Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th 18^th - 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th 11^th

Template:VfD frontmatter

VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004.

Decisions in progress

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

June 18

Super molecular dust separator — add to this discussion

A fictional device from a movie. Might have a place, but as part of an article about the film, I see it serving no purpose seperately. The only reason I don't want to is it is from an anonymous user who has been making a few contributions, and I wouldn't want to put off a potential new user by just going through and removing them - Xgkkp 00:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This appears only for a few minutes at the very end of the movie. I think the same user is responsible for the "hamburger earmuffs" article as well, another extremely minor item once mentioned in "The Simpsons." The content is fine, however. Merge and redirect if possible. - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• If someone merges (I would, but I'm low on time here), I'll delete the original. Drop me a message when it's done. Oberiko 19:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I have created the article Batman: The Movie and included the information that was in this page. Anyone who knows the category this should be in, i.e.: a category "Batman" for all things Batman, or "films" (or "action films"), should step up to the plate. - Centrx 19:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I'm changing my vote to delete this since it's now covered in the new article. - Lucky 6.9 00:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Akmal — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Akmal - Is this verifiable? No Google hits for "akmal tightrope seattle". -- Jmabel (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

• Neither google nor dogpile returns anything other than a hit on this article. Delete. Denni☯ 23:01, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Sound rather fictonal. Delete. hfool 20:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Free networks — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Free networks - POV, sub-stub, might be obsolete, no useful content (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Delete. A "free network" is not really more than a network that is free, for certain meanings of that word. As it stands, the article just links to an almost equally poor page on another wiki. - Centrx 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ursula Reitemeyer — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Ursula Reitemeyer notable? (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

• Well, she's published. [Webpage at University of Münster]. But I'm not a philosopher, so I've no idea how notable those publications are. Average Earthman 12:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• She gets all of 160 Google hits, which is below average for an everyday university professor. - SimonP 12:47, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Overachievement — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Overachievement is a 2-sentence sub stub, and if NPOV'd right now would end up as 1 sentence dict. def. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Something could be written about this. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 21:38, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jxg 02:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef written by an underachiever. Denni☯ 23:15, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC) Excellent rewrite, Change to keep. Denni☯ 08:54, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • But the wonderful thing about Wikipeia is that anyone can edit articles, even those that aren't bitter underachievers ;-). User:Rossami has completely rewritten this article and it's now a perfectly nice stub. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 04:07, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewritten version is a valuable article (maybe not even deserving the "stub" message) about the educational context; room for expansion about other uses. JamesMLane 12:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ilyanep 23:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moral core — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Moral core - I'm not sure what this article says, or if it's even a concept. I think it should be merged with something else or clarified as to what it means. Just sloppy. Even Larry Sanger questions its validity on talk page. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

• Delete: If it has something to say, it fails to say it. The terminology is licensed, and the pronouncements aren't given any reference to history or contemporary thought. It is therefore personal 'research'. Geogre 16:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone convinces me that this is not "original research". Andris 15:07, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it says what it wants to say perfectly well. Atypical terminology (ie, epigenetics) is properly linked, and I have no idea what Geogre means by licensed terminology; none of these words or phrases is copyrighted, if that's what he means. Andris, a check of google using the search criterion ["moral code" -wikipedia -neutrality] returns some 4300 pages, some which direct to wiki wannabes (or what I call wikithieves - using wiki pages without attribution), but a large number of which indicate this term is in common use, and has a shared meaning. Denni☯ 23:30, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• The reason I say delete is that "moral core" is in very wide use indeed. It's a common phrase. "Moral core" as a specific philosophical concept in metaphysics, on the other hand, is not a common term, not, to my knowledge, an accepted term in scholarship. If it is a common term in academic philosophy, then it is the duty of the article's author to provide some indication of this by explaining the term's development. It didn't come from Wittgenstein, so did it come from Kant? The terminology is "licensed" in that it depends upon the reader agreeing ahead of time with it, without justification. I'm no philosopher, and my reading in academic philosophy stops at about 1850, but an article ought to be providing a concept for the subjects, especially when the subjects are common phrases used in a specialized way. I don't mean to be querulous, but I want to learn from an article rather than be put off by one. Geogre 02:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• That's exactly what I meant, as well. Andris 06:03, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As near as I can tell, scholastic acceptance of a philosophy, insufficient development of a topic, or being "put off" by an article are not good reasons for deletion. Thesteve 21:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep. While I have run into similar concepts and I *think* I've heard of this, there is nothing immediately available (e.g. thru google) that suggests it is a real common concept - indicating Delete. That said there are a large number of links to here from related pages that have not been edited away as being nonsense. I am prepared to trust the Wikipedians on Ethics, Moral Code and suchlike places. Shall ask on those talk pages. The Land 15:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. Note that this article was started as a rather idiosyncratic article by the banned ex-user "24", and needs to be cleaned up further to NPOV standards. -- The Anome 09:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I've heard of a moral compass, but not a moral core. Do you think that's what this person means? --The Iconoclast
• Delete: essay. Agreed w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless quickly fixed up with some indication of where the term comes from and who uses it and with what meaning or meanings. A meaningful stub would be better than this. It's nonsense as it stands and probably useless to anyone who knows enough to write a good article about the use of the term "moral core". Links from other articles are often not indicative of value. Some Wikipedians, quite reasonably, like searching for such short phrases and creating links. I've created links to articles that I found hideous but have left alone as not having currently the knowledge, will or time to clean up or rewrite, just as I've created links to non-existent articles. That links to Moral core become red is more encouragement to creation of a good article, if this is a reasonable topic for any article, than is leaving a very bad article. jallan 17:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As near as I can tell, scholastic acceptance of a philosophy, insufficient development of a topic, or being "put off" by an article are not good reasons for deletion. Thesteve 21:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Joe Ryan Abu Ghraib diary April 2004 — add to this discussion

From Cleanup: Joe Ryan Abu Ghraib diary April 2004 source text, copyvio? (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

