Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7

edit

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche-Riemann Method

edit

Anyone voting here please also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve, which was created by the same editor for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article was created by a new account The Power of Reason (talk · contribs) in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lyndon LaRouche and User:The Power of Reason for an incident report.
The two arbcom rulings are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how in the world this violates an ArbCom ruling unless the ruling was that LaRouchites can't write about LaRouche. The only question I can see is whether it's notable enough to have an article. Since we already have lots of content on LaRouche, and since LaRouche does have an organization of some size, the answer to that seems to me to be that yes it is sufficiently notable. I suppose if this is a particularly obscure or marginal idea even by LaRouche standards I might change my mind. Everyking 00:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; let's keep our views about the subject matter separate from the question of notability. Everyking 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per SlimVirgin Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. Article has no reputable sources. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My guess is it would probably be pretty easy to find some article in LaRouche's paper confirming that this "method" is a real LaRouche idea. Everyking 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Your statement doesn't in any way contradict Jacob1207's statement. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The question isn't whether LaRouche is infamous and notable, but whether this method is. It isn't. It's foil hattery by his followers, and the most we could do is merge and redirect to the LaRouche article. We don't allow the break-out of every verse from the Bible, every principle of Locke, nor, by any means, every "method" of LaRouche. Geogre 01:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not a VfD criteria. Verifiability is. LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, even (or especially) about LaRouche. -Willmcw 01:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? A LaRouche publication is the perfect source for determining whether or not this is an actual LaRouche idea. The question of whether or not it's right or not is irrevelant. To make that judgement would be inherently POV. Everyking 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unverifiable LaRouchecruft. We don't need a separate article on each and every single one of his "ideas" - we'd soon run out of "not paper" if that was the case. --FCYTravis 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as a stub on the off chance someone might actually look it up, but the, uh, theory seems to be patent nonsense in and of itself, bordering on Deep Thoughts. Haikupoet 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the subject matter is mere piffle that (rightly) hasn't attracted the world's attention. -- Hoary 03:53, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another hare-brained scheme to promote LaRouche. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Economics. It's still hare-brained, I've taken a stab at making it NPOV hare-brained, so maybe it's acceptable now. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Lyndon LaRouche. Ridethefire3211 07:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, creation of this article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • How? I don't understand this logic. We have several other LaRouche related articles...do those also violate the ruling, just because of the subject? Everyking 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly, as per the rationale above. Secondly, the article does not actually explain what the LaRouche-Riemann Method actually is. Go ahead and read it; it says nothing about the Method itself. The text is waffle. And the final paragraph is nonsensical; the writer's faith in the Method is based on a speculative, fictional hypothesis.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. In this case, merging the content and leaving behind a redirect does no harm. --Michael Snow 22:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Give Michael and anybody else who cares a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable crankery, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn POV original research from discredited sources. Tobycat 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers. Kaibabsquirrel 06:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per above. This is yet another "LaRouche is a genius who forsaw everything now happening in the world 50 years ago" article. As such, it has no place as a freestanding article. But is it something claimed to be so by LaRouche and his followers, and LaRouche, regardless of how loathesome one may find him to be and how well-merited his federal time was, is most assuredly notable, so merge and redirect, not delete. Rlquall 11:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Triple Curve

edit

Anyone voting here please also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method, which was created by the same author for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article was created by a new account The Power of Reason (talk · contribs) in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lyndon LaRouche and User:The Power of Reason for an incident report.
The two arbcom rulings are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just give it a standard NPOV treatment. Everyking 00:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but give NPOV treatment. This is hard core POV. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a legitimate economic theory. LaRouche fantasy, all written as it's proven fact. -Willmcw 01:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Forget the authors and the cause, and focus instead on the thing itself. Let's look at the forest, not the trees. This article concerns a single ideology fancied by that fantastic group. Is it notable? Well, it's not actually famous, so is it notable in the sense of being "first, pioneering, influential?" It appears to be first in the sense of being idiosyncratic. It's not pioneering, and it's not influential at all. Therefore, I'd say that this article should be deleted. At most, we could merge and redirect back to LaRouche, but that represents a victory by the cultists over Arbcom. Geogre 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can I invent an economic theory - Quintuple Angular Distortion - and then say that it's encyclopedic because I made it up? --FCYTravis 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can get a sizable political organization behind you, sure. That's notability. Everyking 02:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You seem to have a rather strange definition of sizable. --FCYTravis 02:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It's fairly sizable. I don't know specifics, but they run candidates all over the place. I mean it's by no means a major organization but it's not phonebooth size either. Everyking 02:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's second edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes...who blocked his original account, and why? Everyking 03:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Why do you ask who blocked User:The Power of Reason when you can look it up on the blocklog? As for why, it was presumably because he's judged to be a reincarnation of User:Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Anyone who seems pro-LaRouche must be Herschel? Everyking 03:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, it was Snowspinner. I am shocked. Everyking 03:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Drink! Extra sip for rhetorical question. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • User:The Power of Reason seems too familiar with Wikipedia editing to be a brand new editor. User:Herschelkrustofsky was found to use sockpuppets. The deduction that the two are the same seems reasonable. -Willmcw 04:02, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
                • The logical conclusion to draw is that it is a possibility, which one would then follow up on by getting an IP check. I would hate to say that anybody who comes along and happens to act somewhat like a banned user, without breaking any rules, gets automatically banned without proof. That doesn't look very good. Everyking 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin's reasoning. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Economics. I've taken a stab at making it NPOV, so maybe it's acceptable now. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From the article: Internationally known economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. . . . . Uh huh. Delete. (And don't waste server space on the image, either.) Thus inspired, I'll sign myself Internationally known philosopher Hoary 03:58, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Merge with rewritten Larouche-Riemann Method stub. Not notable enough to deserve its own article by any stretch of the imagination. Haikupoet 04:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a means by which the "average" reader can connect 'Triple Curve' with LaRouche, and thereby assess the one through the other. --Simon Cursitor 07:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But Google has more hits for "triple curve" -larouche than for "triple curve" larouche. This suggests that the majority of uses of the phrase "triple curve" are LaRouche-unrelated. -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite as useless as the one above, because this one has a picture!-Ashley Pomeroy 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to above. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. Redirecting from the names of his individual theories and concepts depends on the circumstances. In this case, other uses for the name can and do exist, so I vote delete. --Michael Snow 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Give Michael and company a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable crankery. Larouche's opinions don't inherit his notoriety. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable info from non-credible source. Tobycat 06:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reason as in LaRouche-Riemann Method. Kaibabsquirrel 06:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Explanation: this was "LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers." What Kaibabsquirrel doesn't see: The lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers, for whose benefit (?) the web already provides scads of LaRouche-approved text. If his theories were discussed in respected, peer-reviewed journals, that would be one thing. But like Hubbard, he's not taken seriously. -- Hoary 07:15, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with a "lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers". They still have articles. If the only available info on the web on these theories is LaRouche-approved text that's all the more reason why a neutral article on a non-LaRouche site discussing them might not be a bad thing, especially if there are LaRouche critics who have written criticisms or debunkings of these theories. Anyhow, isn't reliance on peer-reviewed journals to establish notability the sort of academic elitism that Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia is supposed to be making an end run around? Kaibabsquirrel 07:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. BlankVerse ∅ 07:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You say "censor"; I'd say "ignore". What is it about LaRouche's beliefs that makes them so deserving of lengthy discussion? -- Hoary 14:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. (La Rouchites have, IMO, a lot of nerve to refer to anything else as "so-called".) Also, if he is going to be referred to as a politician, as he is here, it should be followed by (perennial candidate), because as far as I know at least, he has never been even vaguely close to ever having been elected anything. Rlquall 11:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joe Mashburn

edit

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Substub. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. He is a notable person and nationally known in the architecture school world. UH Collegian
  • Keep. Awful stub but he is the Dean of the University of Houston's Hines College of Architecture and has won awards for his design work. Seems notable to me. -
  • Keep. Notable in the state of Texas. He's been the most pro-active architecture Dean in the state. He founded the ID program, and got the school a perfect NAAB score. Who say's he's not notable? 200 additional students each year know him by face and name. Maybe if he made news for running over his spouse in a Clear Lake hotel parking lot he'd be "notable", but he didn't. This is a limitless encyclopedia so keep him on here. - DS1953 00:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I fixed it a little. DS1953 00:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's not notable. Jacob1207 01:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a sub-stub now. Also, if we are allowing articles on every single state representative, then this person is definitely notable. Keep. --Barfooz (talk) 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. --Edcolins 19:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deans of accreditted colleges/universities meet my personal notablity criteria. --Scimitar 20:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. NeoJustin 20:13, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not easy to become a dean of an accredited college/university. Kappa 20:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Gerald D. Hines College of Architecture, perennially considered in the top 3 architecture schools in the U.S. according to the University of Houston article. So its Dean is clearly notable. Average Earthman 21:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Article should establish notability more clearly. A Dean of a leading school in its field is notable and our article should establish this. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the school article. When there are several entries, they can be split out to one article for all of the deans at the school. I don't like the logic that the school is noteable so the dean must be. Vegaswikian 05:42, 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.
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 — Gwalla | Talk 20:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ANZACS Film

edit

Speedied, but isn't a candidate. Reason was WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculation on a rumored project by Peter Jackson. — Gwalla | Talk 00:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Durin 00:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jacob1207 01:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No verifiable content. - SimonP 01:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rumor of a rumor, plus substub that falls into criterion #1 of the speedy code, plus it's fairly incomprehensible (pre vis? previews?). Peter Jackson is doing Kong. If George Miller did an ANZACS film, I'd believe it, as his contemporaries Peter Weir and Bruce Beresford did one each. Geogre 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pre-Vis is pre-vizualisation, part of the Weta Workshop/Weta Digital techniques for animated storyboards. Used extensively by Jackson in the Lord of the Rings movies. RickK 19:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, RickK. Man, though, it just reinforces my feeling that it wouldn't have been an outrageous speedy, since it's written at such a fanboi level that you have to already be a Jackson devotee to even understand what the article is saying. Geogre 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I want to appoligize, as I was the one who placed the CSD tag on it. The reason I gave doesn't qualify for a speedy.) func(talk) 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, at the moment trivial. Furthermore, it should really be ANZACs, with a little s. And for that matter 'ANZACs (Film)', to distinguish it from the decent 1980s television series. [1] Even better, 'Untitled Peter Jackson ANZACs project', because it might have a poetic name. It doesn't help Wikipedia's image that we have so many people drooling over the sketches of the director of the Lord of the Rings films; thank God Xena: Warrior Princess and The X-Files finished before Wikipedia took off.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified for now. --Etacar11 23:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that the writer of the article has his/her facts wrong. What was seen in the King Kong production diary was almost certainly actual archival footage of ANZAC troops which was cleaned up by Weta Workshop to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings in April this year. See this article here for more information. AFAIK there is no planned movie on the ANZACs by Jackson - he is already in pre-production work on the next movie after King Kong, and it is nothing to do with World War I. In any case, the article has a lousy title and is just speculation, so delete Grutness...wha? 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Cyberjunkie 16:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A rumour of a rumour of a movie that might be in production? A speedy, IMO. Rlquall 11:31, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Positionality

