalai is referring to the first definition given, namely a mother country in contrast to its colonies. If that is the case, then, yes, in the sense of an "origin country" motherland does have this meaning. Uncle G 05:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Are you sure that a son of a British colonel born and brought up in India would call Misty Albion his motherland? (I am not arguing here, I just want to confirm the usage). Of course, Britain is the motherland for the colonel himself; but in most generic meaning, rather than as a term to refer to a state that owns the colony, IMO. Once again, I don't see this usage in the dictionaries on my bookshelf. The same colonel may be recruited to Foreign Legion and fight in Congo, but he will not refer to Belgium as Motherland while sitting in Leopoldville. mikka(t) 18:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a good question. I don't know offhand. Finding quotations to demonstrate exact real-world use is something that Wiktionary will have to do, now that the article has been transwikied. In the mean time, we have to deal with the article here at Wikipedia. Uncle G 22:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Move to wikitionary(redirect to Fatherland) or Expand. The article could have potential but isn't import for nowFalphin 17:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 22:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
McBot has kindly transwikied the article to Wiktionary, for the Wiktionarians to use as they see fit. In the mean time, the question becomes what to do with this article. mikkalai has created a shiny new Motherland (disambiguation) article, with a range of things, from song albums to political parties, to disambiguate between. The bulk of motherland is translations and synonyms, which Wiktionary will deal with, leaving not very much encyclopaedia content at all. How about Keep and replace with the current contents of Motherland (disambiguation) to turn motherland into an equal-weight disambiguation? Uncle G 22:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep agree with UncleG. JamesBurns 07:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and exapnd. The concept of a motherland is a historical one. Leanne 10:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, article has potential. Megan1967 06:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Lachatdelarue (content was: '{{db|Blank, vanity}}') --cesarb 02:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Page was created by user with same name. Therefore, should be userfied. Kel-nage 21:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Content already exists at userpage, and I've left a friendly note on his talk page. Meelar(talk) 21:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. If anybody wants to view the content, there is an entry at BJAODN. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable "sport" Denni☯ 21:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete unless rewritten. Strange as it sounds, this is notable, but the current article isn't worth keeping. Hedley 21:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. It's not made up, I've done it before. The current article needs a complete rewrite, but this is a notable enough subject. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but definitely needs a good rewrite. Also, the distinction needs to be made between wheelchair racing and office chair racing. I have witnessed both, and "chair racing" can be used to describe either of them. WPPWAH 22:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete Even if the two above have done/witnessed it it doesn't seem notable. Howabout1Talk to me! 04:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable game. Martg76 09:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, unsourced. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not made up but not notable MarkS 19:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted (nonsense) --cesarb 02:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense, User:80.43.97.69 created it and keeps removing the speedy tag. --Etacar11 21:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a speedy delete to me, even if User:80.43.97.69 does remove the notice. DS1953 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know what else to do, he/she removed the speedy tag the minute I put it back up, several times. Maybe its bedtime now... --Etacar11 22:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete article. It's a vanity-type page for a work by an unpublished, non-notable author. MakeRocketGoNow 21:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Published online" almost invariably means "not really published". There are a few different things called "Star Dancer" which could probably have an article, but this ain't one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 04:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, un-notable surname written by an author of the same name. I've left a friendly message on their talk page. -- UkPaolo 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, how do you know the name is un-notable as I had no chance to complete it? Yours truly, the author-to-be, would not appear in it. Paul Riedesel, Ph.D.
