Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004: Difference between revisions

This page contains the page history of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion from 22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC).

This is an archived copy of VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for the current active version.

Shorthand:
WP:VFD

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

28^th - 27^th - 26^th - 25^th - 24^th - 23^rd - 22^nd - 22^nd - 21^st - 20^th - 19^th - 18^th - 17^th

{{VfD_frontmatter}}

Decisions in progress

Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

May 23

Kimberley Katherine Smith

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-KKSmith}}

Hanyô, Hanyou, Hanyo, Hanyoo

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Hanyo}}

Circumfetishism

-->>>>>> Deletion debate

Glad

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Glad}}

Kyb IE GetEmAll

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Kyb_IE_GetEmAll}}

AberSeeSaw

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-AberSeeSaw}}

Ben Wilson

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-BenWilson}}

Metarmorphosis

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Metarmorphosis}}

Weston Lullingfields

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-WestonLullingfields}}

College Road

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-CollegeRoad}}

Nutty Norman

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-NuttyNorman}}

David Barker

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-DavidBarker}}

CheShA

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-CheShA}}

Alt.tv.simpsons

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Alt_tv_simpsons}}

Dumbarton Harp F.C.

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-DumbartonHarpFC}}

Sean Flowers

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Sean_Flowers}}

The Black and White Space Marine on the Black and White Bike

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-The_Black_and_White_Space_Marine_on_the_Black_and_White_Bike}}

Ambiversion

add to this deletion debate

dicdef. Had vfd added on May 23, does not seem to have made it here. Ianb 23:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old as needing transwiki to Wiktionary for quite some time. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wiktionary. Geogre 03:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nalgene

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Nalgene}}

Elena Filatova

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Elena_Filatova}}

Call of Duty: United Offensive

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Call_of_Duty_United_Offensive}}

Political terrorism

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Political_terrorism}}

Alphabetical List of Hoboken streets

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Alphabetical_List_of_Hoboken_streets}}

May 24

Social surplus

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Social_surplus}}

Expression engine

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Expression_engine}}

The egg and the chicken problem

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-The_egg_and_the_chicken_problem}}

Vince_Buffalo

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Vince_Buffalo}}

...The Press!

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-ThePress}}

Guff

add to this deletion debate

Guff was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

Guff

Dictdef for foreign language. Possible candidate to move to Wiktionary. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 07:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

• Delete: Extremely suspicious dictdef: "Guff" is a common AmEng word for "sass, disrespectful speech," and the citation in this article is to Madame Blavatsky's group. Geogre 15:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete In English, guff means nonsense, which describes this article. Wyss 18:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• No Preference Guff is English. It comes from the Hebrew language as most english words originate from other languages. The description is accurate for English, but as mentioned above, perhaps does not cover all the ways the word is used. In "Madame Blavatsky's group" and quite possibly other groups, this is the meaning of the word. Knightt 19:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. dictdef. --MPerel 21:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

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

Chung Ling Record

add to this deletion debate

Similar to Wan Ling Record. This was contributed by a user who was only around for one day and added only quotes. This article consists entirely of, not surprisingly, a series of quotes. - Nat Krause 14:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a name of some Buddhist text [1] and this looks like a collection of quotes from it. I would be glad if Wikipedia had articles about Buddhist texts but they should be in encyclopedic style. Not collections of quotes without any explanation. Andris 14:52, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Chinese cannibalism

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Chinese_cannibalism}}

Iraq Liberation Act

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Iraq_Liberation_Act}}

SchneersonQuotes

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-SchneersonQuotes}}

Yayhooray

add to this deletion debate

Yayhooray

Text copied from front page of the site (Alexa rank of 127,106) which is the subject of this page. I'm uncertain whether the site is notable enough to have an article, but the current content is just an ad. — A.M. 18:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement for website. Also now listed as a copyvio, but that's irrelevant if we delete it anyway. No evidence that the site is encyclopedic, although it appears to be well done at first glance IMO. Andrewa 20:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ad Wyss 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ad Trust 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ad Brody 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Ad MAtty 20:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad Jayjg 20:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 22:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely, positively delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Flashback to May: deleted 3-0. The previous version of the page is apparently no longer in the undelete database, so I can't say that it is a repost of the same material (which would make it a speedy). No vote. --rbrwr^± 14:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep - highly relevant to the web development and graphic design community's history
• Obviously worthless. --YixilTesiphon
• Relevant as documentation of an experiment in self moderation and community building online. mrRed