edit

This appears to be a quote by a person whom I have not heard of. It might be vanity but in case it is something more I created this vfd. Falphin 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a commonplace book. The concept seems another systematic post-Marxist concept, but I doubt it's a very widely used term, as it looks pretty bulky and imprecise. (And let their gourds verily be blown when they realize that the post-colonial center is decentered and cannot exist in an objectives system, even in a materialist critique.) Geogre 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable term. JamesBurns 07:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism [2]. --Edcolins 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was not easy to work out. There appears to be no consensus for an outright deletion, but there does some to be some sort of feeling that the content be discarded. I am therefore calling this one a redirect to lemon battery which is the most suggested target. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soda Battery

edit

Not notable, probable hoax, neologism. 0 Google hits (caustic soda is most certainly not soda pop). More garbage from Andrew Lin, the "stop drinking soda" vandal. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238 - Jersyko talk 00:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see how a simple battery with an electrolyte that happens to be soda is article-worthy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's better than most of his other articles, but I don't think it should stand on its own. Do we have an article on homemade batteries? --Xcali 01:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have an article on the Lemon battery. (Google search [3]). I know that lemon batteries work, but that article's content needs work. Maybe the two could be merged in some way. --Barfooz (talk) 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. A "Homemade battery" article would be great. There are many things that can be used for such a battery, but the explanation for most or all is pretty simple (use __ as an electrolyte between zinc and copper) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've experimented with simple Galvanic cells before. Instead of being composed of two half cells that each contain an electrolyte and an electrode (like our article states), simple Galvanic cells have one whole cell that contains one electrolyte and two electrodes. This is what the guy is describing. There are different electrolytes that you could use (soda, lemon juice, salt water, etc.), but these all are not practical for use because the cell runs out of juice within a few hours, and the voltage generated is low, even when connected in series. There is almost no use for these homemade batteries except in a science fair project. In my opinion, they aren't really notable because they aren't really practical. (Preceding comment by Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC))
    • Comment. Impracticality shouldn't constitute non-notability. Fusion power is impractical at this point. I don't know enough about this subject but by your description it sounds like this whole topic needs an article. --Barfooz (talk) 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Battery_(electricity) and add a brief note somewhere on "novelty batteries" that simply mention that some people are amused by making batteries in which lemons, potatoes, soft drinks, etc. are used as electrolytes. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC). On second thought, Redirect to Lemon_battery and let that pretty good article, under that title, expand slightly to cover the whole genre of homemade batteries that are fun and illustrate principles but are of no real practical use (i.e. add a mention there of other electrolytes that can be used). Should I be pedantic and point out that strictly speaking the word battery refers to an assemblage of more than one cell connected in series? I.e. you have a 1.5V AA cell but a 9V battery. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Lemon battery as the best-known example of that class of home-made batteries. --Carnildo 21:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Lemon battery. Andrew pmk 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nonsense 68.170.0.238 15:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - the above anon vote was, perplexingly, cast by the article's creator. Reverse psychology, perhaps? - Jersyko talk 15:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above, might even be an idea to protect the redirect based on the number of anti soft-drink related articles with suspiciously all-capped-first-letter titles we've had recreated after VFD's lately... --Kiand 19:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delectable as non-potable. The so-called "battery" is just a salt. Article is merely lyte froth and should be canned.
  • Merge with Lemon Battery into a Homemade Battery page. I agree that feasibility should not be a criterion. The body is not feasible to use as a capacitor, but everyone knows about the process of rubbing your socks on carpet and then shocking someone. -Phantym 07:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nuclear fusion, however, can produce large amounts of energy (like the Sun) whereas a homemade battery cannot. By "impractical", I assume the meaning not useful, or not capable of being turned to use instead of not possible. Nuclear fusion would indeed be useful, but a homemade battery would generate little voltage. I think that sort of practical usefulness in the real world should be a criterion. WPPWAH 18:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect without merge. If you make "Soda battery" a section at Lemon battery, I will personally go to your user page and slap you. The soda is irrelevant; AFAIK this experiment works just as well with distilled water. --Smack (talk) 05:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting

edit

Delete: Appears to be spam. --Durin 00:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Advertising, likely copyvio (and why fix it, when the fix would be an ad?). Geogre 01:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad spam. DS1953 01:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

J-lay

edit

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. One-line substub is uninformative but verifiable. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 01:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Product announcement/advertising. We gather nothing from this about pipe laying in general, only that this product exists. The industry is not well known enough for there to be no context given and escape the charge of promotionalism. Geogre 01:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo/ad. --Etacar11 23:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ages of Ilathid

edit

The Ages of Ilathid is an upcoming Myst fan game, being done legally with permission from Cyan Worlds. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 01:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unverifiable as it does not exist yet, and an extremely minor event that is not sufficiently notable to require an encyclopedia entry. Hie them to GameFAQs. Geogre 01:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Some things are notable before their release, and the 8,480 Google hits suggest that this is one of them. My guess is that they wouldn't have been able to get an okay from Cyan unless they were seriously planning to release this and had something to show for their efforts. I would certainly support deletion if this ends up being vaporware though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Myst. Split into its own article only when it actually exists. -Sean Curtin 03:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As of now, there's far to little information on it. I don't think there's a need to delete it persay because of SPAM or because it "doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" or whatever pretentious things one might hting, but I think it's currently too short to even be considered a stub. - 69.215.14.212 04:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Myst as per Sean Curtin. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As is, this is an advertisment and a link to an external website. As such, I would vote delete. If it were expanded into a proper article, dealing with the background to this Myst-expansion, I would reconsider the postion. --Simon Cursitor 07:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it exists. RickK 19:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 20:14, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fan works have an incredible ability to be vaporware. --Carnildo 22:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crystal ball. -Phantym 07:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Japanese nationalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japanese_expansion_in_mainland_Asia

edit

Article is very poorly written and is more a nationalistic justification than historical facts. Another similar article is much better written and sufficient. UnHoly 01:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect both to Japanese nationalism. Both articles are messy and POV. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Japanese nationalism; honestly, I don't see what there is to merge. Geogre 01:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Japanese nationalism. JamesBurns 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Japanese nationalism. Nothing worth keeping here that isn't far more authoritatively discussed in that article. However, I would Keep Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905-1940), which is not about ideology per se but about military strategy. carmeld1 20:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at the very least redirect to Japanese nationalism. Very unlikely someone would search for something this specific anyway. Ridethefire3211 21:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not written in the English language. -EDM 23:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete...reluctantly. I've been involved in cleaning up this contributor's articles in the past. This contributor is a spanish speaker translating Japanese text into bad english. That process, coupled with additional "translation" involved in the english cleanup calls into serious question the integrity of the information. Single-step translation is hard enough. I believe this person is contributing in good faith, but that the integrity of the final content is highly questionable. This contributor is highly prolific and we'll continue to see his articles here at VfD, I fear. Tobycat 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the worst written articles that I have seen recently. -Willmcw 09:26, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

SirTobycat ,and some others i stay agreed much for understand my real intentions,still my some english grammar difficult.over present article,yours can to decided,if liked,deleted this...

for certain i no encounter why when your realizing the profounds cleanups at information why sended,this are non losses of the real escence of these dates,at contrary these escence if mantain intact,(i can to comparing with original sources) and i liked to read and understand perfect your reedition,and i appareing more interests and easy to understand.for me stay more well..

If certain i in my limits treated to send somes dates and first hand informations of previous wartimes about Japan for see in japanese position and you think manners in these moment,and additional somes dates of japanese side in pacific war.

Reiterally i no poses any imagination or great capacity to inventive for created all type of cyphers or social and military details,more less inside of japanese side or from these times.

i reconoited why if certain why poses more limits in english,but i observed why always in all parts,if one require obtain any really and very detail information,always stay in english, the Universal Lingua Franca.these information stay more limited or never exist in any other languages always stay more detail in english. for other part the most important experts in any theme or topic,or the mosts important analisis of any topics...for suppose stayed in english,one situation no encountered in another languages,for this certain themes can t understand in other languages,all in english.

in personally i sende more hate for statisticts or numbers or any cyphers groups,or all great mass of dates,but in particulary respect at Japanese side before and ww2, i sense particulary more simpathy and over my personal hate,disagree or disdain respect at statistics or dates i having decide to sended these first hand and ancient dates of ancient japanese times,more oftheirs are forgetting or some remembered for persons why living in these times only.

other special interest stay in why i in past years one old parent sayed at my,over one acient parent why at final result no chinese,without one Japanese Nikkei why are little merchant,one thing why causing in me more prided,and remember somes japanese friends why stayed for work reasons in my land and poses some personal friendship.

other personal reason if i entered why between the Japanese Plans against Panama Canal(I-400 Mission), ones parents knowed ones suppose Japanese fishers, but results why theirs poses short wave radios and stay in comunication with Japanese Navy officer Jakuji Oshi and the submarine I-9 poses orders to patrol Panama Gulf waters for reconoited areas.

this if my principal founts of my incredible and highly questionable or dudous information over General Japanese civil andMilitary comments:

General sources:(oldest editions of 40s to 60s)

  • Cressey,G.B.Peoples and lands of Asia
  • Scion,Jules. Asie des Moussons(english edition)
  • Behr,Edward.The Last Emperor
  • Book Asia,the great Continent
  • Newman, Joseph. "Goodbye Japan"
  • Whitney Hall, John."Japanese Empire"
  • Gonzales-Hontoria,M.African and Asian States(Estados Asiaticos y Africanos)

over Chinese japanese War comments if my sources:

  • Max,Alphonse.Southwest Asia,Reality and Destiny.
  • American First-hand and Chinese side relate "China In Weapons" or "China in Arms" about chinese-japanese conflict. unsigned comment (vote?) by 200.46.215.181 (talk · contribs)


Hi,200.46.215.181
The grammar is not the main reason I posted this article on the votes for deletion. I appreciate that people from all around the world want, and should, continue to collaborate to wikipedia. I myself am french-speaking, and you are right, it is difficult to stay on the frech wikipedia when almost all articles are more complete in english.
However, the problem with this particular article is that it is a justification of japanese nationalism and not a neutral description of events. I do not think this is justified in an encyclopedia.
For example, you say "this if motif for Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05,for why obtain some concessions socalled "Treated Rigths" in South Manchuria.in 1910,Korea having formally annexed,during first decades of century the territorial security are principal military motif." The way I read this, you imply that Japan had all rights to gain concessions in South Manchuria. This is a one-sided analysis.
If you want to try to re-write this article, you should at least cite sources, and put your sentences in the form "according to xxx, ...". But even then, it should be included in Japanese nationalism, which is where it belongs. We do not need separate articles for different opinions on the same subject.
I hope I have the chance to read more of your work in the future,
UnHoly 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • -if one interested and logic point,but in particular i treated

to present the japanese point of seeing,for comparing and analized your think at respect,with historical pourposes.

respect at much reading of my work,i am readed the material analized and writing the importants parts,(exist much informations) and still my grammar deficiences i understand your english writing form with correct gramar in clear form.

respect at another sides of question,for all exist the respectives analizes why present your respective side.i am no treated to enter in conflict with any side,i only treated to present the japanese viewpoint for knowed the respective ideas in these times,more diffrent at present days.

reiterally if your desired deleted,i no poses any problem for this. if part of the sistem and understand more well.