OK, I'll delete it. I didn't know about the source text rule. --Russell j 02:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - contributor blanked - Tεxτurε 06:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Francisco Tavela — add to this discussion

No such person. The redirect from FranciscoTavela should also be deleted. Angela. 01:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Yup, I couldn't find anything on this person anywhere online or in other encyclopedias, delete -- siroxo 05:01, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• FWIW, Massenet did not write Werther with "Francisco Tavela" in mind, since Werther premiered in 1892 and "Tavela" was supposedly born in 1902. Delete Dukeofomnium 15:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paradoxism and Neutrosophy — add to this discussion

I'm relisting these articles (paradoxism and neutrosophy), as the vfd listing was accidentally clobbered [1] by User:Wrendelgeth. I originally listed them at 06:15, 9 Jun 2004, and the paradoxism section, which had the votes, was clobbered at 03:26, 11 Jun 2004. I guess that these will be eligible for removal in, say, 3 days and some hours. I've pasted the previous votes immediately below; let's put new votes after that. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

(under the paradoxism heading on vfd as of 03:26, 11 Jun 2004)

• Vanity article promoting Florentin Smarandache. Every now and then an anonymous editor comes around to add more Smarandache promo material. Smarandache has a long, obnoxious history of promoting himself in various Internet forums and Wikipedia in particular, both in person and through sock puppets. This is just more of the same, and we can expect him to persist indefinitely. Away with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, just how notable is he? I think if he's notable enough to be included, his theories probably are, too, assuming they are something he is known for. Everyking 07:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You'll find Smarandache all over the web, where he has placed advertisements in the mouths of sock puppets far and wide. He's exploited several means of free self promotion -- Usenet, Yahoo groups, mailing lists, Sloane's catalog of integer sequences, and, of course, Wikipedia. See User:Smarandache fan for starters, and then see the two VfD discussions at talk:Florentin Smarandache. In addition to the endless promo material, Smarandache might have a couple of peer reviewed publications; be that as it may, it's not enough for a notable reputation. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Given my respect for Wile E's POV, if he say this guy is a self-aggrandizer who's peppering the internet with attempts at free ads for what I presume to be questionable theories, I agree and vote to delete all. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. However it's so utterly bad, it might be worth knowing something about.CSTAR 22:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(under the Neutrosophy heading on vfd)

• Vanity article promoting Florentin Smarandache. As with paradoxism. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There's an incredibly long discussion on Talk:Neutrosophy from the last time this article was listed for deletion (which was a year ago). -- Cyrius|✎ 06:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

new votes here, please. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I think Neutrosophy may be an idea with some value, but Wikipedia does not need all of this material. I can't vote to delete, but I would be in favor of trimming these articles down and merging them into a single NPOV entry. I understand that doing so would involve work, and whether or not it is worth it will be for others to decide, as I am not qualified or motivated to work on these articles. Nat 14:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-aggrandizement should not be rewarded. While Florentin Smarandache may be a legend in his own mind, I am wondering why there is even a Wiki article on him. After his untimely death, it may be appropriate to remember him as one of the most aggressively conceited people of his day, but it's like being a painter - you don't get rich until after you're dead. Denni☯ 23:38, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not a dialectic development, but an idiosyncratic objection to it. Fair enough, but the "notable" factor comes in the fact that the guy who coined the term organized a conference about himself and published the results in a vanity press. I've known lots of people who have had deep thoughts and given names to them. Some of them have self-published, too. Some were even wealthy and bought presses and self-published. Where are the peer-reviewed articles? Where is the academic standing? Where is the testimony from outside? Geogre 18:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, or at least shorten the article and make it accurate:

Smarandache is an associate professor at (wherever). Through numerous postings on internet sites he has acquired a reputation for self-aggrandizement. Outside of a small circle of supporters, the value of his work is questioned. Hs mathematical work consists mainly of definitions, with no useful relation to any existing problem.CSTAR 17:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Responses to Insults

• “Vanity article”

I do not know who tried to make these articles on “paradoxism” (literary movement based on contradictions, antitheses, antinomies, paradoxes) or “neutrosophy”. I did not tell anybody to do so, since I knew the hostility of wikipedians, because of my previous arguments with them.
Maybe, among the about 700 researchers that have published at least a paper of neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic, somebody tried to make an entry.
People in this Wikipedia Talk page, bring no scientific accusation to the terms of “paradoxism” and “neutrosophy” (sign that they did not know much, or maybe they knew nothing about them). They do only personal attacks on me because I have argued with them previously.
Why, for example, an article about neutrosophy or neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic would be considered a “vanity” one? Since I only published maybe less than 5% of the total publications on the topics. The remaining 95% of publications were published by researchers from around the world.

• “history of promoting himself in various Internet forums and Wikipedia”

I was at the beginning in some Internet forums, mostly for curiosity when they started, but then I left them abruptly because of permanent fighting between members with different ideas, that often degenerated in insults. I have sent links or attached files with some of my publications, but such things did all forums’ members with respect to their own publications and ideas, not only me!
For over a decade I am in no Internet forum, because it is a waste a time…
History of promoting myself in Wikipedia is certainly untrue. Maybe it was the opposite, because of my arguments with the wikipedians.
By the way, there were editorial wars between wikipedians themselves as well, and dispute problems between them on various entries and various ideas [not related to me]. Some of wikipedians got sad and left the editing process.

• “he has placed advertisements in the mouths of sock puppets far and wide”; “Smarandache fan”

People that dared to say positive things about me or my work were immediately labelled “sock puppets”, in order to discourage them.
But we live in a democratic society, therefore people have the right to express different ideas from those of wikipedians. Let’s aboard with empathy opposite ideas of ours.