Uppercase Day

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-UppercaseDay}}

Wikipedia:Who

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Wikipedia_Who}}

Canadian gun registry

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Canadian_gun_registry}}

May 25

Jason_Richey

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Jason_Richey}}

CCITT X.409 '84

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-debate_CCITT_X_409_84}}

Bandwagon Oklahoma Music and BandwagonOK

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Bandwagon_Oklahoma_Music}}

Tom Jackson

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Tom_Jackson}}

Windermere Real Estate

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Windermere_Real_Estate}}

Robert Kyle Wilson

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Robert_Kyle_Wilson}}

Massage_Therapy_School_-_NMSNT

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Massage_Therapy_School_-_NMSNT}}

Jetsam

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Jetsam}}

Knut_Lyngar

add to this deletion debate

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

The result was Update: I count 4 votes to delete. I'll delete the page now. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:35, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Knut_Lyngar

vanity page. Name gets 6 google hits. Zoda, who wrote this page, is Knut Lyngar's nickname according to [2]. Maximus Rex 07:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

• Greet new user. Then delete and remove image too. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Andrewa 14:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. City where his radio station is (Elverum) only has 18,000 inhabitants. According to our article on the county it's in (Hedmark) says it only has 4.1% of the population of Norway. We may want to clarify a policy on radio DJs. Most have 5,000+ listeners, but, other than Howard Stern and some others, I believe most listeners tune in for the station's format, not the DJ. (PS One of the Yahoo hits is this VfD listing. lol) Niteowlneils 15:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added "Non-syndicated radio disc-jockeys that haven't become a major news item due to controversy, etc. Out." to WIWO. Niteowlneils 19:27, 27 May 2004 (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.

True Magic

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-True_Magic}}

Stepping-stone democrat

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Stepping-stone_democrat}}

Cap N1ne

add to this deletion debate

Non-notable musician. Name only gets two Google hits as a musician and one as an album cover designer. RickK 20:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete musical vanity/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Since bands are all out of business and rappers and DJ's are in business, I suppose that means that we'll be getting 4 times the number of these articles, now. Geogre 03:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I listed it as a speedy since this same article was deleted a couple of months ago. Can we make it go away again? - Lucky 6.9 18:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Phartcore_metal

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Phartcore_metal}}

User:195.93.34.12/message

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-User195933412message}}

Kevin_Anderson

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Kevin_Anderson}}

Stuffology

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-debate_stuffology}}

Trosh

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-debate_Trosh}}

Toas

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Toas}}

Jerome War Relocation Center

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Jerome_War_Relocation_Center}}

Tarppy

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Tarppy}}

Ulrike Köhler and Jochen Köhler

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Jochen_Köhler}}

May 26

White nationalist FAQ

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-debate_White_nationalist_FAQ}}

Sexdecillion, Quattuordecillion, Quindecillion, Tredecillion, Undecillion

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Sexdecillion}}

footjob

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-footjob}}

Star of the County Down

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Star_of_the_County_Down2}}

William Guzzardi

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-William_Guzzardi}}

David Pearce

add to this deletion debate

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

I know that this article has been listed on VFD twice already, but you guys need to understand what is going on with this article:

This article is obvious googlebombing with the links, each "article" is really a link to one of the many thousands of domains this guy owns. These links are also found in many other related articles. Im sure David Pierce or an associate himself has been adding most of these links.

This guy owns these domain names: http://www.hedweb.com/paradise.html

By owning such a gigantic amount of cross linking domain names, his websites dominate many drug searches on google. David Pearce thus then might be notable enough for these facts, but these facts were removed from the article.