200.46.215.181 (talk · contribs)


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 14:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EVDB

edit

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason was "advertising". Notability not established. — Gwalla | Talk 01:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep 1500 Google hits for a new operation isn't bad, and crushes the Google count for yer basic non-notable highschool. Denni☯ 02:06, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Keep it is notable that Esther Dyson is on the board of directors, among other things Also, note how this company's Wikipedia entry is similar to Technorati, a similar company. If Technorati can exist in Wikipedia, why not EVDB?
  • Delete. Advertising. The website describes Esther Dyson as an investor, not a director; that's not enough in itself to make the company notable. If Wikipedia contains articles that are also advertising for non-notable websites, they should be nominated for deletion too, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to be made on this particular nomination. Try telling a cop "if that other car can drive over 75 and not get ticketed, why not me?" Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. You might also wish to have a look at Brian Dear. Both articles were created by the same anonymous user. Vanity? --Edcolins 19:46, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Celestianpower 19:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa traffic rank of 85,000. --Carnildo 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, only 140 hits, [4] --MarSch 14:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qroteam

edit

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason was "vanity". Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 01:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This is so close to a speedy candidate. Delete. --Barfooz (talk) 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete whatever it is. DS1953 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete empty article. JamesBurns 07:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, no google hits. --Etacar11 23:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiznaibus

edit

This should be part of Final Fantasy - it isn't encyclopedic on its own merits. Trödel|talk 01:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 07:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This term is hardly notable even within Final Fantasy.
  • Delete I've played most of the Final Fantasy games and I've never heard of that term. Non Notable. NeoJustin 20:18, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete FFTacticscruft. Marblespire 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chatters Nexus

edit

Insignificant website. Wikipedia is not a web listing. Also vanity and advertising. Alexa rank: 5,390,421 [5] Google search: 30 results [6] -- Barfooz (talk) 01:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable user site. Denni☯ 02:10, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, website vanity. The external link gives me a 403 Forbidden. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ökonomische Encyklopädie (General System of State,City, House and Agriculture)

edit

As is, this is original research. If someone else would like to write a verifiable, sensible article that does not speak in the first person, fine, but right now, this article violates Wikipedia:No original research. func(talk) 02:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preppy

edit

While my decision to add the vfd tag was considerably boosted by the unanimous delete-reaction for the Southern Preppy page, I find this page too be particularly lacking in encyclopedia-worthy content. I can see why a user might be tempted to vote yes, but unless there is a sig. cleanup I urge a delete vote. freestylefrappe 02:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A valid term. Dysfunktion 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete freestylefrappe 02:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep, this is a well-known cultural concept. Not a great article, but it's not sufficiently bad to warrant deletion. Rhobite 02:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs improvement but that alone is not grounds for deletion. DS1953 02:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite keep --Barfooz (talk) 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely a well-known pop cultural concept. "The Official Preppy Handbook" was a bestseller in its day (1980). -- Cam 03:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if we have an Official Preppy Handbook article we have no business deleting the preppy article. Daniel Case 03:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable cultural concept. Capitalistroadster 04:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well established stereotype. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known term. Is a Preppy the same as a Sloane Ranger? RickK 19:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, commonly used, often cited term -- article is weak and merely needs the care of a talented writer
  • Delete. There's a lot of controversy here, and edits tend to add personalized, anecdotal and misleading information.
    • Above vote is by user 160.39.213.168, who has about 50 edits, 2/3 of which are to this article and its talk page. -- BD2412 talk 13:59, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep, btw. -- BD2412 talk 13:59, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid term in real use. As others have noted, it was catapulted into prominance by the Official Preppy Handbook but was in use before then and has not gone out of vogue since. Unlike the "Ivy League" clothing style and the Harvard accent. Skippy and Bootsie 01:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • P. S. AHD4 has this entry: "SYLLABICATION: prep-py, VARIANT FORMS: or prep·pie NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. prep-pies Informal 1. A student or former student of a preparatory school. 2. A person whose manner and dress are deemed typical of traditional preparatory schools. ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: prep-pi-er, prep-pi-est Of or relating to a preppy or a preparatory school, ETYMOLOGY: prep(aratory school) + –y. OTHER FORMS: preppi-ly —ADVERB, preppi·ness—NOUN." Preppily? Preppiness? Good to know. Chipper and Muffy 01:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable cultural concept, especially in the 1980s. Kaibabsquirrel 06:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term in actual use
  • keep: The preppy phenomenon is noteworthy. Ombudsman 21:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful and valid.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orange Clock

edit

Clock Crew cruft Denni☯ 02:24, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris Boyer

edit

Vanity page, Pov, etc. Not worth keeping StuTheSheep 02:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Another awful stub but he is part of the morning drive team of a full power radio station in a major urban area. More people know the DJs than their state legislators. Let's hope it get better. DS1953 03:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • He is "part of" one radio program on one radio station in one city. He doesn't even seem to have the dubious notability of a right-wing radio blowhard; rather, he's just part of the aural background to the morning's depletion of fossil fuel. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but this person sounds desperately insignificant. Delete. -- Hoary 04:04, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of limited regional notoriety. RickK 19:47, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK. carmeld1 20:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of limited geographical interest, would at best warrant one line on the station's article, if the station has one. Average Earthman 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pitfall (Animal Crossing Item)

edit

Have we sunk so low as to keep this? Denni☯ 02:40, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete. Animal Crufting. Nestea 03:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Toytoy 07:21, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 07:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Have we sunk so low as to keep this?" I hope not. NeoJustin 20:13, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Un-needed. Thunderbrand 20:24, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. carmeld1 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and pointless. --Etacar11 00:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Associated Student Bodies. JeremyA 14:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcus Paxten

edit

Non-notable cartoon character. Denni☯ 02:42, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. NeoJustin 20:19, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, characters from minor media that do not have any separate influence or note do not need separate articles. Average Earthman 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Associated Student Bodies. The discussion of Marcus Paxten there is about ten times as long as this one line article already. DS1953 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per DS1953. — RJH 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Roballoo

edit

Vanity, non-notable. 317 google hits.--InShaneee 02:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:28, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris McKinley

edit

Comic book vanity. Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)'


Note from creator of page - I'm going to be working on this biography in detail fairly soon. I just wanted this as a referance placeholder for right now.

Note 2 - Right, I'm done for now and hopefully it will not be deleted until I get a chance to finish it.

Unsigned comments from User:TomSplasky
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete since the article does not make a case for notability. Maybe with a good cleanup it would be easier to find the notability. Vegaswikian 05:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not just because it is a truly awful page in every regard, but because the subject is clearly NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 06:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the article improves tremendously. Right now, it's written in first person and is vague, unencyclopedic and doesn't establish notability. That last thing is what really sinks this one. -- Captain Disdain 14:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Zombie love

edit

Non-verifiable. It seems that several songs have this title, but googling for "Zombie Love" with "The Haze" or "Love in the Afterlife" or any number of things in this article turns up zero google hits. I suspect vanity. func(talk) 02:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. func(talk) 02:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Also, it fails to mention the practicalities of zombie love, i.e. that their bits would fall off. Also, is it about love of zombies, or love between zombies? Yes, I know it's just a song; but we should be told.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:07, 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 merge with The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). There is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masquerade (song)

edit

A description of the choreography of a song. Denni☯ 03:01, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Merge into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) --Xcali 06:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, don't see any reason to delete. Kappa 20:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: phancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is nothing in there but a "hey, 'member when he appeared." No attempt at being encyclopedic, just descriptive and therefore fancruft. Geogre 16:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge --MarSch 14:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Miscut keys

edit

Band vanity. Most of the 28 Google hits this name gets are for... well... keys that have been miscut. Delete. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't look like a band that has done much yet MarkS 19:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~~~~ 22:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 00:31, 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. JeremyA 14:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Daniel bimpson

edit

Looks to me like a hoax, nothing comes of the searches I did. In fact that name doesn't return any results at all. All in all it doesn't make a lot of sense. delete Rx StrangeLove 03:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darth Dubyous

edit

Content is duplicated here; Google on phrase shows repeated citations and republishing of David Edelstein movie review Daniel Case 03:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I find this etymology highly dubious. Delete --Simon Cursitor 07:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable phrase. JamesBurns 07:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Melaen 19:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge --Arbiteroftruth 05:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its an insult to Sith Lords. :P--Kross 23:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just stupid and partisan; plus I hate stubs. --maru 05:14, 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. Deleted by User:Neutrality. Nohat 22:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fake Ivy

edit

neologism, non-notable, original research Nohat 03:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote AGAINST deletion. This is absurd. Clearly Noaht is a graduate of one of these "fake ivies" and is insulted by the article. My reserach shows that he is a graduate/ student at Cornell. Perhaps someone less partial should be evaluating the content of the article. I make a motion to remove nohat's comments. He should grow up. Cancan101 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with this article. What is wrong with a neologism? Weren't all established conventions at one time new? Non-notable is very generic. Please explain what it means and why it should count against this article. No evidence of original research. Seeing the obvious is not research. Until NoHat explains further, I vote AGAINST deletion.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)
    Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Rationale_shorthands, not to mention Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Nohat 04:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    nohat, please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Do you consider yourself neutral?
    Neutrality has nothing to do with people, but with content. As it stands, this article is irredeemably POV. Whether or not I am neutral is irrelevant. The whole point of Votes for deletion is for everyone in the community who cares to voice their opinion about whether the article should be deleted. Only if there is consensus to delete will the article be deleted. I merely nominated the article for deletion. Anyone is welcome to nominate articles for deletion, provided they do so within the policies and guideless for the deletion process. Nohat 04:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Google turns up nothing for this term and the article, especially the ending, is rather POV. Danaman5
  • Keep Support assertions, please. (unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115 [7]) (deleted by 69.37.205.115 [8])
    Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote AGAINST deletion. I have heard this term mentioned in the Economist. (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [9])
    Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I propose a solution to this problem. We can correct the biased POV, by having both sides write parts of the article. Since the article currently is against "fake ivies," I suggest having NoHat, a representative of Cornell, one of these so called "Fake ivies" write his POV. Cancan101 04:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Please make proposals for improving the article on the article's talk page. Nohat 04:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am so far undecided about this whole issue. I think there is no such thing a fake ivy. As Sidney Pollack points in A Civil Action after asking John Travolta what kind of Harvard man he is and learning that John went to Cornell, “Cornell is a damn good school…damn good” (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [10])
    Struck because: duplicate vote. Nohat 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: not only does this guy write blatant POV crap, he can't even be bothered to create sockpuppets. He just votes again and again with his own name, and (I suspect) his own IP address. --Xcali 04:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Response to above comment: I value your criticism but please be civil and use proper English (e.g. "crap"). (unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115[11])
    • The last time I checked, crap was a perfectly cromulent word. --Xcali 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I like your style. Finally progressing in the "art" of sarcasm.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)
  • Addendum: And please, for your own sake as well as mine, don't resort to Ad Hominem attacks.(unsigned edit by 69.37.205.115)
  • FYI, those aren't duplicate votes, those are different people on different computers (unsigned edit by Cancan101 [12])
  • DELETE. This is hilarious. Why hasn't the article been deleted already? Obviously, Cancan101 has some serious issues, the article is riddled with POV, and there is nothing to substantiate it. I'd venture to speculate that Cancan101 has a bone to pick with these schools for some reason.--AaronS 05:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If consensus is to delete, note that there are also articles Fake ivy and Fake Ivy League. I've turned both of these into redirects to the page that we are now debating. --Xcali 05:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologisms. The use of this term, and what Ivies technically fit into its clearly negative umbrella, make it nearly impossible to meet NPOV standards. Not to mention that I've never heard of it before, and Google's hits for "fake ivy" are all unrelated (of the first 20, 1 is a user on a message board using it in this way, 1 is political snark about George W. Bush, and the other 18 are decorating things...) ESkog 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, unverifiable. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, original research, irreparable POV. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the fact that this guy can't even make sock puppets. If he's not going to put that much effort into defending his article, obviously it's not worthy of inclusion. --FCYTravis 07:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sockpuppet and personal attack limits have both been exceeded. RickK 19:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: neologism, impossible NPOV. AJD 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • cancan101 did NOT write the article. Pull his IP address and you will see it isn't the same as the unsigned user who is also posting. I just happen to know the person who wrote it.Cancan101 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not here to push arguments or create notability, it is here to reflect it, and this neologism is not widely used at all. Average Earthman 21:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, and a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 22:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism (+ sockpuppetry). --Etacar11 00:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Resistance techniques