I accept your point. I see that you have just added further info to the article, and it is clear there are historical connections, which perhaps do merit a Wikipedia entry. Still not entirely convinced about creating an article on your own surname, though, however notable, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site for you to post family history, however detailed or interesting. It's nothing personal - if you view the page history you'll note I even wikified the original version of the article for you! Personally, I think it would be better suited to your own user page, but we'll see other Wikipedians valued comments and how the vote works out... UkPaolo 22:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a notable German noble family. Please allow articles more than ten minutes to grow after they were cretated, especially when authored by a new user. Zocky 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I allowed time for the article to grow - I watched the article and commented when further info was added to the page. However, I maintain that the information is promotion of the user's surname (and their website, linked at the end of the article). Yes its accurate, detailed, and maybe even interesting, but I'm not sure it is what Wikipedia should be about. It sets a huge precedent for people with numerous surnames to start generating articles - plenty of people know their family history these days. Are we now saying that providing there was nobility somewhere in the past, such genealogy articles are wanted? UkPaolo 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I share the last name to be sure, but have no personal connection with any of the noble Riedesels until 1400 or earlier. And yes my web site is focused on genealogy, but this article includes next to no genealogical information.--Paul Riedesel 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, seems notable and encyclopedic. Tufflaw 22:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, precedent and discussion of names calls for articles on names to be disambiguation pages, not etymologies on the meanings and histories of names. RickK 22:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I see numerous entries in the Category:German nobility that are not dissimilar. --Paul Riedesel 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see this as an etymology on the meaning and history of the name (I don't necessarily agree that should be excluded in any event). Its an article on a family that at this point appears to merit an article. DS1953 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
www.riedesel.org claims that the Riedesels ruled a state within the Holy Roman Empire until Napoeonic times. If that information is accurate, it is definite keep.
Forgot to sign this vote. Martg76 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 04:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(This nom originally made Jun 4, was never closed, multiple apparent sock puppet votes. I've taken the liberty of addending all anon votes. --FCYTravis 08:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Hi, i am the author of one of the below "keep" comments. i would like to adress the sock puppets accusation... im not sure what exactly sock puppets means, but i guess it's something to do with all the votes being from the one person?
you may find with a little research, perhaps contact the institution mentioned on the ian hedger page (st. bede's college, mentone, victoria, australia), that many of these comments come from students. they have heard about the page through word of mouth, and are supporting the TRUE story about their friend/acquantance. You may also find that the two entries from the same IP adress are entries from step brothers, using two computers on the same network. I urge that these facts be considered before this page is dismissed as a hoax or a joke. Before dismissing this, someone please do some research. Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon comment by User:203.31.184.154 - only four edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.
No relevant google hits, smells like hoax. Denni☯ 21:33, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
REMEMBER TO START YOUR THREAD WITH THE WORD 'KEEP' OR 'DELETE'... not 'DON'T DELETE'.
Delete vanity hoax (it would seem). And not funny if it is. --Etacar11 23:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, hoax, not notable...take your pick. Tobycat 01:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've heard of this story through word of mouth... Hoax or not, it's an urban legend worth keeping. - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142
Keep Oh god no! this is no hoax, i warn... this kid is a lethal fucka, anyone who has seen a red flash in their backyards, a white stain on there ironing boards, a homosexual spirit in their dreams... poor bastards, he'll get you soon enough...User:Darren Doukas 07:35, 6 july 2005 (FBI , CIA , CRIMINAL INTENT) - anon vote by User:220.237.182.178 - both edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD.
Keep This is no hoax. I am a Social Work student at Monash University doing a paper on teenage risk factors. My teacher, Dr. Max Liddell actually referred me to the 'Ian Hedger' case study in Australia. I couldn’t seem to find any good resources for the Ian Hedger case on Yahoo or Google, nor my own library, but i stumbled upon this excerpt here. If you are interested more about the Ian hedger case you should try emailing the social work department at Monash. Regards, Marcus Binge - anon vote by User:144.132.3.4 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
Keep Ian Hedger is an old school urban ledgend. Me and my wife use to scare the kids with halloween stories about the firey headed Ian Hedger. -Nick - anon vote by User:220.237.34.75 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
Keep I agree with the above statements. (i go to Mckinnion High near where these events have supposedly taken place)I have heard on many occasions of the Ian Hedger urban legend and have discussed it with many of my friends. wheather the events are true or not, this entry has validity in that it is a well know urban legend around the melbourne area. If it is true i pray for the poor soul and hope i never come across him. May it teach us all that bullying gets us no where. Will Drummond - anon vote by User:61.68.143.158 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.
Keep The Ian Hedger case is very much a true one, I was once a friend of this tortured soul back in '98. he was a great person when i knew him, full of life, with a smile that could melt an iceberg. it is unfortunate that we have not crossed paths since his departure from our youth group, because he was one of the only people i knew that could make a man with my condition feel normal again. he will be in my heart for eternity. - D.M.Wenckowski - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142, the user's second vote on this page, so struck through.