• “Smarandache might have a couple of peer reviewed publications”

This is far from the truth. I have published 350+ papers, most of them in peer-reviewed international journals.
Since 1986 I have presented and published 100+ papers at tens of first rank international conference around the world and at high institutions (University of Berkeley, NASA, NATO, U.S. Air Force Laboratory etc.).
I contributed also to over 50 international and national journals, such as: Physics Research Journal C: Quantum Physics (Calabria, Italy) [editor]; International Journal of Geometry (Bacau, Romania) [associate editor]; New Mathematics and Natural Computation (World Scientific, Singapore-London) [editor]; Progress in Physics (UNM, USA; associate editor), Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research (editor), Libertas Mathematica (Arlington, University of Texas, USA); American Mathematical Monthly; Mathematics Magazine; College Mathematical Journal; Crux Mathematicorum (Canada); Zentralblatt Für Mathematik (Germany; Reviewer for the Elementary Number Theory: Romanian, French, English); Omar El Khayam (Tunisia); Alpha (Germany); Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde (Holland); Elemente der Mathematik (Switzerland); Intelligencer (Gottingen, Germany); Gazeta Matematică (seriile A & B); Ştiinţă şi Tehnică, Magazin (Bucharest), RMT (Timişoara) [in editorial board]; Licăriri, Năzuinţe (editor); Caiet 32, Alpha (Craiova) [in editorial board], Beta, Programul de volei, Programul de fotbal (Craiova), Gamma (Brasov); Mugur alb, ABC (Bacau); Caiet de informare matematică (Câmpina, Romania; associate editor); Revista Micilor Matematicieni (Neamţ); Omega (Slatina); Matematikai Lapok (Cluj-Napoca); Sfera (Băileşti) [in editorial board]; Revista de Matematică din Băileşti (associate editor); Caietul metodic al elevilor din Vâlcea (Rm. Vâlcea); Pi Mu Epsilon Journal (USA); Cardinal (Revista de Matematica din Craiova; collaborator), Matematica în Liceu, Matematica în Gimnaziu (Craiova); Notices of the American Mathematical Society (USA); World Federation Newsletter (Canberra, Australia); Gaceta Matematica (Madrid, Spain); Teme şi teste de matematic (Rm. Vâlcea); The Fibonacci Quarterly (Westford, MA); Octogon (Săcele, Romania; associate editor); Pan Matematica (Rm. Vâlcea); Matematica în liceu (Craiova); Test / Admiterea în Facultate (Craiova); MxM / Revistă de Matematică pentru Completarea Manualelor Şcolare (Slatina, Romania; correspondent member); Foaie Matematică (Chişinău, Moldova); Humanistic Mathematics Network (Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA); Math Power (Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ; associate editor); Recreational & Educational Computing (Clarks Summit, PA); AMATYC Journal (USA); Axioma (editor; Plopeni, Romania); Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences – Mathematics & Physics (Delhi, India; associate editor); Studii şi Cercetări Ştiintifice, University of Bacău, Romania (associate editor); International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Roorkee, India, (editor-in-chief); International Journal of Tomography & Statistics (IJTS) (editor); Information & Security: An International Journal (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria) [guest editor, together with J. Dezert, for Vol. 20, 2006, dedicated to DSmT]; The Antiphysical Review (Bucharest, Romania); Review of the Air Force Academy (The Scientific Informative Review) (among Scientific Advisers).

At your request, I can send the whole list of published papers, conferences etc.

• “self-aggrandizer” + “Smarandache all over the web”

I uploaded many of my papers and books, besides my university’s website, also at Academia.edu (American scientific site) that has 40+ millions researchers, and at ResearchGate.net (German scientific site) that has 20+ millions researchers.
These are open sources, so anybody from the world can download papers and books from other people, ask questions, give answers, make projects etc.
It looks that there were people that took from my publications and put them in other sites, without my knowledge. This, actually, happens to many researchers.
For example, I even discovered online libraries selling my books, without telling me anything and without paying me any financial benefit.

If I am “self-aggrandizer”, then all other 40+ millions or 20+ millions researchers are also “self-aggrandizer”.

• somebody [named “Nat”] wrote “I think Neutrosophy may be an idea with some value”

There were wikipedians that appreciated the entry on Neutrosophy, but they were brained washed by others using personal attacks on me only, not critics on neutrosophy itself.
Now may “Nat” be labelled “suck poppet” because he or she dared to say something positive?

• “It's not a dialectic development, but an idiosyncratic objection to it."

I disagree.
Dialectics studies the dynamics of opposites (let’s call them <A> and its opposite <antiA>).
Neutrosophy is not “an idiosyncratic objection to it”, since neutrosophy does not criticize the dialectics. Neutrosophy extends the dialectics to: dynamics of opposites and of their neutralities (let’s call them <A>, <antiA>, and <neutA>).
Neutrosophy is not done just for the sake of extending the dialectics, but because it often occurs in of our reality.
For example: if it’s a war between two countries, some neutral countries interfere in one side or in another.
When North Korea fought against South Korea (here it is dialectics, or dynamics of opposites), neutral countries like U. S. and Western Countries intervened on the side of South Korea, while Russia and China intervened on the side of North Korea (now we have neutrosophy).
Therefore, the neutralities play a roll into the dynamic of opposites.

• “organized a conference about himself and published the results in a vanity press.”

It was an electronic conference about generalization from the fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets to neutrosophic sets, not about myself, and the results, through Proquest Information & Learning (from Ann Arbor, MI) which is not a vanity press, were published online at UNM.
UNM has encouraged me to organize this conference.

• “Smarandache is an associate professor”

That’s false. I am a full-professor.