edit

Nicely written article, but wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also original research.--InShaneee 03:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 07:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Resistance movement after culling quite a large proportion of the text. ~~~~ 22:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But needs a major rewrite to eliminate POV, add citations such as examples from: Methods of Nonviolent Action (Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 2) by Gene Sharp, and Towards A Citizens' Militia: Anarchist Alternatives To NATO & The Warsaw Pact, etc --Takver 02:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • Keep per Terin. Resistance not necessarily needs a "leader". 172.179.246.157 09:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: User's only contribution. --InShaneee 00:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Kaibabsquirrel 06:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yam HaTalmud

edit

"Yam HaTalmud" appears to be an expression or phrase that means something like "the ocean of Torah study". There also appears to be a book called "Yam HaTalmud". This article speaks of a "much storied torah journal of the Lander College for Men ... featuring Torah summaries and novellae from such luminaries as Asher Mendelsberg".

"Yam HaTalmud" gets no google hits when paired with any of "Lander College" or "Asher Mendelsberg". Also, the article speaks of its "pending publication is eagerly anticipated throughout the Diaspora", which could mean that the thing hasn't even been published at all. I am assuming vanity and a lack of verifiablity. func(talk) 04:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Gaynor

edit

Probable hoax. Google for ("Sean Gaynor" dragons) gives 0 hits. --Xcali 04:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reads like a possible hoax and cannot verify it. MarkS 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)#
  • Delete Agree with points made above. Forbsey 23:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete, looks all legitimate to me. Just because all you fucking idiots use google to verify any fact on the planet doesn't make it true! If google told you that Bill Clinton was still the president of the USA would you take down all pages involving George W. Bush???

  • Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:49, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • DONT DELETE Good read, you dont let the truth get in the way of a good yarn ya tossers
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wikijuris

edit

Wikijuris is the name of a wiki using mediawiki software, just like Wikipedia. It gets 3 google hits, two from its own site and 1 from the mail.wikipedia.org server. Its oldest page is from 21 Feb of this year, and it has a total of 16 pages. I believe this to be vanity, (and although "notablity" doesn't currently seem to be an official criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia...it also isn't [yet] notable). func(talk) 04:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

While I respect Jerzy's concerns, most of the early voters did not cite the copyvio as the dominant reason for deletion. They argued that this was "vanity" which, however prejudicial you consider that word, is the normal shorthand used here for an article about a person which is either auto-biographical or unverifiable. I find that there is concensus to delete this from the main article space on that basis.

Noting that there is an associated user who appears to be the same person, I am going to offer to move this to his user page. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard J. Doscher

edit
This VfD's validity was challenged in its first 15 hours per the claim of the article being a copyvio. No one now appears to support the copyvio claim. IMO
  • the votes cast after time the copyvio was raised are valid,
  • but the debate got less than a full day of unquestioned validity, and
  • the most reasonable step is to restart its "clock" from the starting point, providing 5 uninterrupted calendar days of consideration.
--Jerzy·t 04:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nom & Del vote: This police chief of a population-55,000 city has no higher apparent distinction than that. User:Rdoscherca (R Doscher of Califonia?) has resolving copyvio concerns via EMail by stating he is both the author and subject. His baliwick is about one 5-thousandth of the US population, and where i come from, chiefs are considered professionals whose training must be up to snuff but who exercise less significant policy-making discretion than the elected officials on zoning commissions. If he's one of the few who use the position as a rung on a political ladder, he may later become notable, but he's not now. WP:BIO#People still alive seems to establish non-notability. --Jerzy~t 07:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I nom'ed this bio for n-n, and i'm a bit embarrassed to see "vanity" being tossed in, by the only three other del voters, as a reason. IMO we have here an honest misunderstanding (in fact, maybe only a boldly edited-in speculataion, rather than a disagreement) about notability here. We have here an apparently responsible professional, who realizes that stating the role of his personal leadership in innovation is part of the advancement of professionalism within his field. IMO there is such a difference in degree, between that and a student using WP for self assertion, as to constitute a difference in kind. We might be wise in general to consider including the word "vanity" (which presumes to determine a contributor's state of mind) a term of abuse worth mentioning as a form of personal attack. In any case, vanity does not mean "n-n and autobio", and i am heartily sorry that the word is that popular, and that closely associated with "del", in this VfD. --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I'm torn. That's a pretty good article, but I'm not sure on notability. Scimitar 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Flcelloguy below. Scimitar 17:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio from http://www.ycpd.org/index.cfm?navid=1023. I would have thought that something from the Yuba City Police Department would be public domain, but it says at the bottom of the page "© 2003 Yuba City Police Department, All Rights Reserved". Listed on Copyright problems. RickK 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Only works of the US federal government and the state of California are public domain by default. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article's talk page, this question was raised in November, 2004. The submitter is the authorized copyright holder - the chief of police. I've removed the copyvio notice. --FCYTravis 00:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to the copyvio boilerplate. The chief of police may be the subject of the article, but he is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the city of Yuba City, and someone representing the city as an entity would have to tell us that they waive copyright. RickK 04:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
While RickK is technically correct, I would assume that Yuba City routinely authorizes officials to distribute biographies of themselves. The Chief is probably so authorized. Xoloz 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then why would they need a copyright claim at the bottom of the page? RickK 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
This is boilerplate, probably to protect from mischevious use by less than admirable people (suspects angry at the sheriff, for example) The Sheriff wouldn't take copyright on a city site, but he can maintain practical control. These are the sorts of questions that motivated me to get my JD :) Xoloz 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, and nowhere close to meeting WP:BIO standards . Police chiefs of cities of this size are not generally notable. Merging wouldn't work well because there have probably been a number of police chiefs for Yuba City and there's nothing to indicate that the current chief is any more notable than any of his predecessors. Quale 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information. Thank you for your feedback on the entry. The copywright on the Police Department website was requested by me in order to control distribution of material. The government code in CA views Police Chiefs differently from other governmental appointees in that the Chief is soley responsible for all aspects of the department until they resign, retire or are removed from office. While it's rare, the PD holds the copywrite for the website and its contents, much the same as the Los Angeles Police Department retains control over various use of its name and/or symbols. Such authority is vested in the chief. The Yuba City Police Department is recognized as one of the most technologically advanced agencies of its size in the U.S. We often host visitors from agencies throughout the U.S. and abroad. We are the only municipal police agency in the nation to have gained clearance from the U.S. National Security Agency to act as an area hub for the receipt and dissemination of classified Homeland Security data. While listing in Wikipedia assists significantly in allowing a resource for interested parties to gain detailed background data prior to interviews on techknology and/or Homeland Security topics, I am very willing to be guided by your decisions. If the article is delated, I appreciate the venue as it has helped our agency since its initial posting. Thank you for allowing me to clarify some details. Rdoscherca 02:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially since Xoloz's "probably" is not good enuf, this is a valuable clarification, answering Rick's "why would they need a copyright claim...?" To flesh it out slightly, "in order to control distribution of material" refers in part to what is quite explicit in the statute:
      • the copyright protections everyone knows about apply (contrary to popular belief) even without any copyright notice.
      • the right to have your lawyers paid by the copyright violator when you sue the violator exists only when there is a copyright notice.
      The YCPD lost virtually all its copyright protection (with respect to the bio only) when the chief put the bio under GDFL by his submission, since GDFL gives such broad permission. IMO the mayor or council, and the city attorney, would at most grumble about whether other city officials might infer an unwisely broader precedent from this pretty special case.
      The chief's language about "copywright ... requested" is a little confusing, but i assume he is refering to asserting (or legally, giving notice of) the copyright.
    --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in to Yuba City. Although I understand RickK's concern, the copyright notice at the bottom of the source page says copyright Yuba City Police Department, not copyright Yuba City. As the Chief of Police, I would expect him to be able to speak for the department. --Unfocused 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now on CopyVio
Those who are following this page without following the article have been left without what would seem to be the required notice that the VfD notice has been removed there, and a CopyVio notice put in its place. While my judgement is that the Chief's claim to exercise the copyright holder's power to put this text under VfD should be assumed valid in the absence of contrary evidence that has not been offered, there is IMO no reason not to let this play out on the Copyright problems page; AFAIK it will just come back here in due time, if Rick turns out to be mistaken.
--Jerzy·t 07:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio reverted

edit

User:Rdoscherca has convinced me that he is the subject of the article and also the Yuba City PD's webmaster. Therefore he seems to be of sufficient authority to release the article and the image to the GFDL, and I have reverted the copyvio boilerplate. RickK 04:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Yuba City. Per the nominator, I'd like to re-emphasize that the chief should not be accused of "vanity." He's only doing his job as a professional. Basis for delete, if there is one, should be non-encyclopedic. Xoloz 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good bredth of info.Tjackson 03:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Smex

edit

Animé dictdef. Not notable. →Ingoolemo← talk 04:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slang dictdef...if even that. I have plenty of contact with anime fans, and I've never run across this word. Suspect it's a hoax, or at least specific to a small group of friends. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable neologism. Kelly Martin 01:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Also, Mirandom seems to not want it userfied. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miranda Tedholm

edit

I am Miranda Tedholm (no, really), and I'd much rather have this page be created once I've actually accomplished something in life. Until then, it's a vanity page, I didn't write it, and it makes me kind of uncomfortable. I am flattered, though, that someone wrote it. I hope I did this right. Mirandom 04:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)Ŵ