Keep I can't believe this story is being considered for deletion. I think one will find over the next few years a number of websites and articles being made in devotion to this story. The myths surrounding this case are simply untrue and unjustified. A depressed boy goes missing, and immediately people begin pawning off murders onto him. The chances of the boy still being alive are virtually zero, and it is my belief that he has found a happier place. Ian Hedger must not be forgotten, and I hope anyone who tries to remove this tribute to him, or deface it, suffers a similar fate. - Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon vote by User:203.31.184.154 - only three edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.
Scientist, n.
...
3. Sometimes referred to as Scienticiana. Term describing the political corruption of a scientist.
b. Person working in the sciences willing to alter and/or ignore observations and research to conform to the political correct thinking or policy of any particular age.
Delete. Lowercased surname, votes by sockpuppets. This should count as "case closed". — JIP | Talk 08:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nonsense supported by multiple sockpuppets, potential personal sabotage - Skysmith 09:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, with full military honours. Alphaxτεχ 10:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. Two unreliable Google hits. If legit as claimed, this would've shown up on missing persons sites. If it's true, those organizations should be the target of this campaign. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
DELETE (in capitals as indicated above)Dunc|☺ 11:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. I hate sockpuppets. jglc | t | c 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sock-puppets make a more eloquent case for deletion than I ever could. --Scimitar 14:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per sock puppets. Ashibaka (tock) 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete/BJAODN. The many sockpuppets must mean something. ral315 17:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, vanity. MysteryDog 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. Martg76 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, aawesome storiez keep it up - anon vote by User:70.58.91.15 - only edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page and vandalism on other pages see Contributions.
Strong Keep Wha' a ghreatte guyman he be...--64.229.92.23 01:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (does this vote really need to be clarified?)
Delete. And sentence the sock puppets to watch a 24 hour The Wiggles marathon. Mr Bound 01:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's funny, I was just dealing with this same sort of garbage from another anon. Mr. Billion 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete – if it's a hoax, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. If it's not, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. --Mothperson 14:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by User:Shanes. Kappa 20:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete duplication. JamesBurns 04:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I'm deleting it now. Shanes 05:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. CDC(talk) 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment for now. Looks like advertising - anyone from the U.K. know if this is notable? Tufflaw 21:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Truprint are pretty famous for developing pictures here. It also contains criticism of Truprint, so I'd hardly call it advertising. Kel-nage 22:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Major company. Their envolopes are well known. NSR 22:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This isn't advertising by any stretch of the imagination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It is true, notable, and probably wasn't made to advertise. It is a decent liitle article. No ned to delete it. Sonic Mew 13:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - its not advertising, a nice l'il article about the company. Not amazingly notable, maybe, but it's a well-enough known company in the UK, and I see no reason at all to remove the article. UkPaolo 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete
Vanity, autobiographical, unverifiable Kel-nage 22:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This has already been speedy deleted for being patent nonsense. Nohat 22:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 04:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no entry in allmusic or artistdirect for a band called Gauze. This title should probably be reserved, anyway. RickK 22:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
There used to be an article about the material gauze, it was probably transikied and deleted or something. Anyway this band has 4 albums on amazon.co.jp [12], 2 of which are re-releases. Half of this album was recorded "live in Scotland" suggesting they have some international appeal, or a least a travel budget. KeepKappa 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it had been transwikied, it would have been recorded in the transwiki log. There's no mention of it there. There's also no article in the transwiki namespace at Wiktionary (the most likely transwiki target), and since Wiktionary already has its own article on the word, and has had for well over a year, it wouldn't have been a transwiki to Wiktionary candidate anyway. Its deletion wasn't anything to do with transwikification. Uncle G 06:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Just as a comment, there's also a page called GAUZE, so if it is to stay, someone should add a dablink at the top. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gauze is a notable hardcore band in japan and is renouned in the underground hardcore scene. I think this article has potential, and i vote against deletion. Marxxxx 20:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Above users only edits have been on the Gauze article.JamesBurns 07:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The amazon.co.jp link indicates notability. Martg76 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gauze are one of the most well-known and long running japanese punk bands, the article needs to be cleaned up and probably renamed "gauze_(band)", but it should not be deleted. (Sorry about the edit on this comment, I forgot to sign in) Tombride 20:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please delete, since gauze is mainly known for the surgical "cotton" material.