• “no useful relation to any existing problem”

This wikipedian is completely out of subject and he did not read anything on neutrosophy, neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic. Under the cover of anonymity or of fake names, such editors can lie and denigrate people.
There are lots of applications ( see http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm ), such as: applications to robotics, control theory, sensor fusion, multi-criteria decision making, color image segmentation, image categorization, medical diagnosis, applications to physics, neutrosophic cognitive maps used in social sciences, Discrimination of Outer Membrane Proteins using Reformulated Support Vector Machine based on Neutrosophic Set, Semantic Web Services Agent, Remedy for Effective Cure of Diseases using Combined Neutrosophic Relational Maps, Qualitative Causal Reasoning On Complex Systems, Neutrosophic Logic to Answer Queries in Relational Database, Ensemble Neural Networks Using Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Bagging, Lithofacies Classification, Neutrosophy in situation analysis, Deployment of neutrosophic technology to retrieve answer for queries posed in natural language, Neutrosophic approach of MRI denoising etc.
Please do not delete. Readers have the right to know my opinion too
( http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/FlorentinSmarandache.htm.). Thank you. (Florentin Smarandache) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlSmarandache (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Famous political quotations — Add to this discussion

Move to Wikiquote. RickK 05:50, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Move: It's a great opportunity for folks to create a commonplace book, but, well, it can never be definitive. Geogre 13:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• agreed--Jiang 23:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paxdora — Discussion

Self-proclaimed neologism. Only 225 hits, and the vast majority of those are usernames on various forums, or the occasional forum entry--anybody could get these hits with any word they made up. Niteowlneils 07:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Reminds me of Discordians I've known. Delete. -Sean Curtin 12:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• hmm. Created by User:Paxdora - Delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided. Paxdora has contributed enough material on the internet to be notable. She is one of the best known modern activists for Pantheism. However, an article on the term is questionable. Nat 15:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not a notable term. Average Earthman 16:19, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The first word of this stub is "Neologism." Denni☯ 23:49, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it weren't a neologism, it would be a dictdef. --dcf 13:01, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Write_Protect and Write-protection — Discussion

Both orphaned stubs. Duplicates of Write protection which is not orphaned. Krik 11:20, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - they're both reasonable redirects - David Gerard 13:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - I was unaware of Write protection when I wrote Write Protect as a newbie. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of Neo-Dadaists — Discussion

More Lennie Lee self-promotion. I wish the guy would get a clue. - Lucky 6.9 14:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) Delete-- Jmabel 18:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Didn't Duchamps say that Dada never ended, that it was all Dada any time it was done? Geogre 16:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think "doodoo" applies here as well. :^P - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

March 8 1938 — Discussion

I don't know if this is true, or notable. But ti seems like patent nonsense. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense. I would have speedy-deleted it, if it wasn't listed on VfD. DavidWBrooks 14:48, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Should be a speedy anyway. Might be fun on BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 14:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If anyone is curious, its content was:

The fire of 1938.

On Monday the 8th of March fire destroyed the home of Alvie and Mary Sanders. They and their numerous children were taken in by careing,compasionate neighbors. The older children ended up making their beds in hay stacks close to the barn. Fortunately the only injuries were minor burns and cuts and scratches.

• I vote to delete, for obvious reasons. —No-One Jones 06:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Javalix — add to this discussion

Blatant ad for a brand-new virtual operating system. Article is in future tense (was released on June 19, 2004...today is the 18th) and the link is dead. - Lucky 6.9 15:17, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I can't find much via google, so it seems not to be a notable project (or is dead before it was born). Delete. Thue 19:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Andris 14:00, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• comment: A copy of the text has been made at JavOS. Thue 15:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert for a nonnotable project. Delete JavOS as well, it's a verbatim copy of Javalix. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Javalix. Delete JavOS. JamesMLane 05:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Klaas Bootsma — add to this discussion

Not good writing but also not particularly important either. Is he worth an article? Rmhermen 15:38, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• The textbooks he's written are real (see Google). That does, however, appear to be all he's done. Doesn't really matter to me. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Mud 15:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Booxle — discussion

Maps backward (if you don't get it, read it again, or just look at the article). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Appears to be a portal. delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like an ad. 28 google hits. Delete. Thue 19:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 06:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Andris 14:02, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The site appears to be dead anyway. Krik
• Delete. Geogre 16:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - an ad for a dead website, could it be any more delete-worthy? —Stormie 05:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Goonies R' Good Enough — add to this discussion

This obscure song is not deserving of its own encyclopedia article. The only statements in the article that seem to make the song noteworthy are false: It was not a number one hit, not even close; and it does appear on her Essential Cyndi Lauper compilation (there is no compilation by the name of "Greatest Hits"). Taco Deposit 15:47, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ilyanep 17:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This belongs in the bad jokes section, only, it's not all that funny. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 00:35, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Well, if the article isn't even accurate then delete. AmericanRobot 02:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Decently written stub. Ambivalenthysteria 06:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I wouldn't say its obscure; I think it reached #10 in the US (says here), and that's notable enough for me. Think how many people must have heard the song – that's pretty famous. Delete the questionable parts of the article and send it over to cleanup, though. Everyking 05:48, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as not contributing. If there is something to be said (the anecdote that SS thought she was a grown up goonie), it can go in the Cyndi Lauper article. Geogre 16:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, subtrivial. Also appears to be an unsubstantiated rumor. I see the article doesn't have any references. I Googled (yes, it's not God, but a good place to look for show business trivia) the web & newgroups for "Cyndi Lauper Goonies song denounce", "... dislike", and "... said", and came up empty handed. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)

Keto-enol tautomerism — Add to this discussion

From Cleanup by Geogre 17:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Substub: Google search for "tautomer" shows something odd.
• Keep. This is a valid subject, though the article is obviously lacking. I rewrote. Thue 18:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 02:24, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
• The article is growing, keep. ping 07:58, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic; improve rather than delete. Ambarish | Talk 06:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Burr Oak Cemetery — Add to this discussion

Please delete Burr Oak Cemetery - I screwed up. JillandJack 17:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Jack)

• Delete it, advert. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 21:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Burr Oak Cemetery has been turned into a redirect to Burr Oak Cemetery and Restvale Cemetery; keep it as a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gamgee's tissue — Add to this discussion