  • Keep HELL NAH, cause all I wanna do is THUG. -BrowardBulldawg 06:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as she requested, although nominating an article on herself for deletion in the wave of vanity articles we see certainly makes her notable. Good luck. DS1953 07:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy userfy If she really wants it gone, though, delete is fine with me, too. --Xcali 19:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable (yet). Why userfy at all if the subject is uncomfortable with the page? -- BD2412 talk 19:40, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete whichever Mirandom prefers (Mirandom, "userfy" is slang for "put on the user's personal page"). And a belated welcome to Wikipedia! Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as requested, much as I appreciate academic achievement and foreign artsy films, isn't notable quite yet. Average Earthman 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, since when we're deleting articles on request? User:Mirandom may just as well be an impersonator or something.  Grue  09:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, not notable.  Grue  07:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete, regardless of the request this person is not particularly notable as of yet (just like she claims) since she organizes a local film festival. Radiant_>|< 12:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject requested it, and it would set a very bad precedent to keep articles on non-notable people who request the article be deleted. Kaibabsquirrel 06:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moody Middle School

edit

I'm no school deletionist or anything, but this article has no redeeming qualities. It mostly reads like an advertisement... many fine qualities demonstrated by students at Moody Middle, The community of Moody Middle provides a safe and caring environment, All students at Moody Middle are expected to: Respect themselves, The school and the School Board do not approve of smoking., Hats, shirts that advertise drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or shirts with foul language are not allowed. The article doesn't establish notability, and mostly sounds like an info book about school policies that would be given to a student. CryptoDerk 04:46, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a moody middle school indeed. (Sel-respect as opposed to what, self-abuse?) Yes, an account of the (humdrum) aims and rules of an institution such as this is unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Hoary 05:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • I guess we could transwiki to, uh, Wikibooks? Uh, what's that? They don't want it? Delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep NPOV and verifiable. --Unfocused 06:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and generic. Gamaliel 18:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The cure for this kind of problem with an article is editing, not deletion. If not kept, merge to newly created article School district 43, British Columbia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Celestianpower 19:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 19:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. I don't hate schools, but this article provides no useful information. --Scimitar 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article provides no useful information. Almost meets "speedy" criteria. --Carnildo 20:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. NeoJustin 20:27, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as verifiable and NPOV stub that Tony has fixed. I agree with WP:SCH guidelines. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with School district 43, British Columbia Average Earthman 21:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and add the {{Cleanup-schools}} tag. ~~~~ 22:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Lessee, it's an article about a school with some problems. I have an idea: FIX IT instead of nominating it for VfD! Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 04:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with school district or community article. Kelly Martin 04:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's developing nicely. -Eisnel 04:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I say: Don't delete it! It's not that bad compared to others. Besides, it looks fix-able to me. KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwiz (talk • contribs) 05:02 UTC, 8 Jun 2005
    • Comment. The above editor's 27th edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's improving. CalJW 05:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Though the Reputation heading needs to be changed along with a rewrite of the content in that section. Vegaswikian 06:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with School district 43, British Columbia. That is so much easier than putting this through the VfD grind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into School district 43, British Columbia and delete - Skysmith 08:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please no need to merge it Yuckfoo 23:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect & merge with School district 43, British Columbia  The Steve  06:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN crap Proto 11:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good to see more schools on VfD. Keep it up. —RaD Man (talk) 22:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Rees

edit

Vanity. Returns 48 google hits, and 0 if 'vocalist' is included in the search. →Ingoolemo← talk 04:48, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete: I originally put it as speedy, but it's more appropriate for VfD. --Durin 04:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy When she has risen, then someone can write an article --Xcali 06:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not famous enough yet to include MarkS 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, not so famous yet, her or her song. --Etacar11 01:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Michael A. Crosby

edit

Vanity, someone writing an article about himself is not encylopaedic. See this page: [13] I will also be lodging the page that redirects to this one for deletion also. MyNameIsNotBob 04:59, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - presumably vanity, as he doesn't even seem to be listed on the IMDb yet. Note, however, that you don't need to separately list redirects to VFD'd articles on VFD - I've redirected Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikal Crosby to here and restored the redirect. If this page is deleted, then the admin who processes it should delete the redirect at the same time, as a matter of course. sjorford →•← 19:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Fletcher

edit

Nom (& vote Del on) this bio of a 30-yr-old "activist" w/ "110 of about 588" Google hits via

"Adam Fletcher" freechild

as so far non-notable.
--Jerzy·t 05:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a nice fellow, but even his Freechild project seems non-notable (a google search reveals a lot of worthwhile intent, but not much actual action). There's a photo of the man here; [14] I am also overweight, and I have pondered whether a goatee beard would help hide this, but I've never really had the courage to just let it grow.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. A page for The Freechild Project has also been created. --Etacar11 01:32, 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 delete. —Xezbeth 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Funkilepsy

edit

Neologism... Zero google hits Tadanisakari 05:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Neologism, yes, but a funny one. -- BD2412 talk 19:37, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fiction based religion

edit

Inherently POV, more "church of reality" promo. --W(t) 05:24, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Delete per Weyes. ESkog 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant POV --Xcali 06:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment No reference to Church of Reality in this article.--Marcperkel 06:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Without passing judgment, I note that this is the author of both the article in question and Church of Reality. ESkog 04:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Reference in cult info article on Scientology --Marcperkel 06:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Toytoy 07:24, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV to suggest that all religions based on faith are in fact based on fiction. -- BD2412 talk 19:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV if I ever did see. Celestianpower 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Karol 20:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete; aren't all religions based on fiction? Dunc|☺ 20:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All but one. The problem is, nobody knows which one. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The world needs more places where people can argue 'my god is less fictitious than your god'. Delete. Niteowlneils 21:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently POV to claim religion X is more fictional than religion Y. Unless religion X is that of the Invisible pink unicorn etc. ~~~~ 22:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fiction-based article. The Church of Reality, whose web site propounds this concept, is a religion with 1 adherent. The only even tangential mentions of this concept outside of the general proselytizing by that 1 adherent are, as is the link given above, in fact matching the phrase "science-fiction based religion", and are where people are talking specifically about Scientology, not about some general classification scheme for religions. original research. Delete. Uncle G 23:09, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, patently POV stuff. --Etacar11 01:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Rama 13:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay, original research, neologism, no evidence presented that this is a genuine term in reasonably widespread use. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid and may invite vandalism and idiocy. For a precedent: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matrixism, which dealt with a religion based on The Matrix, led to a merge. The merge was rejected as unverifiable, and a wave of vandalism followed(see "Matrixism linkspamming vandal" under Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages#Specific_anonymous_vandals). Matrixism had to be protected from recreation as well. — Phil Welch 00:33, 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 delete. —Xezbeth 08:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Language of dna

edit

Original research. Much of the article is from this webpage, which doesn't seem to be particularly neutral or research-based. Joyous 05:48, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • It also seems to be based heavily on this press release, which is trying to sell a vaguely-defined product from this company. Delete as original research. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 06:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Toytoy 07:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; original research/nonsense. See [15] which gives a paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology which would be a better starting point for such an article. Dunc|☺ 19:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll give you the abstract: DNA sequences usually involve local construction rules that affect different scales. As such their may not follow Zipf's law (a power law) which is followed in every natural language. Indeed, analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA is not a language, Computer simulations and a biological approach to this problem further support these results. [16] Dunc|☺ 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless changed into a discussion of studies into its non linguistic nature. ~~~~ 22:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an original research copyvio. Shouldn't we blank the page and throw up the copyvio tag? func(talk) 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense - unencyclopedic language. --Ian Pitchford 14:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --nixie 04:11, 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 Redirect. Golbez 23:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

COOL

edit

Deadend article with 951 hits. →Ingoolemo← talk 06:02, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

  • Keep. See: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and other scholarly sources. El_C 07:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have been speedy deleted. No content. RickK 19:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Rick. --Scimitar 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to CLIPS programming language Dunc|☺ 20:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect as above. Kappa 20:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~~~~
  • As above, Redirect. Uncle G 00:16, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Redirect to CLIPS programming language. JamesBurns 05:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. CLIPS is the most known and used production system (because it is free of charge and exists for long time) and COOL is attempt to extend its functionality beyond simple if X -> do Y rules. The language has quite different and interesting properties from typical OO languages and IMHO deserves article of its own. The language has extensive documentation and is probably used by majority of serious projects using CLIPS or FuzzyCLIPS. Hopefully someone will add more info the article. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • merge for now, recreate when more info gathered --MarSch 14:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 23:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[[Jafna%F0arstefna]]

edit

Icelandic dictdef. →Ingoolemo← talk 06:07, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Delete, it's already been transwikied. Incorrect (or rather, politically loaded) definition; it actually means "social democracy". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 04:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rhys lloyd

edit

Rhys Lloyd? Who? This article was created by User:Rhyslloyd who has only one edit [22] since May. Toytoy 07:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

This page now becomes even worse. -- Toytoy 14:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. -- Toytoy 15:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy userfy --Xcali 19:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is proper to userfy the content. I can register "User:SmallStarletOfHollywood" and create an article for "SmallStarletOfHollywood" but that might not be my true identity. -- Toytoy 03:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy vanity. --Etacar11 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Takver 03:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Altar Q

edit

Earlier deletion debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Altar Q/Archive. It has been restored after VFU listing, because it seems that this band wasn't as local as originally thought. Abstain. Radiant_* 07:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. allmusic has a page for them at [23], but all it says is "genre rock", with no albums listed. artistdirect also has a page for them at [24], but it's empty. A Google search for "Altar Q" band -wikipedia -copan comes up with 84 hits. Their website at http://www.altarq.net/ is closed. RickK
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 01:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: band promo, nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 05:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I voted to undelete this on the grounds that there might have been more notability than came forward at the last debate. After googling around with this I have found that it apparently has been played on a number of local radio stations, and this appears to be a bit more than just band vanity. However, Altar Q comes up a little short when I'm measuring it up against WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much a textbook example of band vanity. Anybody can get a couple of plays on local radio with just a small amount of effort, so that's no big deal.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karameh

edit

I might have forgotten my Lord of the Rings lore, but this is a battle I have never heard of. Delete Rewritten with proper info: Keep Rasmus (talk) 07:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, an earlier version of this article discusses a real 1968 battle[25] which occured in the Jordanian village of Al-Karameh (sometimes called Karameh). Revert to that earlier version, cleanup, and keep. -- BD2412 talk 19:33, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
    • What does "Karameh was a big battle between the Elves and Dwarves of Middle Earth" have to do with Jordan? I don't think there was a Tolkien character named Big Nose George, either. Delete. RickK 20:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, BD2412 showed me that there was a real verson buried amongst the drek in the article's history. I have reverted to that version and re-added the vfd header. I change my vote to keep and cleanup. RickK 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 21:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's weird is that the same IP that started the real article also created the LotR one...strange. func(talk) 21:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And also made several vandalistic edits besides the complete nonsense rewrite. RickK 22:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jordanian battle. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable battle. JamesBurns 05:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The buried actual version is a copyvio from [26]. Rasmus (talk) 07:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Use as a source and rewrite - RL confrontation - Skysmith 08:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewritten to remove copyvio - and POV.  :-D -- BD2412 talk 13:42, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename into Battle of Karameh. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 08:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Derek Jones

edit

non-notable/vanity page Gblaz 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Robojames 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleet. --Horatio86 12:20, 7 Jun 2005 (PDT)
  • Delete. Nothing indicates notability. -- BD2412 talk 19:26, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page MarkS 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone must have been dizzy at the time. DrippingInk 22:30, 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. JeremyA 14:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew economos

edit

Not notable. Classic vanity capitalization problem. 18 Google hits for ("Andrew economos" music selector), 11 of which are from his own companies' websites. --Xcali 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google hits for ("andrew economos" -football) are 119. (Apparently there is a football player by the same name) A spelling error should not determine the validity of an article. 207.67.132.209 02:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete He may be notable, but I don't see proof in the article. Vegaswikian 06:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the WP:BIO Guidelines: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field."