That's not a reason to delete, since the article can simply be moved to Gauze (band) if someone want to write something about the material. Kappa 20:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 05:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The creator insist on removing the speedy template, so lets take this through vfd... obviously not notable. Thue | talk 22:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Canderson7 22:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Non notable. Kel-nage 23:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I read her autobiography recently! No? Seriously delete this child --Doc(?) 23:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete icky vanity. --Etacar11 23:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete get rid of this, it is of no value whatsoever. --William Flowers 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was undecided: 7:7, so the article is KEPT
del. Improper usage of disambig page: neither of the persons is identified as "Alessandra". the proper name would be List of persons with the first name Alessandra. Are we going to have such ones? mikka(t) 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unlike Dannii and Cher, neither of these people are commonly known solely by their given name. Disambiguation page without anything to disambiguate. Delete. Uncle G 06:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep. First, it is useful, for anyone who can only remember a first name and want to know what encyclopedic people have that name. Second, there is the precedent set by the many, many other first name disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, such as Aaron, Ada, Alice, Alicia, Alison, Alva, Alvin, Amanda, Amy, Ashton, and those are just the first names I can think of off the top of my head. Compare with articles like Michael which have long lists of people with that first name. Third, the list is expandable: there are no doubt more encyclopedic people named Alessandra and probably places named Alessandra as well. Fourth, the article is expandable, by giving the history/entymology/source of the name Alessandra. Fifth, it's a disambiguation page. Wikipedia is not paper, so how is this hurting the project? —Lowellian (talk) 12:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
You are mising the point. Disambig pages are to list identical terms. Ada contains list that are known as "Ada". The same is with Aaron (disambiguation). If some list hase something else, it mst be cleaned up. Some of these lists come from eraly days of wikipedia, when the role of disambig pages was not very clearly understood and formulated. If you wasnt an "expandable" articles, with explanations, then traditionally the proper name would be "List of ....". mikka(t) 15:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Lowellian. Celestianpower 15:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You and xe don't get it. The etymology of the name belongs in a dictionary, i.e. in Wiktionary in the Wiktionary appendix on first names. Disambiguation pages are for articles which would otherwise share a title. Every single one of those articles that Lowellian thinks are equivalents are in fact not, and do not set a precedent for what xe has done here at all. They are name disambiguations for encyclopaedia articles for people, places, and things known solely by that name (although Alice, Alicia, and Michael are in need of some serious trimming because they also "disambiguate" between things that aren't actually ambiguous in the first place) and that would be at that title were it not for one another. (Michael has a whole list of kings and emperors known solely by that given name, for example.) There are no people, places, or things commonly known as Alessandra here. Lowellian's name disambiguation is empty. Uncle G 17:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Celestianpower. SchmuckyTheCat 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For what, exactly? Searching for "Alessandra" brings up the other articles with other titles. What article do we have that goes by the title "Alessandra"? From Wikipedia:disambiguation:
Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion.[...]Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.
The only two entries on this page are Alessandra Ambrosio and Alessandra Mussolini. There is no risk of confusion between those two, and neither are commonly known simply as "Alessandra". There is nothing to disambiguate here. Uncle G 23:24, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
This situation is similar to that of a redirect. From Wikipedia:Redirect:
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
You might not find the looking up Alessandra useful, but you do not know others' browsing habits, and I and at least some other people who have voted here do find it useful. Now, Alessandra could redirect straight to an article, but there are multiple famous people named Alessandra. That is why it has to be a disambiguation page, and that is why it has to be kept. —Lowellian (talk) 01:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I entirely agree with Uncle G, and the distinction between Wikipedia and Wiktionary is well-established. Radiant_* 14:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete in an imperative way with these contents. If a person is known only as Alessandra (and, I'd say, its variants), then that person should be disambiguated. However, "people who have this first name" is utterly absurd. First name dabs are not "List of" articles in disguise, and one of the few things I would edit war over is precisely that. It's one thing to have Elvis disambiguate Elvis Presley and Elvis of Montfort or Elvis of Hippo, because he is known by that name exclusively (Madonna is the better example, of course), but it's quite another to have "yuk yuk all the people named Bob" clobbering the valid disambig of an article. Geogre 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So who decides? This is a dab page specifically because two people were edit warring over a redirect. Obviously SOME people thought these people were notable first name users, but because you don't you want to delete? SchmuckyTheCat 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The examples Lowellian made makes my point. Disambigs for names are not used for people's first names unless they have no given or widely known last name. They are, however, used for places, things, etc. -R. fiend 18:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As explained very well by others, first names are generally not suitable for disambigs. Quale 16:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This issue has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and trying to spread it here is an abuse of the VfD process and a violation of WP:POINT. Also, I really think it's okay to have a disambiguation page for first names as long as the name is relatively uncommon. It's a useful navigation aid here. Deco 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Transwiki to wiktionary. Zzyzx11(Talk) 19:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP
del. neologism. google gives no serious references. mikka(t) 23:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this appears to be a legitamite paraphilia. I looked very quickly and found this serious reference: [13]. Most of the listings in the paraphilias article have links to other articles. So this doesn't seem to be any different. -- Samuel Wantman 06:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - seems to be legit. -- AlexR 11:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This is a legitimate psychology topic. JamesBurns 10:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As above. Exploding Boy 22:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've got to the root of the problem. The correct name is "Andromimetophilia", so the name makes sense and searchable, too. Unfortunately I am not into a kinky sex, so I did not recognize the word quickly. Withdrawing the objection and moving the page to the correct title. mikka(t) 00:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 05:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity by a 12-year-old. RickK 23:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per RickK. I swear I saw this a few weeks back... Kel-nage 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would indicate that we haven't communicated effectively why this needs to be deleted. Perhaps a revision of the VfD template could help? --Unfocused 23:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with nominator. Google "sofia rivera"+guitar only gets a Hilary Duff fansite, and this person's home page hosted on what appears to be a Halie Duff fansite. --Unfocused 23:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
She is an "unsigned artist", and there is no other evidence that she is successful enough to pass WP:MUSIC, so we have to delete this article, although I wish her every success in future. Kappa 23:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirect. CDC(talk) 21:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. This is likely another part of the User:Group6 university project. --Joy [shallot] 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 05:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jonathan Sharpe gets no google hits related to this article. The article states that Sharpe is "cited" in a book by Margaret Cruikshank, entitled The Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement. Margaret is real and so is the book, but the full text search engine provided by amazon.com turns up no references to Sharpe in the work.
Also, a thorough search of edit histories leads me to believe that the author of this article, El beatle (talk·contribs), is the same person who created the hoax article Charles Mason (Revolutionary), currently on VfD. The evidence lies in the contributions of an anon 137.205.28.226 (talk·contribs), who both edited the Mason article and who added this to the Felching article, "Famous Felchers include Jonathan Sharpe." func(talk) 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This person is fictional. Anon 04:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 05:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Was marked as a copyvio but linked site was a Wikipedia mirror. Created by a user who's name seems to suggest a vanity page Kiand 23:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G deleted more of my comments, again violating Wikipedia policy [15]. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Page history is working oddly due to the frequent page moves and server lag. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask another admin to protect the page to its location when this VFD started on HYP (universities)? Most of the votes thus far on this VFD page were for that page, not the rewritten and different and split-off pages College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States and Harvard-Yale-Princeton. If Uncle G wants to write those articles, he should do so when this VFD is over. Also, Uncle G's deletions of my comments are very inappropriate. —Lowellian (talk) 02:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G did not delete any of my comments. They were moved below, so I missed them. My apologies to him for accusing him of deleting my comments when he did not. I have stricken out my wrong accusations above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. First, the term is formally used in the names of sports meets held by the three schools. Second, it is widely informally used in the academic and student world, especially in the United States, but it is not even limited to the United States, as for example these articles from the South Korean Korea Times[16] and the British New Stateman[17] attests. Third, consider these Google results which demonstrate how much more common this term is as opposed to other variations (which have recently been making the rounds on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSM, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC):
"hyp AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 31200
"yhp AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 1410
"hyps AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford)" - 978
"hpy AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 653
"hpysm AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford OR mit)" - 8