---

edit by the guy who put this on vfd:

Don't believe this guy is notable because of articles or interviews mentioned here, notice that most of those are hosted on his own websites so they are questionable. He might very well be notable for the gigantic amount of domain names he owns, all with some form of original content on them, which tend to dominate many search results, especially for obscure drugs. The problem is however, it is very likely him or a friend who created this article, or added the links to it, so its always a very potentially dangerous article.

• (Above unsigned entry is from User:67.180.61.179).
  • Comment: Previous VfD discussions can be found at Talk:David Pearce/deletion (nominated 26 May 2004 - survived on a split vote) and Talk:David Pearce/Delete2 (nominated 10 June 2004 - discussion terminated when it was pointed out that this was a renomination of a very recent discussion). Rossami (talk)
• David Pearce is a British visionary...bwhuaahaa...oh vanity alright. Delete. Wyllium 19:58, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
• Delete or edit down to stubbitude. --jpgordon{gab} 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• As it is, it's nothing but a link farm. Delete. DS 19:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 19:41, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional. Slightly off-topic, but people might want to take a look at Talk:American World University#Handling promotional links. I'm suggesting that whenever someone has qualms about the promotional effect of a link but wish to preserve it as a service to readers, that it be replaced with a substitute from tinyurl or similar services. To my surprise, this is a controversial suggestion, but I'd like to explore it further or see whether others have better ideas. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Hooooooo boy those are some links! Putting nowiki in front of all of them works well, and while the article is on VfD, we're supposed to do that anyway. I'd almost have seen this speedied for patent nonsense. He wants to "abolish the chemical substrates of suffering?" What? I suffer, but I'm not sure it's on a chemical substratum level. Geogre 20:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "the abolition of the chemical substrates of suffering in all sentient life.". Um, okay. Even if we got rid of the excessive links, this language itself makes it delete-worthy. Delete. RickK 20:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --DMG413 22:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Jayjg 12:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, Promo --Improv 15:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Since Pearce is obviously a notable figure, the most sensible thing to do would be to shorten the bibliography section and delete all its links, which I have done. Loremaster 20:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What is your evidence supporting the judgement "obviously a notable figure"? I'll admit that I don't see it and consider this currently a delete candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As a leading figure in a movement that is getting increasing media, academic and political attention, Pearce should have an article. And, since the controversial content has been edited out of the article, this dispute is now moot. Loremaster 16:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if I would call Pearce a "obviously notable figure", but his major work, The Hedonistic Imperative, is well-known within transhumanist communities. -- Schaefer 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, this was quite likely created as a vanity page, but if the links can be kept off, it shouldn't be a problem. I'll admit that his only well-known writing is The Hedonistic Imperative, so while there's no profound need for a page just about him, the page has been edited to the point where it's no longer just blatant self-promotion. -- Schaefer 20:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If this was created as a vanity page, it was not done by David Pearce or his associates - I know this fact personally. Some people are quick to play down the notability of others for obvious reasons. Given that there is no such thing as an unbiased attribution of value or notability - we should instead thank this fellow for his pioneering and visionary work. Ask yourselves if the abolition of suffering is more important than one's contribution to an impossibly "unbiased" collection, life is short.Sean Henderson 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Note that Sean Henderson is the name of one of David Pearce's associates (as mentioned in the article)67.180.61.179 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. While I find a great deal to dispute with the man and most of the Transhumanist movement I think at least from with in the movement his works are discussed and he's moderately well known. Notable? I hope not, but I wouldn't make that judgment for anyone else. —Florescentbulb 02:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Hedonistic imperative