Dr. Economos clearly fits in this descritpion. The radio programming field, while narrow, has a large impact on society. Radio programmers decides what gets airplay, and radio has great influence in popular culture. Andrew Economos is a widely recognized figure as an innovator in the field.

Does somebody have to be a member of popular culture (baseball star or politician) to be included in Wikipedia ? I hope not! I believe Dr. Economos is notabale, although certainly not a pop culture figure ! The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to provide information on important and interesting subjects. Many people, IMHO are interested in mass media, broadcasting, radio and music. Music scheduling by computer was pioneered by Dr. Economos. 207.67.132.209

PS, as far as vanity goes, I am *not* Dr. Economos :-) 207.67.132.210 00:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

McDonalds fruit and walnut salad

edit

I can't really see this page going anywhere, certainly not more than a dictdef, and it's not at all encyclopedic as it stands. UkPaolo 19:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one of a series of pointless articles by User:Historicperson -- UkPaolo 19:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several hundred hits on Google [27], launched by Venus Williams [28], commented on MSNBC [29], the Seattle Times [30]. --Edcolins 20:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm... it does appear you've actually re-formatted it into a decent stub! It could stay on as such, I suppose, but given it's got little chance of future expansion, surely the info can be merged to the McDonalds page? I'll stick with a delete vote. UkPaolo 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it seems Kappa didn't like your prediction: "it's got little chance of future expansion." --Edcolins 20:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even as a fast food item, I don't see it as notable. --Xcali 20:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McDonald's. Ridethefire3211 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable menu item, with a significant impact on nutrition for many Americans, and on apple, grape, walnut and dairy producers. Kappa 22:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or let's just delete ALL articles about food! How's that? Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • fallacy of the excluded middle Uncle G 00:08, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
      • I think the implication is that Ketsuban sees no reasonable criteria allowing deletion of this article but retention of any other articles about food. Kappa 00:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That would be unimaginative, if true. Reasonable criteria that would do so are relatively easy to imagine. ("Keep basic foodstuffs like peach and meals that have existed for over 100 years but not fast food restaurant menu items" would be one such criterion, for example.) I'm not convinced that that was the implication, however. It's certainly hard to read such an implication into the actual words there before us, which read more plainly as a straight dichotomy comprising "keep all articles about food" and "delete all articles about food", with no middle allowed. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable item on the menu of the world's most notorious restaurant, part of a major marketing campaign. Xoloz 00:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its an interesting little article. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per what Xoloz said -CunningLinguist 01:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep despite the hyperbole of some other keep votes. Gamaliel 03:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless MacDonald's is paying for the advertising. --Wetman 03:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (reluctant) Keep. As a generic item, I'd vote delete, but this is pretty specific, and does seem to represent an actual change in direction for McD. Too tangental for inclusion in the main article, and we're not running out of paper. --Unfocused 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and free advertising for McDonalds. JamesBurns 05:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't think McDonalds has the only "fruit and walnut salad" in the world, so having their concoction under the title is basically an ad for their product. I mean, isn't Waldorf Salad a fruit and walnut salad (with another ingredient or two)? This really should not stay as is, but some of this could be mentioned somewhere. I don't really know what to call this vote except a not keep. -R. fiend 05:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After some thought, I'm starting to lean towards a redirect to Waldorf Salad as the most notable form of a fruit and walnut salad. Since this is rather similar to Waldorf Salad, and clearly inspired by it, we could include a mention of it there and a link to McDonalds menu items where most of this article could be moved (although it currently reads sort of Consumer Reports-like, which I'm not so sure is ideal). Such an article could also house the current contents of the likes of Big Mac and Chicken McNuggets, as well as others. -R. fiend 15:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment R. fiend has a good point; this really should be moved to a McDonalds-specific title. Or moved/merged into an article McDonalds menu items, which could catalog the various menu items around the world. This could be very interesting to see, all in one place, how fast food translates across different cultures. Unfocused 05:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The Waldorf Salad contains mayo and celery, and also began as a commercial product, bearing the name of a famous serving establishment. This is a distinct salad, also a commercial product, sold by a merchant as famous (or infamous) today as Waldorf's was in the past. To me, the Waldorf precedent supports a keep, and I stand by my vote above. Xoloz 17:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This one has a mayo substitute, albeit no celery; it is clearly an adaptation of the other. And to compare a product that was released a month ago with something that has been around for a century is just plain ridiculous. The Waldorf Salad has entered the lexicon; McDonalds fruit and walnut salad has not, and likely never will. At the very least this needs to be moved to a McDonalds specific title and disambiguated, because having a general food item like this indicate a specific menu item at a spcific restaurant is basically promoting McDonalds. -R. fiend 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • As you'd expect, I don't find my contention "ridiculous." :) To my mind, McDonald's is (unfortunately) sufficiently powerful and ubiquitous such that any product they release, with major fanfare as a new marketing strategy centerpiece, is almost immediately notable (even if it fails -- see New Coke.) This article isn't advertising; it reflects the (sad) reality that these commercial product releases are notable in American life, pathetic though that may be. Xoloz 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I hardly think anything Mcdonalds sells in inherently encyclopedic (and just about every product they release is marketed with great fanfare). The notion that if someone advertizes something sufficiently it belongs in an encyclopedia is a flawed notion: it would make an encyclopia would be be just another ad. I'm sure it took many years for Waldorf Salad (something quite new) to become widely known and popular enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I hardly think McDonalds stealing the idea 100 years later puts them on the fast track. I've watched quite a bit of TV recently, I'm sorry to say, and I had not yet heard of this new item. That's hardly surprising, as fast food chains put out about a new item every few minutes and it's easy to ignore them. I think this article is indicitive of the tendency for people to write articles on everything as it appears without any regard of greater significance, while disregarding more important things of the past. Nevertheless, I would not entirely object to much of the content of this article being mentioned elsewhere, but currently it's the equivalent of finding an article on the KFC bucket meal when one types "fried chicken". -R. fiend 18:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't mind a separate article on McDonald's Coporate Response to Health Concerns, although with a much better title. I don't think that just putting this in a general menu article does justice to the circumstances surrounding its creation -- that McDonald's has been publicly embarrassed/pressured into altering their marketing. Xoloz 19:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main article or create a new article to hold all of McDonalds menu choices. Is the feelings of providers verifiable? Vegaswikian 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has been improved greatly. Andrew pmk 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To be honest, I find the idea of articles on one month old fast food restaurant menu items to be absolutely idiotic. I'm sure McDonalds appreciates the advertising, though. McDonalds has a few items that are culturally important (for example Big Mac and Quarter Pounder) that deserve articles. The cultural importance of Fruit and walnut salad is zero, and will probably remain zero forever. Quale 06:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: well, I am amazed to find that people have actually managed to rewrite this article to such a high standard. The current content should, of course, be kept. My one reservation now with leaving the article as is, is as per R. Fiend - this is a global encyclopedia, and McDonalds do not have the only Fruit and walnut salad. That is a generic term, and if the article is to remain, should be made more generic. Maybe what would be more appropriate is to move to a Fruit and walnut salad (McDonalds) page, and create a list of McDonalds menu items (as described above). Fruit and walnut salad could contain generic blurb about what one is, and mention McDo listing it, linking accordingly. I would agree with Quale, however, that this is ultimately rather un-notable, and free advertising for McDo as it stands... he's right that the cultural importance is probably zero. However, we're not exactly runnin out of space, so I see no reason to totally remove this content now it's been re-written... we just need to decide where to put it! UkPaolo 07:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea, Kappa. UkPaolo 08:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It works for Windows. I think you should go ahead and do it. There's still no harm if it gets deleted. If you do it by first moving this article to the McD specific one, then editing the redirect to change it to a disambig, I think that preserves the edit record properly. --Unfocused 14:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yay for Kappa! I also like this idea. Xoloz 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved as per Kappa, Unfocused & Xoloz to McDonalds fruit and walnut salad... I hope no-one objects to this. It's still got it's VfD box, and can still be deleted depending on the outcome of the vote. I'll create a disambig page at Fruit and walnut salad... perhaps people might like to re-consider their votes now? I was certainly proved wrong in saying that there was "little chance for future expansion" UkPaolo 15:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that UkPaolo, I think that answers one of the main objections. Kappa 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Even the Neanderthals knew fruit and walnuts, and ate them, I suppose. Why should homo sapiens sapiens (the wisest man of all times) need an encyclopedic explanation? I hope, Fast Food hasn´t made man that stupid, yet. Delete. Mami 16:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt if the Neanderthals used calcium ascorbate to preserve their fruit, but I could be wrong. Kappa 16:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • heh :o) UkPaolo 19:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. McDonalds didn't invent the fruit and walnut salad like they did the Big Mac, and we shouldn't be providing them with free advertising space. What's next, McDonalds large Coke? Eliot 19:14, 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. —Xezbeth 08:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Asian salad

edit

dictdef at best Gblaz 19:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - pointless article, agreed with Gblaz. UkPaolo 19:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to keep. -- BD2412 talk 19:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Keep asian salad real. -- Historicperson (unsigned, signature added, implied vote made explicit, ~~~~ 22:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC))
It doesnt really matter if it exists, articles need to be about notable things, and have enough content and context to be descriptive. ~~~~ 22:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This would be a valid speedy: short article with little content. Delete. DJ Clayworth 03:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this should have been speedied as little or no content. JamesBurns 05:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vegaswikian 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Waste of space.--Herrhav0k 14:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Mashed potatoes and gravy

edit

Pointless article, gives no information whatsoever as it stands, and I can't see much future potential as an encyclopedia article UkPaolo 19:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As it stands it's a candidate for speedy delete. Celestianpower 19:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it ought to be a redirect to Mashed potato ~~~~ 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as it stands. -- BD2412 talk 19:23, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Mashed potatoes and gravy is a meal!

Yes, and this is an encyclopedia! UkPaolo 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so delte?