Ad. RickK 19:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Seems not important enough. Delete. Wyllium 19:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Most certainly not an advert; an accusation to which I take great exception. The VFD was posted nine minutes after the article was created! How on Earth is "inportance" supposed ot be measured, and in what way is the frst use of coton wool in mediciene not important? Are we to purge all other trademarks (Ford? Boeing? Hoover? Rolls Royce? Cadbury? BBC?) from Wikipedia?Andy Mabbett 20:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Using that logic, we also should remove all articles on people, because we don't keep vanity pages. Wyllium 20:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if the article is expanded and improved upon. In it's current state, it really seems to be of no importance. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 21:54, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The current version looks very informative to me, and the topic encyclopedic. Keep up the good work. Thue 23:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Interesting stuff. Besides, the nice thing about VfD is the debate. We've made lousy articles good and good articles great. - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 02:16, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep. If the article text is accurate, this was be a notable advance in medicine. Average Earthman 16:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Average Earthman. —Stormie 05:02, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that the tissue's proper name (and trademark) is Gamgee Tissue, so I've moved the article there. -- ChrisO 18:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a piece of Tolkien trivia there as well. It is what Sam Gamgee was named after! Morwen - Talk 19:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Way of the wicked — add to this discussion

• advert - no google hits, unsigned band. Secretlondon 20:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement.[[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 21:51, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, added nowiki tags to remove hyperlink.[[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 21:58, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
• "this trio of shiny young ladies will slice your wrists with razor sharp lyrics and machete rock licks until you cry for mercy or submit to the beat." hahahah. It's kind of funny. Shiny young ladies? But yes,delete. AmericanRobot 02:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It's an ad, and blatant as well. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Blatant and bordering on the hilarious. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Ad. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "dust and revelations"? I can find those behind my livingroom couch any day. Delete silliness. Denni☯ 00:27, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete promo. --Zigger 20:42, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Hardgainer — Add to this discussion

Dicdef at best. -- Jmabel 21:51, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete! I'd say a dictionary definition is a stretch at that. There is no context given, no references to relevant information. Sounds like something out of South Park. Mud 22:17, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded the article a bit, although it still needs work. This is a valid topic which is significant enough to warrant an article. After all there is monthly magazine solely devoted to this topic. -- Popsracer 12:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. All google hits point toward ways of parting you from your money. Denni☯ 00:31, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• 13,500 Google hits [2]. Whether or not it's a scam, it seems notable enough. Keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 11:00, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a niche term, but in active use within the bodybuilding community. Additionally, a well-developed article on the topic could include a medical perspective. - jredmond 11:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As Her Ladyship notes, it's a well-used term; if anyone wants to build up this article (ho ho) there's a "hardgainer FAQ" at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/body-building/hardgainer-faq/ which seems to have a fair bit of useful info in it. -- ChrisO 19:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. are we still voting? Vincent Gray 00:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

June 19

Factors of 203 — Add to this discussion

No reason for inclusion. Seems like nonsense page. Alex.tan 10:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. Probably for the best too. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Filipov, Jeffrey Coombs, Lauren Grandcolas — Add to this discussion

Alexander Filipov, Jeffrey Coombs, Lauren Grandcolas 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 m:transwiki to Wikimemorial. As of 16:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), it remains the in queue to be moved. Rossami (talk) 16:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

These individuals did nothing notable to warrant inclusion. Transwiki to wikimemorial.--Jiang 02:10, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki and keep. anthony (see warning)
• Delete and move to memorial wiki - Tεxτurε 01:18, 24 Jun 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.

Col. Boyd on Warfare — Discussion

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

Col. Boyd on Warfare

The article appears to be an original essay, written from the point of view of a disciple of Col. Boyd rather than an observer of his teachings. The central problem is that it's not really about 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' at all, it's a lot of original padding, unattributed, and I get the impression that the author is using Boyd's name to push his own theories.

The two subjects of the article - Boyd, and his teachings - appear to be covered quite well in the articles John Boyd (military strategist), OODA Loop, and most particularly Military Strategy (John Boyd), which is shorter and makes more sense. It is worth noting that 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' is an original title, and the article should really be called 'An anonymous person's bald assertions of what may or may not be Col. Boyd's thoughts on decision-making'. For all the length, nothing of it can really be added to the three links aforementioned.

It was listed for VFD back in June 2004 and seems to have saved from destruction by apathy rather than love. The various discussions in the Talk page's VFD archive came to nothing. Author 68.1.92.42's only other edits are to John Boyd (military strategist), although his work has mostly been replaced by subsequent contributions. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See prior discussion here

• Opening this can of worms with a Move request to preferably the book, and a very thorough cleanup of the article including POV and readability. By the looks of it, it can be condensed somewhat into a more compact version. The person the article is about is notable indeed, but if the focus is on the article itself, it should be at the very least cleaned up if it's to be kept. Inter 20:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The existence of Military Strategy (John Boyd) makes this article redundant and overkill. The previous VfD discussion mentioned cleanup numerous times and nothing was done. I consider it unlikely anything would be done this time, if kept. Also, the other article states that Boyd never wrote a book on military strategy, merely what would today have been a power point presentation, so it can't be moved to the book. If there's anything true, useful, and not included there already, then merge those elements are redirect to Military Strategy (John Boyd). -R. fiend 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Thanks for the clear up. Inter 22:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Military Strategy (John Boyd) covers this topic already, and is more objective. This other article is just more detailed, in such a way that goes beyond Wikipedia scope, IMHO. By the way, shouldn't that be Military strategy (John Boyd)? JoaoRicardo 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I see no reason at all even for Military Strategy (John Boyd) to be a separate article; it can all be in the John Boyd article it seems to me. I suggest merging that into John Boyd. Is there a precedent for other strategists to have a Military Strategy (Commander Whatshisface) article? It just doesn't seem logical. -R. fiend 18:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates existing content. Wyss 22:17, 14 Jan 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.