The problems with those latter searches are (a) that they presume that HYPS is always going to be expanded to include one of the actual names (which it isn't — When researching the initialism for Wiktionary I found instances where it was used without expansion, with the apparent presumption that readers would know what the letters stood for without having to be explicit.) and (b) that the initialism under consideration is actually HYPSM not HPYSM. ☺ Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Regarding your point (b):
"hypsm AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford OR mit)" - 225
Keep: with a change in title, the article is no longer claiming priority over the letters. Although I still think there is a limited amount to say about the acronymn qua acronymn and that the thing could be done with a simple link page, my own objections from before have been answered amply, and I am happy to change my vote. Geogre 23:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Some unfamiliar with this term may raise POV issues, but there is no doubt these are the three most prestigious universities in the country. The law of of the land (the US News rankings) has ranked these schools in the top three in almost every year of the ranking's existence. Some would argue this term still favors Harvard. But outside of partisan school spirit bickering there is no question which school is the nation's preeminent. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and notable. Has this term been included in the articles for the three universities? Harro5 00:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lowellian knows the exacting and proper use of Google. :) This article is well written, verifiable, and NPOV. func(talk) 00:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. See above. Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Sigh...so now I'm just confused by this whole issue. No vote. func(talk) 01:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still vote delete. From the second article "I had no idea what it stood for, and I am an alum of the H part of this acronym." I just don't think it's notable. Worthwhile in the wiktionary? Perhaps. Wikipedia? No. Wikibofh 00:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I fixed the format--VfD isn't a place for straw polls. See this for an explanation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but look for a more proper name. Indeed, the most real usage is for namins sports events. General-purpose naming for "Big Three universities" is not so wellestablished. mikka(t) 01:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable, well-sourced, NPOV, and in common use. Maybe move to Harvard-Yale-Princeton or a similar title. --Carnildo 01:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NEW INFORMATION: Strong delete -- this Google-based analysis is completely fallacious. "Hyp" is a common prefix and abbreviation which appears in thousands of documents. While "HYP AND (Harvard OR Yale OR Princeton)" has 32000 results, "PHY AND (Princeton OR Harvard OR Yale)" has 673000 results, and "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)" has 474000 results! Are Harvard, Princeton, and Yale often referred to together? Sure. Is HYP a term that anyone recognizes out of context? No way. It's an interesting acronym for a dictionary site, completely unsuitable for a Wikipedia entry. That's why this was deleted before. -- Fenster 01:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It was only undeleted for the history. This should be kept for GFDL purposes unless the derived article has been deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. As I mentioned before on Talk:HYP (universities), "PHY AND (Princeton OR Harvard OR Yale)" only returns as many results as it does because PHY is an abbreviation for "physics" that is often used in course catalog names. As for "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)", the problem is that the search is skewed by German language results ("mit" in the German language means "with"). If you restrict to English-language sites, then "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)" returns 27,300 results (a mere 6% of the 474,000 in all languages), while "HYP AND (Harvard OR Princeton OR Yale)" still returns 30,100 results (as compared to 32,800 in all languages). —Lowellian (talk) 12:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Yes, and as I mentioned just above, the reason that HYP returns results is because Hyp is a common prefix and abbreviation in the English language. If it's a single word or abbreviation, and it's not even recognized by the dictionary, then it's not enough of a real term to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Fenster 08:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It does indeed seem to be a term in actual use, and not a fluke, an in-joke, etc. But that's all it seems to be -- a term. I agree with the reasoning of Wikibofh and Fenster: delete. -- Hoary 03:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep, this one I'd keep as opposed to others that have been previously debated. HYP is a subset of the ivy league that is a commonly used term, especially among sports within the three. Harvard, Yale or Princeton couldn't don't care at all whether they are number one in the ivy league--they just want to beat each other. (Although, Yale couldn't give a shit about Princeton.) Take a look at the Yale athletics site: "HYP champions," it will say (some years). CoolGuy 03:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC I initially agreed with Func on a redirect to Ivy League. I've changed my mind. Both of those articles (and also HYPSM and hyps) should redirect to this article, wherever it ends up. Geogre makes a good point that this article isn't really about the initialism. Wiktionary can (and now does) handle the initialisms. This article is about the facts that a small group of universities is generally regarded as being distinguished from all of the rest and that that group is considered as a unit. (These facts are hardly unique to the United States, either. They are true for several countries.) The problem, as mikkalai says here and as Dpbsmith says in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC when talking about having articles for all of the combinations of letters, is the name of this article. hyps, HYPS, HYPSM, HYPSMC, and this article are all