  • Delete — yeesh. :) — RJH 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with thanks to the article's creator for a good laugh. Schmeitgeist 20:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • As it stands this is almost the canonical CSD criterion A1 candidate. As for future articles: We keep articles on culturally significant meals, like grits, porridge, bangers and mash, fish and chips, hamburger, and pie floater. I'm not convinced that this is a culturally significant meal. There are certainly recipes (for the cookbook) that include mashed potatoes and gravy. But there isn't much significance to the two as a specific meal that I can find that would indicate potential for expansion here, as opposed to in the two separate articles on the two separate components. However, Capitalistroadster will no doubt be pleased to learn that Mashed Potatoes and Gravy was an album released in the 1960s by The Ventures. As per -Ril-, Redirect to mashed potato, where the option of gravy is already mentioned. Uncle G 00:00, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Redirect to mashed potato. Thanks to Uncle G for the tip. I might even mention that KFC have this as part of their menu to the article. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a valid speedy. Delete. DJ Clayworth 03:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this should have been speedied as little or no content. JamesBurns 05:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Burp I meant Speedy Delete Vegaswikian 06:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Uncle G and Capitalistroadster. -- Lochaber 10:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP What are you guys talking about??? We have entries for Macaroni and cheese, which is not often a complete meal;who cares if something is not a "whole meal." If we have other cultural foods, we should definitely have Mashed Potatoes and Gravy. Note that this is not just two random foods put together [like celery and peanut butter], rather potatoes are one of the most [if not the most common] meals that gravy goes with. I think the problem with seeing why this is valid is that we simple fans of the dish didn't come up with some new inventive name for it. The Canucks take french fries and throw gravy on it and it becomes poutaine. We just decided to call it what it was. -Phantym 07:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The topic has sufficient significance to be encyclopedic, but unless improved there is no reason to keep what is present. Delete unless expanded into (for instance) a complete sentence. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

SEAL Team Six and MARESFAC

edit

Useless article, as information on these two groups should go on their own pages. This is not a title people are likely to link to. Delete SeventyThree 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ol' Mistah Buzzard

edit

If it's even spelt correctly, it's certainly not detailed enough to merit an article of it's own about this unnotable character UkPaolo 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable.  Grue  09:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 14:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blandrardy

edit

Article is not complete and there is so little information it does not make any sense. Cannot find any reference to the subject or contents on google to expand this. Unless anybody can fix this suggest it is deleted MarkS 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete maybe there is an explanation for this but it's nonsense right now. --Etacar11 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless greatly expanded. DJ Clayworth 03:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 14:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aptel

edit

Non-notable neologism; article creator (the one who wrote most of the content - the other edits are mainly maintenance, wikificaiton, and such) has requested deletion (on talk page, I believe). – ugen64 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete neologism.  Grue  09:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete neologism.  Claunia  19:51, 15 Jun 2005 (GMT)
    • this is the user's second edit. And his sig is a blatant rip-off of mine ;)  Grue  19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nbsdesignz

edit

Seems to be advertisement Yoghurt 19:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. Looks like an advert. MarkS 19:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 20:24, June 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. And first person creeps in. --Etacar11 02:01, 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 copyvio. —Xezbeth 08:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Binax

edit

Vanity page for the company rather than an encylopedia article; text has been lifted directly from the company's website which creates a copyvio problem if the article is not deleted MarkS 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep if rewritten. 10,000+ Google hits [31]. JamesBurns 05:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • COmment If it is a copyvio, why is it on VfD? Vegaswikian 06:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Replace with CopyVio message, &c. — RJH 17:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oak Tree, County Durham

edit

This is a page that is admittedly about a "small" village. Do little hamlets get their own articles? Ryan Prior 20:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Keep Dunc|☺ 20:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Examples? I'm skeptical, but I'm also new, so I'd like to see other discussions. Ryan Prior 20:24, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, who needs examples?! Just because most hamlets do not yet have their own article doesn't mean they shouldn't - hopefully in time they will. Secondly, I'm sure there are plenty of small villages with articles on Wikipedia. In fact, I think you'll find plenty of articles representing small geographical locations around the world. UkPaolo 20:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vera, Oklahoma Keep. Dsmdgold 22:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I don't wish to bite the newcomer but perhaps if you were not familiar with the inclusion criteria you should have checked up before listing this on VfD. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't find this village in google. Does it even exist? — RJH 20:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my wife has an aunt who lives near there. ~~~~ 22:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the dreaded Google test. Just because something doesn't show up in Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist!. Vast, vast, swathes of encyclopedic human knowledge are not included in Google's index. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I can't verify it. If somebody lives in the area or has a directory, please post! Ryan Prior 20:24, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
If you had bothered to note the grid reference linked in the article which you put up for deletion, it's easy to check that the place does exist. Check on the OS Map! UkPaolo 20:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this hamlet then. :) — RJH 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, I'm assuming it's verifiable because of the grid reference, regardless of google results. Kappa 20:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can I crete an article for Nonexistant Ghost Town, Nevada if I say it's between Tucson and Las Vegas? Ryan Prior 20:29, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • You could do that, but hopefully someone would tag it with {{accuracy}} or something, and it would be checked out and deleted. Kappa 20:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference being that this place actually exists and "Nonexistant Ghost Town" does not. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. It's a real place. NatusRoma 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real place with two hotels and a train station. -- BD2412 talk 20:39, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
    • ...and if you have a good calling plan and are really keen to verify, call the nearby Parkmore Hotel & Leisure Club, 08700 60 10 60.
  • Strong keep. In answer to your question, yes - small villages should get their own articles! I'd be against deleting any geographical location. Granted, the article doesn't contain much info, but the addition of a stub like this means people are much more likely to add to it in future. UkPaolo 20:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per UkPaolo. Ridethefire3211 21:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real place. Towns, villages, etc. are inherently notable. This is what encyclopedias are for. 23skidoo 23:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even small villages. - DS1953 23:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm convinced. Thanks for the clarifications, all. Ryan Prior 23:42, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hamlets deserve articles and it exists. -CunningLinguist 01:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Real place with pubs, railway station and community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the article from the two-sentence stub with some information of a general nature. I don't actually know the place, I was just creating stubs on all villages in County Durham a few months ago. It now reads more like a Rambot-style template article, waiting for someone who knows it well to add some more information about its history or something. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places except rocks in the middle of water that have no particular notability even though they have a name. RickK 07:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per convention. James F. (talk) 14:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. All villages are notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is larger than the Seldom_Seen_Roadhouse geographical location, though probably slightly less notable.--Takver 03:15, 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 DELETE. JeremyA 15:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Faces for Radio

edit

Public access cable TV show. Google for show title and either of the "masterminds" names gives a maximum of 3 hits. Not notable. --Xcali 20:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. --Etacar11 02:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rebel Alliance Forums

edit

Another web forum. Although this article is reasonably well written, I can't figure out why this is notable. Although I get about a thousand Google hits after weeding out the string "star wars", I still can't tell that this group is notable. Most of the top hits appear to be other groups using this popular name. The Rebel Alliance is already covered in the Che-Lives article. --Xcali 20:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - Well if the Che-lives article covering the Rebel Alliance is shortend to say a link and this page stays would that not cover it? because it is not covered to any detail in the Che-Lives article. Remember this is a relatively new development in Che-Lives, you seem a bit too keen to get rid of the article. And we may not be on google yet, but we're on msn search, quite high in fact- User:Escobar600ie


Che-Lives has a rather lengthy page describing different aspects of it, and it's history... I don't see why the Rebel Alliance, a prominent division of it should be robbed of such a thing while che-live's history and information is allowed to remain. (unsigned edit by 24.131.136.226)

Personally I think that this is an interesting development. If this infomation were to be merged into the main Che-lives page then it is possible that the page would be too long. However, so long as the infomation is kept (either on the Che-lives page or on its own page) I don't mind what is done. If things continue and this forum actually becomes a lot more active then there is reason to leave it as a seperate page. I vote to delete the page and merge the infomation back into the main Che-lives page until such time as the forums become more active. --harrismw 01:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vote no. The page itself stands for an independent website, not a sub-division of Che-Lives. It would be more appropriate to delete a part of the information regarding Rebel Alliance on the Che-Lives website. --User:RedStarOverChina

This page should definately have a stay. Aslong as there is something to write about it (Enough information), it should always stay because all articles need to be considered, atleast once, and allowed to exist..since this is Wikipedia, and we should strive to cover as most subject as possible and if someone does the bother to write a bit about it, why try to save a lil' bandwith 'cuz you don't like "small" boards, which could always become something bigger and more than a forum? But don't remove part of it from teh Che-Lives entry.....it's relevant, after-all, they're break-away from the board there, of RevLeft.--OleMurder 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - just another web forum - no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a web guide. CDC (talk) 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 03:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Rebel Alliance is not a website, as such. It is a community composed of people with a (roughly) shared political or philosophical leaning who happen to be divided by large distances and so communicate using the internet.

  • If Wikipedia is not a web directory then certainly the likes of che-lives should be removed as well. This community is quite unique for the way it organizes itself. (unsigned edit by 24.131.136.226)


Put it under the Che Lives main page. It does not need its own seperate page as the website will most likely die within a relatively short period anyway. That or group it with Star Wars.--HoldenMashaft


  • Keep Stancel 23:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep it! - El Revolucionario (pseudo-signed edit by 66.177.138.113)

  • Delete. The meatpuppet brigade (hilariously long but otherwise basic definition of what a web forum is) hasn't done much to show that this site is notable. A Man In Black 05:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep this sucker (unsigned edit by 83.109.180.124)

  • Keep =RA= 19:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is the first edit ever by =RA=. --Xcali 20:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Will add a sentence summary to the che-lives page once I get my net back, since they have only come up in the month that my net has been down so far.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable web-forum. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 19 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay horse

edit

vanity/non-notable - This was marked for speedy deletion, but vanity is not a category for speedy deletion. Gblaz 21:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Gblaz. Ridethefire3211 21:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. But for once, not a high school rock band. Refreshing. --Etacar11 02:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 03:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 05:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dominus 12:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Murder City Devils

edit

Was marked as speedy deletion candidate. Does not qualify as such, IMHO. However, this article is very short, so I changed it to VfD Yoghurt 21:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, 136,000 google hits [32], amazon.com sponsored link. Hitting notable bands with a speedy tag after 1 minute isn't very newbie-friendly. Kappa 21:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I don't see how the current article is better than no article at all. --Xcali 21:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Stubs grow... - DS1953 23:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable band, it can grow -CunningLinguist 00:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable band with three albums released on Sub Pop therefore meeting WikiMusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep quite notable. Just needs expansion. --Etacar11 03:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note I have expanded the article. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 10:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I'd also say keep. I have just VfD'ed it so that it does not get a {{delete}} again Yoghurt 13:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I had marked this for speedy... must have typo'd the Google test or something... profuse apologies... #>_<# — flamingspinach | (talk) 15:14, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep A band this prominent and influential needs an article; keep but improve. --drew 13:15 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Young

edit

sub-stub, only one single fact Yoghurt 21:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The one single fact is a record which stands in a league that has been around for over 130 years.
  • Keep, professional baseball player. Kappa 00:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, MLB recordholder. Xoloz 00:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the record makes him notable . -- BD2412 talk 00:39, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are many major league baseball players on Wikipedia, and this one has a notable record. ErikNY 01:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. While he has a record, albeit an undesirable one, surely more can be said about him than this. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I also expanded it a little bit, so it doesn't look like a substub. -- Grev -- Talk 03:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even if the "one single fact" was as simple as professional baseball player. -- Jonel 03:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Murat Aga and Sandalla casualty list