Deja Wuu — Discussion

A neologism by the people who signed the bottom of the page. - Lucky 6.9 04:35, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Delete. RickK 05:24, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Quite droll. Delete. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:31, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 06:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Neat. But delete. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Whatever. Delete. Denni☯ 00:49, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --Zigger 20:44, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Lake Maracaibo/1964 — Add to this discussion

How is this remotely an encyclopedia article? RickK 05:33, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

• What the hell? Delete. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 05:37, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Uh...right. Lurch, show our guest the door. - Lucky 6.9 06:00, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Hi, I was editing the Lake Maracaibo page, and the previous entry had the personal account there. I couldn't figure out what to do with the unattributed bit there, and set it aside. However, I've since looked for it online, and can't find the source, and can't figure out what to do with it. If anyone can figure out a pretty way to merge that, hey, great. But otherwise, delete it. I'm not especially partial to it, so delete, or do what you want. Rhymeless 06:13, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest in future move it to the talk page, or just delete it. It can always be recovered from history if we need it. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 06:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move the information to Talk:Lake Maracaibo. Delete this page. Andris 13:58, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Just delete. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shor Yoshuv — add to this discussion

• Stub gives no clue as to what this is. Shantavira 09:00, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem particularly notable, but I think we've got a consensus to keep higher education institutions. DJ Clayworth has partially rewritten for better clarity. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ujezd – add to this discussion

Just a street name. Krik 09:55, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC).

• Delete. Andris 13:56, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Google. Dogpile. Teoma. Ask Jeeves, fergodssake. Use 'em, folks. Ujezd happens to be one of the oldest towns in the Czech Republic, and has seen more history than any ten American towns put together. Yeah, it's a street name too, but so's Washington. Keep Denni☯ 01:23, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• OK, let's keep the new version. I moved it to Ujezd u Brna which is the full name, because google also returns a lot of other Czech towns called "Ujezd"+something. The word probably means "town" or "village" in Czech. If anyone writes an article about another Ujezd, we can turn Ujezd into a disambig page.Andris 01:37, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

November 2001 – add to this discussion

Only event listed is the Xbox launch. We already have a list of events that happened on that month in the 2001 article. Krik 10:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Probably should delete, but if you do, first remove the 30 or so links to this article so it doesn't get recreated. Or perhaps it should be a redirect instead. --ssd 16:48, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Every other month of 2001 is listed, presumably with the months of many other years. I think it should be kept until a consensus can be reached on all of them. Jxg 02:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the stub. It's just as valid a topic as November 2002 and November 2003. Davodd 04:38, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. More stuff happened in Nov 2001 than the X-Box launch, and someone will add more to the article eventually. These articles are great for breaking history down into detailed chronologies. Everyking 05:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If kept, the list of stuff in 2001 should be moved or copied into it. If deleted, all the links to it should be removed. --ssd 15:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Real month. Already has more events listed. --Zigger 20:52, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. All these belong in the article 2001. Are we going to have separate pages for the year (including everything that happens on the months and the days), for the month (including everything for each of the days), and for the day (including what is on that day). That is tremendous unwarranted redundance. If we do what has been done in the past, all of these events should be in the article 2001 (listed by month+day) as well as in the respective article for the day (listed by year). The current way is redundant, but it is uniquely useful because the articles by year are listed by their date in that year, as a "This is what happened on this year", whereas the articles by date (without year) are listed by year, as a list of anniversaries or "On this day in history". Having separate Month-Day articles does nothing useful. Absolutely pointless, the information displayed is no different than a redirect to 2001#November. - Centrx 19:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tech depot – Add to this discussion

Ad. Krik 10:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Ad. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:20, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I hate it when people try and post free ads. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Speedily-delete as sub-stub unless expanded to justify real soon. Does not seem to be an ad. --Zigger 21:00, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

William Erasmus Darwin, Mary Eleanor Darwin, Elizabeth Darwin — Add to this discussion

Non-famous sons and daughters of Charles Darwin. Do not deserve an article.Bogdan | Talk 12:15, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Definitely delete Mary (died as a baby). No vote on the others. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Elizabeth and William. More information can be added to the articles. And if they're the children of Charles Darwin, you better believe they're famous. TheCustomOfLife 16:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Why keep them ? There are 200 hits of Elizabeth Darwin [3], mostly genealogy. (65 for William Erasmus) Bogdan | Talk 18:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Your reasoning is that they're not famous. They are, even if their claim to fame is through their father. TheCustomOfLife 01:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not "A genealogical or biographical dictionary.". Biographies should be written for people with some achievements. Bogdan | Talk 12:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • If that's their only claim to fame, then the information belongs in the article on Charles Darwin and these should be deleted. - Centrx 20:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep William at least. If no one else does, I'll try to add some of the things he did. The whole family staid involved in public life and sciences for a good, long time. Geogre 17:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Mary Eleanor to Charles Darwin. No vote on the others. Andrewa 06:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry, I created these. The problem with having them separately is that they ought to be merged both into the Charles Darwin and the Emma Darwin articles, and Charles Darwin is long enough as it is, other children such as Leonard Darwin definitely deserve pages, but hey be bold in editing pages; :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded beyond basic genealogical information. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect unless expanded beyond basic genealogical information. Rossami 04:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Dates now merged from William Erasmus Darwin, Mary Eleanor Darwin, Elizabeth Darwin. Also merged dates from Anne Darwin. --Zigger 21:18, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)
• Keep all three. Makes sense to have a brief summary and link to Charles Darwin, even for Mary. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I vote for keeping at least Anne Darwin. Her loss was a formative, if horrific, event in Darwin's life, and it can be treated in more detail than the Charles Darwin article would have space for in the 32 K limit. Probably the other kids could use articles for the same reason.