basically POV forks of a single article dealing with the single concept of a small group of institutions. When it comes to admissions, people don't agree which universities are generally regarded to be in the group, and in what order to rank them within the group. There's a perfectly fine encyclopaedia article to be had here, about these very things. As per the NPOV, Wikipedia should stay out of the argument, though. All of these articles should be redirects to a single article with a neutral title, which I suggest this one be Renamed to. Unfortunately, I suspect that the name is going to be cumbersome, and nothing springs to mind that isn't problematic. Harvard-Yale-Princeton has the same problem as the other titles of being too definite and too ordered. Big Three universities is out because (as shown by this rash of little articles, and by real-world usage) people don't even agree that there are solely three universities in the group. Something like Highest ranked universities in the United States probably encompasses too broad a scope. Elite universities in the United States is just as controversial a title as these initialisms are. A merger into Ivy League ignores the fact that this isn't quite the same thing; some people including at least two non-Ivy institutions in the group, and equally excluding some of the Ivy institutions. College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States might work, although that would involve factoring out the three-letter athletic meets into a separate article (for which Harvard-Yale-Princeton is a good candidate) and disambiguating more finely between the meets and the admissions shorthands at HYP. Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Comment: Uncle, you agree with Geogre, but while Geogre votes keep, he/she adds "there is a limited amount to say about the [acronym] qua [acronym]". Meanwhile, all I've learnt is that the term bunches together three universities for somewhat self-congratulatory, PR purposes: if they're "selective", this must be qualified by consideration of "legacy" dullards, etc. As you've pointed out, there are plenty of these acronyms; I say, let those people who are interested google for them, and let the snobs and PR industry produce pages for them. -- Hoary 07:07, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Clarification: I take it as our mission to NPOV to ask only that it be verifiably in use and potentially needed to answer a researcher's question, so I voted keep. The reason is that I think that HYP ain't no great thing, myself (how hard is it to turn out great scholars when you only accept people who need no teaching in the first place?), but the effective use of this hype is sufficient to have a smallish article that answers the need of potential researchers. If the article is safely away from other "hyp" lemmae, I can't object or see that it violates deletion policy. So, even though I don't think it's a good idea, I have to presumptively keep. (Besides, Cornell is kicking their rears in most fields, and Stanford and CalTech do, too, and the old sisters of the south are nipping at their heels.) Geogre 14:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've expanded the discussion of admissions shorthands to include all of the initialisms and renamed the article to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States, the best name that I could come up with (better names are welcome). I've also separated out the Harvard-Yale-Princeton athletic league into Harvard-Yale-Princeton (which was a redirect with no significant prioer history and so wasn't a merger). Please re-read the articles now. Do you now learn more than you did? Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Comment looks rather like [18] with some typos and changes to pass a copyvio test. Since the term appears to be real, it may in fact belong. I'm just not sure that this is the correct article text. Vegaswikian 04:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Ive heard this term quite a lot, quite notable and should be kept -CunningLinguist 08:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: common abbreviation for a collection of famous universities. Capitalistroadster
At 21:20, 2005 Jun 8, 64.12.116.69 altered Capitalistroadster's vote from "Keep: Common abbreviation..." to "Delete: ? abbreviation" Here is the diff. I'm changing it back now. It's alarming to realize that this went undetected for over a week. -- Hoary 13:38, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Keep. This is a real abbreviation that has been in common use for at least half a century. I hate academic boosterism and I hate the tendency of our university articles to accumulate fat paragraphs that shove cardinal-and-gray or big green peacock-feather-butts in the reader's face. The present article on HYP isn't very good. Nevertheless, it is quite conceivable that someone might encountered the abbreviation somewhere and look it up for an explanation. Furthermore, a factual, neutral description of academic prestige in the United States--as opposed to assertions that "my own school has it"--would be in order somewhere. Dpbsmith(talk) 10:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Though I voted to delete last time around, and still don't believe the term to be very common or more than borderline notable, I take the repeated re-creation of the article as evidence that there's a need for it to exist in some form. (In brief, I agree with Geogre and Dpbsmith.) -- Rbellin|Talk 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I moved the VFD page to match, too, to ensure that the link wasn't broken. As for consensus, there are four editors above who state that a better name is called for. I've given you a better name to discuss. I've also broken out Harvard-Yale-Princeton to address Hoary's concerns. Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