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Hedonistic_imperative}}

Nick Bostrom

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Nick_Bostrom}}

World Transhumanist Association

add to this deletion debate

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

If David Pearce gets vfd'd, his organization ought to get put up for a vote as well. --DMG413 15:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP. This organization has been getting some significant attention due to the public interest in, and press coverage of, transhumanism. Let's not get carried away due to the problems with the David Pierce article. Loremaster 16:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I'd rather not delete it for guilt by association, but what does this article actually say? It says, "WTA was founded by X & Y. It's goals are good. See the following 6 links." Abstain, pending any indication of notability whatever for anything good (as opposed to infamy for being a spam factory). Geogre 19:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. --Improv 20:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like that logic, we can't eliminate anything just because its creator is non-notable. - Lifefeed 21:12, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated by Loremaster. GRider 23:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Pearce's notability is questionable, but I consider the co-founder Nick Bostrom notable and the WTA itself even more so. -- Schaefer 21:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Definite keep. I would like to see some expansion though, maybe on the lines of what sets this transhumanist group apart or makes it unique among the others. Any takers? Inky 04:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and BAH! on Transhumanists. —Florescentbulb 03:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete link repository. Might as well say North Valley Clown Alley was founded by Bongo the Clown and other clowns. They win awards. Everyone loves clowns. See the following 8 clown web pages. and y'all know I love clowns. Pedant 08:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

• Keep, strongly disagree with Pedant's analogy here. Stop clowning around, deletionism is serious business. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Trollminator 21:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Michael H. Hart

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Michael_H_Hart}}

Haifa Linux Club

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-HaifaLinuxClub}}

Paul_McKeever

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Paul_McKeever}}

Poof and Pouffe

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Poof}}

Natural Hygiene

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-NaturalHygiene}}

Chelation therapy

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Chelation-therapy}}

Karmann

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Karmann}}

Thinkism

add to this deletion debate

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded on June 1, 2004

Note: There are remnants of other VfD discussions in page history. jni 07:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinkism

Vanity. No Alexa data [3] [4], no indication on website that there are any other members of this "art movement" besides David Kam. - Hephaestos|§ 20:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• "Vanity" barely covers it, in my humble opinion. It's on the borderline of patent nonsense and original research. This has gotta go, friends. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Vanity. UninvitedCompany 23:21, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite explicitly unencyclopedic. Currently also listed as a copyvio, but more likely vanity IMO. (Unlikely to be both.) Either way delete. Andrewa 00:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Reasons given above. Thue 10:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity or copyvio. Andris 22:45, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

LUX

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-LUX}}

Arab Khamula

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Arab_Khamula}}

Partit Nacionalista Liberal de Catalunya

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Partit_Nacionalista_Liberal_de_Catalunya}}

UNaXcess

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-UNaXcess}}

Cairns State High School

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Cairns_State_High_School}}

May 27

Very large numbers

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Very_large_numbers}}

Guánica Bay

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Guanica-Bay}}

Vollis

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Vollis.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