Trollkore — add to this discussion

Moved from cleanup. 58 results for Trollkore on Google. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Andris 13:53, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly and unencylopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:10, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a troll. --ssd 17:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Silly. Geogre 15:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Please do not feed the trolls. —Stormie 05:02, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The less said the better. Andrewa 06:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Amen. This "article" is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 07:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Why do trolls think they're important? Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Morwen - Talk 21:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kronenberg — add to this discussion

Doesn't even try to be an encyclopedic article. Thue 13:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I've rewritten this as a stub for the German town and beer. DJ Clayworth 16:07, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • But Kronenbourg 1664 is a French lager, not German, and not spelt 'Kronenberg'. [Kronenbourg 1664 website] Average Earthman 16:31, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've written quite a bit more for Kronenberg. Keep. DO'Neil 05:18, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 05:20, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Has been greatly improved. Keep. Angela. 05:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Doesn't qualify for deletion anymore (though the original did). David Remahl 05:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not qualify for deletion any more. Andris 16:24, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Hi, my name is Damien! Ugh. It only serves to confuse.
• Keep new stub --XmarkX 16:23, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bangalore UPC — add to this discussion

Vanity page. Thue 14:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It probably should have been put on Candidates for Speedy Deletion. TheCustomOfLife 16:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasoning as the page below. Andris 02:28, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, highly POV, gives no indication that it is encyclopedic. I've left a message for the IP concerned who has made quite a few bad edits recently. Andrewa 06:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Copy/paste from http://prayerhome.com/aboutus.htm Jeff Knaggs|Talk 17:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Linu — add to this discussion

Vanity page; see also Bangalore UPC. Thue 14:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It appears that the author has mistaken Wikipedia for a website hosting free homepages. Delete. Andris 02:26, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Web page advert by anon. Andrewa 06:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 20

Shakti Kak — Discussion

Substub about what seems to be a non-notable person. The name is fairly common, but I only saw a couple of Google hits that were even close. - Lucky 6.9 03:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Someone attempting to create articles about everyone in the family? See Ram Nath Kak. Andris 04:07, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• That one at least comes back with a fair amount of hits relating back to the book he wrote. As for his kids, well... - Lucky 6.9 06:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete on Shakti Kak (forgot to write that in my first comment). I agree about Ram Nath Kak. He might be notable, although I wish someone familiar with Indian literature looked at it. Andris 14:55, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Can't have articles about every professor of economics. Delete. --Hemanshu 05:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indubitably — Add to this discussion

obvious dicdef. Move to wiktionary and delete Telso 07:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. TPK 17:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wyllium 19:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki dicdef to wiktionary. --Zigger 21:29, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Oh, definately delete -Frazzydee 21:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nicolas Kaviani — Discussion

Entire text of the article is "A classical composer, born 1977. See performance flyer: [4]." I get 160 hits on Google, which makes me think that this might be vanity/advert. blankfaze | •­• 07:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Seems like nobody wants to comment on this listing. Should I RfC? blankfaze | •­• 15:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I will. This sounds like a doggone vanity to me as well. If this is the best someone can do, it doesn't deserve a listing. - Lucky 6.9 16:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Spleeman 04:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hemanshu 05:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Pretty unlikely that a composer that young is notable, and even less likely given the lack of information offered. Delete. Isomorphic 07:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Joe vincent — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. —No-One Jones 14:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I speedily deleted one of these earlier today (Maria Vincent) and would have done these but they're listed here. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mud 15:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Should be a speedy anyway, but delete whatever it takes. - Lucky 6.9 16:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wow, he died in 1979 but didn't pass from the world in 2002? Delete. RickK
• Delete. Not notable. Davodd 00:24, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Timbo 19:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hemanshu 05:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Victor Irie — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. (And full stops are our friends.) —No-One Jones 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. See above. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mud 15:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I see what you mean about "full stops." Try reading that mess in one breath! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable Davodd 00:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hemanshu 05:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Noisy 08:58, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Etienne Vincent — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. (And full stops are our friends). —No-One Jones 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. See above. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mud 15:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable Davodd 00:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Hemanshu 05:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4ever yours — Add to this discussion

Vanity page about a local band. Totally flunks Google. - Lucky 6.9 16:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• "4ever yours utrecht" in Google, returns ZERO hits. Delete. Wyllium 19:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Allmusic.com hasn't heard of them either, but that means less for a European band. Still, looks like personal promotion of a no-name band. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.... Although spelling words with numbers is so cool. Timbo 19:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sarah Gordon — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since March. Do we know this person? This is strange. --Jiang 17:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• "Strange" is right. The link back to the so-called "webpage" is just to a personal one. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like Vanity.--Woggly 19:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jiang's search is indeed interesting; however, a search for ["Sarah Gordon" vx] brings up a swack (297 to be precise) of hits. ["Sarah Gordon" computer] returns over 3000, of which almost all the first fifty were for this person. She does seem to have some cachet in the field of computer security. Denni☯ 02:34, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete, someone in her field could easily have many Google hits without being famous. - SimonP 14:51, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 21:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Extended the article. --Palapala 11:31, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable person. It's easy to have many Google hits if you're a modern person active on the Web. - Centrx 20:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny argument. Tired of reading that it needs Google hits to be "notable", and now it's exactly the other way around...? How notable is a female who obviously has reached the top level within her profession (which, btw, is still heavily male-dominated)? --Palapala 18:22, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
    • It's not the other way around: a high number of Google hits does not mean that person is not notable, only that, theoretically, the number of hits required to qualify that person as sufficiently famous is greater. - Centrx 06:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• We keep Pokemon characters and obscure StarCraft units but delete an article on a real person who has made real contributions to computing? How odd. Denni☯ 00:27, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Delete. My real name is not an uncommon one, but a Google search combining my real name with further keywords to refer to what I am known for gets over 600 entries. Yet I wouldn't expect to find myself listed in Wikipedia (and I'm not). People are indeed more likely to want to look up information about many Pokemon characters and obscure StarCraft units than they are to look up information about me. jallan 19:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not I can manufacture a search phrase to pull in google hits. I can be pretty "famous" that way too, and I =do= have an uncommon name. It is also not whether or not people will search for Pokemon characters over "Sarah Gordon". More people will look up Pokemon characters than will look up Alan Turing. Does that mean the Turing article should be toast? What matters entirely is whether or not Sarah Gordon is noteworthy enough or not to appear in Wikipedia. My Google research says yes, she is. Denni☯ 02:39, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

It doesn't, in my opinion. And from the article I don't see any reason why anyone would look her up more than thousands of other people who have made a minor impact in their profession in some way or have contributed to various journals or written for magazines or even written a book or two. Maybe the article doesn't properly make clear what she's done. If not, it should be improved to make it clear. Or you might provide a list of entries in Wikipedia of people in her field or related fields of approximately equal accomplishment or who have less accomplishments to their credit. Does every senior research fellow at Symantec also deserve articles and everyone in a comparable position in other organizations? If not, why not? If so, how many articles are we considering? One of the things Wikipedia is not is a biographical dictionary. It is not supposed to contain a digital Who's Who within it. Perhaps that should be a separate Wiki project? jallan 04:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well hello and thanks for all the comments about my work. I'm not sure how I ended up in Wikipedia to begin with, although its pretty cool - but if you guys who are more familiar with it think its not an appropraite or useful place to have a listing about my stuff, please do remove with my blessing!.