False. I refactored it into chronological order, just as I have done this one. Read the diff that you linked to more closely. Please add your comments to the bottom of the discussion. Uncle G 01:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Uncle G deleted more of my comments, again violating Wikipedia policy [20]. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oh do please learn to readLowellian. Start with properly reading the diff that you yourself pointed to, as I've already pointed out once. The only person around here deleting comments is, ironically, you. You deleted one of mine. More ironically, it was the very one telling you that no comments had been deleted, merely moved into chronological order, and that you simply hadn't read the diff properly. To make a point, I've left your duplicated comments in, this time around. Uncle G 02:18, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Uncle G did not delete any of my comments. They were moved below, so I missed them. My apologies to him for accusing him of deleting my comments when he did not. I have stricken out my wrong accusations above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
No worries. I in turn take back my exasperated comment above. Anyway, back to the discussion at hand. ☺ I've dinged some talk pages. Uncle G 04:47, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
Merge College admissions and ranking shorthands to HYP and clean-up I think we should cover the considerable distance HYP has in money, alumni, etc. compared to all other schools...although it's unclear to me whether this is a minor social thing of people associated with top schools or an actual issue (ie I don't have sources). DirectorStratton 02:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Lowellian is a Harvard student. CoolGuy 03:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wonder what house he resides in? Dpbsmith(talk) 17:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comment Let's not forget about AWS - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore - the top LACs lots of issues | leave me a message 05:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comment Sigh! Can we please try to discourage the use of acronyms altogether? To me, AWS stands for "Automatic Warning System", used to advise British train drivers of what the next signal is showing. And what the hell is a LAC? -- Arwel 11:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A Little Arrogant College. But what's with AWS? Everyone knows Haverford is the best. Heck, its name even sounds like "Harvard," what more proof do you need? Dpbsmith(talk) 19:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this political propaganda page. It is mainly used by Princeton and Yale people to forever tie their schools to Harvard. In reality, there is no HYP league, only the Ivy League, and barely, Ivy Plus. Furthermore, the votes for Keep are heavily biased and self-selected since random people are unlikely to have heard of this phrase, but among H Y or P graduates, even if the phrase is unfamiliar, they have an incentive to try to popularize it and "shrink" the Ivy League. As to previous historical agreements, so what? There have been lots of athletic or two way sports agreements that ebb and flow - this page is NOT about sports, but instead is simple academic boosterism. DELETE! - Anon 4582.
KeepUser:141.157.157.100 4:28, June 6th, 2005 (EDT) (vote erased by 64.12.116.69, and replaced with the following; restored by Uncle G 13:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC))
Delete What the???
Delete Put it in the wikitionary. -Phantym 06:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree put it in the dictionary. Ken. .....unsigned would-be vote made at 19:11, 2005 Jun 15 by 205.188.117.65
Keep. Definition is far too long for dictionary entry. Uris 19:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep....unsigned would-be vote made at 11:16, 2005 Jun 17 by 82.127.193.210
Delete
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 05:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete possible copyvio. Revolución 00:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It says "This FAQ may be reproduced if it is referenced as the Anti-Aging Skincare FAQ, version 4.1, posted to alt.skincare.", but that doesn't seem to fall under the GFDL. Kappa 02:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An external link on some page would seem to serve the purpose of making the information available. If you wikify the faq, then what happens when it changes? It will need major work to keep it updated. I likely will not pass the NPOV test. Vegaswikian 04:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. this is not an articleits a FAQ, if someone can rewrite it and make it into an article then they should if not delete this article.--GregLoutsenko 23:54, 8 Jun 2005
Delete This is just a standard USENET newsgroup FAQ. Should we allow the FAQs from all newsgroups to be dumped into Wikipedia?
(UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC(talk) 21:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. POV is not a reason to delete an article on a legit topic; it's a reason to fix it. -- BD2412talk 02:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
This version as it stands is non-encyclopedic. I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but I'd suggest that we merge what's relevant into Barrio. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really wanted to say keep until I read The author would like to take a moment to note that this is an online article, and if you're receiving it as a student's paper, it is probably plaguerized via copy-paste. Please give your student an F.DeleteVegaswikian 05:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. I put the clean-up and wikify tags because I thought the topic might be encyclopaedic if correctly developed. As it is now, the article amounts to POV and original research. If no one is willing to work on it, consider this vote a delete. Sarg 08:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research, and possible copy-paste copyvio. (I can't find the online source, however.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete This is completely an original research article, not to mention it is rather unencyclopedic. Any info that may have been contained in here that is keepable (that is ASSUMING it isnt a Copyright Violation) should be merged into the correct article on Street Gangs. -CunningLinguist 00:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup - Barrios gangs are a large phenomenon, this article deserves more quality.
Delete POV, original research --Smooth Henry 04:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