edit

Although the event may be notable, I don't see how the list of names is. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Xcali 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial... Though, if kept, should be a subpage of Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict rather than an article itself. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: based on user's other edits, I've got to disgree with you about being a subpage. It's POV. It's a one-sided list. The opposing side gets no mention in any of these articles. --Xcali 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment on Comment: I can see your point and might agree, though it's very possible the "other side" will submit a list of casualties as well. I really don't see the point in listing the names of everyone killed in every battle or massacre or air disaster or bus crash or hotel fire etc... --Chiacomo (talk) 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete regretfully the numbers killed in tragedies and wars are notable - but the individuals are not in themselves. WP:NOT a memorial --Doc --Doc (?) 22:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe there should be another MediaWiki project? A bit like WikiSource, but rather "WikiDeath", where everyone who died (ever), and what the cause of death was, is listed. ~~~~ 22:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikimorial and Wikipeople have been proposed, but discussions have stalled and nothing exists except for discussions on Meta. Wikitree has not only been proposed as subsuming both, but is in fact up and running right now. Whilst it is not a WikiMedia project, and not GFDL, it is a MediaWiki project. Categorizing people by the major event that they died in is an idea that should be suggested at the Treehouse. Uncle G 23:22, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is these individuals arent notable. JamesBurns 06:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as being outside the boundaries of Wikipedia's editorial policy. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which lists memorials as a non-encyclopedic item. -- ChrisO 07:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atlilar casulaty list

edit

As with the above casualty list, I don't see how this is notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Xcali 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete regretfully the numbers killed in tragedies and wars are notable - but the individuals are not in themselves. WP:NOT a memorial --Doc --Doc (?) 22:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above CDC (talk) 00:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "casulaty list" -- WP is not a memorial, though perhaps, as others have said, there should be a memorial wiki of some sort. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is these individuals arent notable. JamesBurns 06:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as being outside the boundaries of Wikipedia's editorial policy. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which lists memorials as a non-encyclopedic item. -- ChrisO 07:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1963-1967 Turkish Cypriot Casualty List

edit

As with the above casualty list, I don't see how this is notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Blatant POV. --Xcali 21:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete regretfully the numbers killed in tragedies and wars are notable - but the individuals are not in themselves. WP:NOT a memorial --Doc (?) 22:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Doc.--Nabla 00:18, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Delete.This is pure sensationalism.--Jsone 05:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is these individuals arent notable. JamesBurns 06:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Since as the writer of this article, I am ineligible to vote, but I think it important to let you know that the entry contains names only. I did not write 'memorial' headings. It was meant only as a listing, hard as that may be to believe. I am pro-TRNC, but my motive for this section is solely as a reference. Expatkiwi 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    AFAIK, there's no reason why you shouldn't vote - please do vote if you wish to. -- ChrisO 09:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as being outside the boundaries of Wikipedia's editorial policy. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which lists memorials as a non-encyclopedic item. -- ChrisO 07:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)* *
  • Delete To be fair, maybe I should create a page for a memorial of the missing Cypriots from the 1974 invasion by Turkey and for all those Cypriots killed by the right wing extremists (TMT and EOKA 2)because they wanted their country to be UNITED and not divided. But I prefer not to because this is not wikimemorial. Dude, make your own webpage for this stuff. You are too desperate. (UNFanatic)
Link does not work from where I am.(138.5.98.65)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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!) 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Breakdancing Ronald Reagan

edit

Come back when you have more than 21 (rather suspect) googles - nn --Doc (?) 21:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn --Xcali 22:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless Reagan rises from the dead and starts breakdancing. -- BD2412 talk 00:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same as BD. DJ Clayworth 03:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 03:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. It is also a rare website that few people know about. (an unsigned vote from User:SuperDude115)
  • Delete, non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete this article and the redirect at Anthony Bain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bain

edit

Six-year-old actor. Not notable. David | Talk 22:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Was this a significant role? If not Delete. Vegaswikian 06:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Anthony Bain.  Grue  09:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No harm in merging it into the soap's page if you really object to it. Grace Note 05:47, 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jack Briscoe

edit

Another six-year old actor who is not notable. David | Talk 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Harmless. Actors with regular parts in a soap are normally kept. CalJW 05:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a significant role? If not Delete. Vegaswikian 06:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pretty important role since they upgraded the character from a baby to a 6-year-old. RickK 07:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable.  Grue  09:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What does it matter that we have an article about this kid? If he goes on to have a big career, his article will grow organically. If he does not, what's the harm? He has a short piece in a very large encyclopaedia. Grace Note 05:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's the big deal? It's just a little kid. Maybe fans of the show would like to know info. on him even though he's not significant yet.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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!) 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trace Bundy

edit

Appears to be a vanity advert, although it has 514 hits on google, so I'm not sure. ~~~~ 22:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete "Little known" people generally do not belong in WP. --Xcali 23:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If he is little known then he shouldn't really have an article. Forbsey 23:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I wrote the article about him and by little known I meant he hasn't hit the mainstream yet. He has released 3 CDs and is gaining popularity rapidly, especially among the guitarist community. If other artists have pages on Wikipedia Trace Bundy deserves one too. Also it is not vanity because Trace Bundy did not write this article.--24.166.43.161 02:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Etacar11 03:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Go ahead and check WP:MUSIC. I quote, "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Not only is Trace Bundy the most popular musician coming out of Buena Vista/Boulder Colorado (which is verifiable, he has one various contest in the area such as "Guitars on the River," a competition for guitarist all over CO), he has also became one of the biggest names in the neo-classical guitar genre.--24.166.43.161 00:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: duplicate vote User 24.166.43.161 made same vote above. Please vote only once.Tobycat 03:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Tobycat 03:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because you've never heard of him or don't like his style doesn't make him non-notable. Besides, I wouldn't consider any of you people voting to delete this page notable but you still have Wiki pages. What harm will it do to keep him in here?
  • Keep According to Tim Thornton of Newcomer's Home, “Acoustic solo guitarist Trace Bundy . . . has been getting a lot of attention lately -- he just won first place in "Guitars on the River," a Colorado guitar competition in which [he] . . . beat out some of Colorado's best classical players." (Found at http://www.tracebundy.com/press.html) The information is accurate, verifiable, and since he won a Colorado guitar competition, as Tim Thornton put it, "beat out some of Colorado's best classical players," I think he is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. ---IanManka 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not meeting the guidelines for musicians at WP:MUSIC. Why have guidelines if we're going to have a big argument in each individual case about whether to apply them? I'm sure you have to be pretty good to win first place at Guitars on the River in Salida, Colorado; but it's not exactly a "major music award". Frjwoolley 19:37, 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 delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Travis chenoweth

edit

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete CDC (talk) 00:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 03:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Xcali 21:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete 4 pounds does not make a whopping baby, so not even notable for that. --Kurando 10:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Georgia gubernatorial election, 2006

edit

do we need this article with such mispelled title Melaen 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy ? delete because. No, mispelling needs correction, not deletion. But would have said {{db|something not yet happened is not encyclopaedic yet.}}. Gtabary 23:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I wrote this article because I noticed that a number of gubernatorial pages had been set up but not written. I have been attempting to correct my spelling errors since I posted the article. If you find a spelling problem, please feel free to fix it. However, I do not believe minor spelling errors to be justification for deletion. 7 June 7:57 EST.
  • Is Gtabary saying delete or keep? I can't tell. 7 June 8:00 EST.
The bold section is the usual format. So I said delete (because). :-) Gtabary 23:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I looked through the requirements for deletion. Spelling errors were not listed as justification. Thus far, that appears to be the only complaint. - The Author
  • This is the Author again. I have fixed as many spelling errors as I could. If you have found a problem I missed, please fix it yourself or post here so I know what to fix.
  • Keep and cleanup Upcoming elections are an exception to the "crystal ball" rule. Xoloz 00:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For other articles on upcoming elections see the article on the 2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign as well as the articles on the 2006 Senate and House elections.
  • Keep. What, exactly, is misspelled in the title? In any event, notable and predictable future exercises of the political process are not "crystal ball" cases. -- BD2412 talk 00:33, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks fine. - Mustafaa 01:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand, no misspellings as far as I can tell. Certainly no one would suggest that the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article should have been deleted when it was created in January of 2003. Why should a gubernatorial race be any different? - Jersyko talk 02:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, "gubernatorial" is spelled correctly. Since it's an upcoming election, I'd vote keep on this or any gubernatorial articles which have an election date of November 2006 and find themselves up for deletion. Mike H 17:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Mike H. --Lst27 (talk) 22:05, 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.
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 KEEP. Gamaliel 03:08, 8 June 2005

Wiktionary

edit

Vanity. Delete. Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:35, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Golden Corridor

edit

Seems to be too non-specific a slang/nickname for too many areas to be worth recording in an encyclopedia. "Golden Corridor" gets 7k hits, but "Golden Corridor" dallas only gets a fraction of those--there are apparently other areas sometimes called 'golden corridor' in Cabo, Mexico; India; Illinois, USA; Atlanta, USA; Cambridge, UK; gold country in CA/NV, USA; and somewhere in China; and that's just among the first 21 hits for "golden corridor". Seems more like an over-used, hyperbolic adjective than a noun. Niteowlneils 23:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, expand. Sorry, but to me "slang/nickname for too many areas" is a reason to keep this as a general article on the use of this term to describe certain chunks of real estate based on certain characteristics. -- BD2412 talk 00:26, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand into disambig page for all the regions widely known as the Golden Corridor. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Golden Corridor is notable. RickK 07:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as notability not established; this doesn't seem to be a very common usage. For example, "Golden Corridor" +Dallas gets me 1300 googles; in contrast, "Gold Coast" +Chicago (a comparable neighborhood in a comparable city) gets me 783,000. Meelar (talk) 14:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It isn't a thing, but rather a coincidence of words. Next will be "golden ghetto." It's just a slang term that has no particular place to point. As such, its claims can only be either unverifiable or lexical, and both violate policy. Geogre 16:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Meelar and Geogre. No references provided in article. There are a few notable names of this sort ("Magnificent Mile"), but this is not one of them. Quale 15:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EUWC

edit

Non-notable "e-federation" (that's a play-by-post online pro-wrestling role playing game). — Gwalla | Talk 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable AND advertising. Tobycat 03:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kane Tarkel

edit

Non-notable fan fiction. Not a single Google hit. Nufy8 00:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This "Kane Tarkel" is not a real Star Wars character. 68.83.86.147
    • Don't replace articles with your own editorializing comments while they are on VfD...or ever, for that matter. — Gwalla | Talk 00:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • On closer inspection, this is the same IP that created the article in the first place. This appears to be an admission that the article is not on a valid subject. — Gwalla | Talk 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 00:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless source is found-LtNOWIS 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fanfic. --Etacar11 03:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously but I would say bordering on speedy for requested deletion if 68.83.86.147 accepts this is an inappropriate article. David | Talk 11:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this were an actual Star Wars character, a page on him would be fancruft. Martg76 23:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_7&oldid=1234126986"