Vollis is a team game/sport, invented, first played and coined in 2002 AD. [...] Vollis is set to grow quite large in the near future and there is a distinct possibility that it could be an Olympic sport by 2012-2016. I can't find any references via google. Vollis doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article in wikipedia. Thue 14:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The final claim that it may be an Olympic sport by 2012 is patent nonsense, and contributes to the impression that this is just a sport thought up by a bunch of kids, and that it hasn't spread much outside that group. Also, a search for the word 'vollis' on search engines produces large numbers of hits for a folk artist called Vollis Simpson, but nothing related to this game. Average Earthman 16:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• "2002 AD," no less. Delete as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 27 May 2004
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:35, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Abigail 21:30, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it, even if the assumption is made that kids or some other people you wish to call unnotable invented it, how do you think sports that are played worldwide began? Isn't the Wikipedia a place for people to access any information of interest? If you can't find it on Google after idly clicking around, think of how difficult it would be for someone to find it out of genuine interest (rather than cynicism) without the Wikipedia article? Boutros Boutros
  • I just adore sockpuppets. They're so cute and cuddly. - Lucky 6.9 16:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to answer the claim by a poster who has never posted anywhere else - apart from the fact that the majority of 'vanity' articles on Wikipedia are contributed by teenagers who appear to lack a proper sense of perspective, the utter obscurity of the game means it is not currently worthy including. As for 'if you can't find it on Google after idly clicking', I used both Google and Teoma, and found only articles about Vollis Simpson or pages in German which my admittedly abysmal grasp of German suggests to me are about some form of table football, one mention of the chairman of the President of the Pan-Macedonian Association, and one reference to US soldier with the surname 'Vollis'. Happy now? Average Earthman 17:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Well well well, contempt for developing games, disregard for new users to web communities, dislike of teenagers.........Sounds to me like you have a touch of conservative elitism in you. Some people obviously feel uncomfortable when there's changes happening in the world that upset ideals of a concrete state of reality...Fair enough, you can't find the thing on Google, still I think this site's entire purpose is for information, or am I wrong? Boutros Boutros
    • Information, yes, but information about somewhat established stuff of generel interest, ie informative stuff. There is no indication that vollis has grown outside the group of teenagers who invented it. The problem is also that the information is not verifiable. Delete the article for now, but if vollis ever gets widespread we should have an article about it. Thue 09:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it becomes widely known, we can recreate it, but it does not merit an article now. Andris 02:02, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For verification see this News thread from 1994, or this google search. It seems it is not only a game but also a bicycle brand. Why don't you deletists work on verifiing these things instead of just listing stuff all the time. Boutros Boutross point is a very good one, even though it doesn't look like this term was coined in 2002....
  • No. I looked through google hits from your search (ones which were in English). There is exactly 1 hit about vollis game. The rest are mostly about people with first/last name being Vollis. 1 google hit does not justify inclusion. Andris 19:50, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

Disassociate

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Postdlf 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disassociate

This had a VFD before that stated keep; although it's mentioned in Allmusic.com (according to User:Wyllium), the article itself is dead-end. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Vorash 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Xcali 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Mentioned in Allmusic; this page indicates they've toured at least from Providence, Rhode Island down to Maryland; seems notable enough per WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 05:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar's assessment. Kappa 06:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per what Meelar said -CunningLinguist 06:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Meelar. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hmmmm non notable. JamesBurns 07:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Frjwoolley 18:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very non-notable. Only 47 google hits [5] --MarSch 16:04, 3 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.

Mr.Bits

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Mr.Bits.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

Orphan, dubious. Unvarifiable, vanity or prank? Top google hits for "Mr.Bits" don't seem relevant. Zero google hits for the terms Mr.Bits Chicago Comedian together, no hits for "The Bits & Clone Show", Bitskateers. -- Infrogmation 18:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like vanity or prank. Thue 19:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As interesting as it was to read, I must concur. Acegikmo1 19:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• I'm not buying it. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:27, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable vanity, by anon. Andrewa 01:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

Quantum phase transition

add to this deletion debate

Either this is a real term presented poorly or it's the greatest piece of quackery I've ever seen here. Is there a physicist in the house? - Lucky 6.9 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• From what (little) physics I know I can't find any inaccuracies. I think it would be more appropriate to list this at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. I have listed it there. Thue 18:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Real term poorly presented. Move to Clean-up. I'll try if/when I can find my old textbooks. Rossami 20:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• "Quantum phase transition" gets over 7000 google hits. Clicking on a few google hits suggest that the page isn't blatent nonsense. I don't know enough of quantum physics to know how accurate the information is - but since I lack the knowledge to judge the accuracy, I won't vote for delete. Abigail 21:04, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Real phenomenon. Not a good VfD listing IMO, we should be listing and voting on things we do know something about (as others have said more gently). There are other places for asking questions. As Wikipedia grows this becomes more and more important. Andrewa 21:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• In either case it doesn't belong on VfD. If it is a real term presented poorly, it is still clearly a encyclopedic topic and doesn't belong on VfD. On the other hand, if the person who posted the VfD request doesn't understand the topic well enough to determine if it is "quackery", it doesn't belong on VfD. Keep. ElBenevolente 21:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• That's perfectly OK with me. It's not that I didn't understand the topic. It was so badly written that I simply couldn't comprehend what I was reading. There was a patently nonsensical article here last week that was couched in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I wasn't certain if this was the same sort of thing, hence my electing to bring it here. It's already on "pages needing attention," so by all means, keep. And let's try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum, OK? - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - Mikkalai has revised the article. It's certainly more readable now, anyway. Average Earthman 17:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

List of people who have not committed suicide

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled List of people who have not commited suicide.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

The most ridiculous list of people I have seen here so far, as everyon not on List of people who commited suicide can be listed there. I was tempted to delete it by speedy deletion directly as being patent nonsense. andy 20:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• LOL. I though it was quite funny :). Move to BJAODN and delete. Thue 20:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. But it seems we might have a use for a List of people falsely thought to have commited suicide or some such. Rhymeless 20:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Hahahaha. I haven't laughed like that since BJAODN:Bill Gates. I love this part, under self-sacrificers: The pilot in Air Force One movie who moved his plane in front of a missile to save the President. Delete, Bad Jokes. blankfaze | &#9835 20:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• This is just dumb, and horribly incomplete. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:31, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. BJAODN for sure. Andrewa 21:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. anthony (see warning) 21:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Absurd. There are some ridiculous lists outthere, but this is bizar. --Wyllium 22:05, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
• Is this really any sillier than List of people? Meelar 22:30, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • No, but it's redundant to that list. anthony (see warning) 22:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hilarious, though. Everyking 22:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Split into List of people whose non-suicidal cause of death is confirmed and List of people whose death is rumored not to have been suicide. Then delete both of those lists. Dpbsmith 22:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Now those would be interesting lists. However delete this one. It's silly, but not particularly funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• No reason to delete. Instead list on List of articles that have not been deleted by implosion... then delete - Tεxτurε 23:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Last time I made a link like that, we ended up with Nude Wikipedia editing. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:33, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not even clever or funny. Fuzheado | Talk 23:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• not funny. delete, do not move to BJAODN. --Jiang 01:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, BJAODN. -Etaoin 01:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Oh come on Jiang and Fuzheado get a f***ing sense of humour! funny but should be Deleted Dainamo
  • Wish I was as easily entertained. Delete. Average Earthman 17:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Made me giggle. Now delete. — Chameleon 14:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC
• Funny? Some people are easily amused... Delete. Denni 19:11, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of famous alleged suicides, or delete. -Sean 00:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete to BJAODN. Is funny - at least in terms of the section on people who have not committeed suicide because they are still alive (Which is just wonderfully random). Is also unencyclopedic. Snowspinner 00:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It says something about the editor's perception of Sarah Jessica Parker that she's first on the list of people who have not yet commited suicide. Is that a statement in favor of her health and sanity... or against it? Hmmm. -Sean Curtin 06:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
• This is really funny, especially the "two categories". Remove from the main namespace, of course, but worth BJAODN'ing. VV 03:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete present content, but the page could be of interest if it listed people who were thought to have died by their own hand but didn't (i.e. 'the report of my death was greatly exaggerated' cases, people faking their death in order to escape custody or the courts). Rewrite suggested therefore. --VampWillow 19:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but this is definitely BJAODN material. The first category cracks me up. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

Kassandra Hiroshima and Kassandra HiroshimA

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the pages entitled Kassandra Hiroshima and Kassandra HiroshimA.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the articles.

---

Ladies and gentlemen. Presented for your voting pleasure is an individual of eclectic background who garners an incredible two hits on Google, both referring back to his/her own articles on other sites. - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• Wow. Now THAT is messed up. A "a punk rock gender queer", eh? Anyone know exactly what that is? This article is bizarre. The author keeps using "zie" in place of "she" the whole way through. Wowwwww. Delete. blankfaze | &#9835 21:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh. I see that "Zie" actually means something now that I've read the Sie and hir article. blankfaze | &#9835 21:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Vanity, delete. --Wyllium 22:22, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough google hits. Thue 22:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity pieces have no place here. - jredmond 22:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Deus Ex 23:48, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. No real hits. Niteowlneils 16:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The Land 18:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with the reasoning above. Andris 19:58, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

A. Smith

add to this deletion debate

Cannot be found on either Allmusic.com or Google. Vanity? --Wyllium 21:58, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Digivolve

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Digivolve}}

Nothlit (Animorphs)

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Nothlit (Animorphs).

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to move the article to Nothlit, merge and redirect to Animorphs (book series), and delete the redirect from Nothlit (Animorphs).

---

There's nothing in this article that actually means anything, and even what it appears to mean is too trivial to be worth mentioning. Tonusperegrinus 22:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Same as above. --Wyllium 22:50, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean 22:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Have any of you read any of the Animorphs books? I read a few 3 or 4 years ago and the definition is right. I've tried to clean the article up a bit, but it's still little more than a stub/definition. But I think if Pokemon characters and all sorts of other fictional nonsense gets articles, than so should this. KEEP. blankfaze | &#9835 23:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Animorphs (book series). I have moved the article to Nothlit to match the existing (broken as I found it) link from this article for the moment. IMO the redirect from Nothlit (Animorphs) is useless and should in due course be deleted. Andrewa 01:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, excellent. I was just coming here to put this up, and imagine my surprise when it's already VfD'd. Delete. All information in article has been merged into Animorphs (book series). PMC 03:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• As it has been merged, redirect Nothlit, delete Nothlit (Animorphs) -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

May 28

Heck

add to this deletion debate

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heck/old

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. This doesn't preclude redirect, but there isn't a consensus to redirect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Heck

• Delete nonsense. Should be deleted or redirected to Hell. Revolución 21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hell -Soltak 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual material about a valid topic. Tverbeek 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A word that little children and stuffy housewives say to avoid the word Hell is not a valid topic. A portion of the material is completely false and the rest of it has no encyclopedic value. Should we have articles for gosh and son of a buck? -Soltak 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tverbeck, notable euphemism and imaginary place. Kappa 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hell. I can think up of another way kids say hell: h, e, double-hockey sticks. Others could go on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & expand - it is in the noosphere. I would like to see some of those 'ironic religious philosophers', though, and mayber a little history. Eldereft 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minced oath, where other cleaned-up profanities are.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to minced oath. Secretlondon 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to minced oath. Punkmorten 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minced oath. Nandesuka 17:02, 5 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mudgik

add to this deletion debate

{{VfD-Mudgik}}

Apologies, was not logged in.

I do not expect you to understand the importance a mutable archive of Mudgik would provide the Mudgik community. The remark is blunderous; importance is relative.

It is not a website it was a MUD.

It exists today in two forms (I am still researching them).

For more MUDs that aren't 'that important' please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD#Popular_MU*s

Keepers. Yeago 04:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Claire Chow

add to this deletion debate

Delete - as the pages states, a student who works for Canada customs at Lester Pearson Airport. Burgundavia 03:31, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

It's already gone. RickK 03:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Bikeshed

add to this deletion debate

Dicdef of a slang term. And if it were to be kept, it should be moved to Bikeshedding. RickK 03:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Burgundavia 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Advanet

add to this deletion debate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Advanet.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

Some explanation? What is it? Is this worth keeping? RickK 03:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Seems there are several companies, but probably just corp vanity. Burgundavia 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed. Krupo 04:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone gives a good reason to keep it. Thue 19:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed. Andris 20:00, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

Template:Top seeds for French Open 2004

Is there going to be one of these for every Grand Slam in every year? By the end of the year, will there be four of these on the Serena Williams page with eighty names listed? At the end of five years, will there be twenty of them on her page? RickK 04:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Miscible

add to this deletion debate

Dicdef. Meelar 04:22, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

• Wiktionary. ☞spencer195 04:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• This one might be expandable past a definition into a real article. If no one does so within 5 days, though, Wiktionary and delete. Any future author with more to say can easily recreate the current contents. Rossami 18:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• Miscibility doesn't deserve a full article. Relevant information belongs in articles about liquids and solutions or solubility.--Atemperman 03:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

VfD Footer section

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc. Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~