Since some people asked some questions, I'll answer here. (p.s. you can mail me directly as I might not get back here, I was just unable to leep tonite and was looking for hits on Symantec and here I was...)

To the person who wonders why anyone might look me up - from the e-mails I get, they seem to read something or see something in some other media and then go to do a more thorough search - either on me, or my subject area.

To the person how mentioned my being at the top of the game in a male dominated industry - yes, that is very ironic considering not only did I not set out to be there, I didn't even set out to be in the game at all...it is kind of weird though, few people ever write about the gender thing.

To the person suggesting that there be a list of others in my field who have provided approx. equal accomplishments - so far, there aren't any such people in this specific area. Its a very specialized area, and people generally have focused on other aspects of the problem. That is what has made this work unique. This will change in the future as Universities adopt a multidiscipinary approach to security (as some are doing!) but for now, the work just isn't there. That's why people look me up - there isn't anyone else yet.

To the person who commented on the web page - not sure why there was a link to my own page (which is drastically in need of being redone and which is actually being redone ...) but that is where anyone can get all the papers, articles, press/media links, etc.

Best wishes, Sarah

ZiRC — Add to this discussion

Ad for an IRC network. Doesn't seem to be anything notable about it. Fredrik | talk 19:39, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, absolutely. —Stormie 00:24, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ephemera. Geogre 03:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Mud 17:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pyro's Union — Add to this discussion

Vanity and nonsense. Possible candidate for speedy deletion? --Woggly 19:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Probably vanity, but not nonsense. Delete, though. Everyking 20:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Vanity, and silly vanity. Hie thee to the delete bin. Denni☯ 02:47, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• "Few people know of Freddy" - exactly. Delete. TPK 03:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert by anon up to no good. Andrewa 07:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Since few people know of Freddy, why, who are we to promote him? Delete. Or, in their own words, deface. - Lucky 6.9 08:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Best they not contaminate their non-conformism with extra publicity. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't know why, but it did crack me up. Kevin Rector 03:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Sad, really. It reminds me of all that I'd like to forget. Geogre 10:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that article is trenchant and relevant, about a movement that will revolutionize society as we know it; that will be the vanguard to a bright new future for all mankind. I read those words, and realize that a desperate and lonely world has finally found the salvation it has sought through the long, lonely times of yesteryear. On the other hand, who cares? Delete. Dukeofomnium 18:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Timbo 20:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How to make starch from frosted potatoes — Add to this discussion

This VfD discussion relates to an old article, which was deleted in July. The current article has no content or history, and can be speedily deleted. sjorford 09:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Silly, pointless recipe. Delete. hfool 21:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but first restore to original 1881 version from the page history. It makes no sense to modernize the language, and inapproriate to add editorial remarks such as "This all of course begs the question of why you would want to know how to make starch from frosted potatoes" within the article itself. Dpbsmith 21:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but move it to the Cookbook. Krik 22:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think you mean move to wikibooks. (indicating delete from Wikipedia) - Tεxτurε 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• rewrite possibly as section in starch or starching. I see no reason why it should go into the cookbook - perhaps Wikibooks needs/has a book on domestic cleaning and oddjobs - bit of lemon peel here bit, of bicarbonate of soda on the underside of the vacuum cleaner sort of thing. The cookbook should be for food. Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and move to wikibooks - Tεxτurε 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• What makes everyone think wikibooks wants this? Delete and don't move it; if it ends up in the cookbook, I'll list it for deletion over there, too. Gentgeen 08:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Another dump from the 1881 Cyclopedia. Joyous 21:02, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'll give a star to the first person to transwiki it to Wikibooks. Davodd 00:19, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

original VfD discussion ends here

---

• Delete See above. Bart133 22:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It's a nonsensical vandal bot listing. Speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phillippe Phloppe - Add to this discussion

• Ha, ha. Funny. Except not? TheCustomOfLife 21:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Surname sounds like Flop. Not even WP:-) could handle this. Krik 21:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have put it in the bad jokes section, but I thought it was too bad of a joke, if that makes any sense. Flip flop. Grossaroo! TheCustomOfLife 22:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a silly 'flip flop' joke. Mpntod 22:06, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• So Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is only for Good Jokes? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, don't be ridiculous. I believe I made myself perfectly clear. Besides, you were the one who put the votes for deletion notice on the page anyway. I was just cleaning up your work, mate. TheCustomOfLife 00:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • c'est quoi? Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • (cur) (last) 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 Duncharris m ({msg:vfd}) That's quoi. TheCustomOfLife 00:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Move to BJAODN. RickK 22:34, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• A little forced, but the 'cheese' part is enough to sneak it into BJAODN. Denni☯ 02:53, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Guillotine! Failing that, BJAODN and delete. Andrewa 03:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• A perfect BJAODN candidate. Delete from here, preserve it there. - Lucky 6.9 06:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Written as a BJAODN candidate. So we should just destroy it entirely, otherwise it'll just encourage them. Average Earthman 10:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move to BJAODN. Agreed w/ Average Earthman. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen worse on BJAODN. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: You know, someone went to a lot of work for this joke. That, to me, makes it funny. At least it's not an anti-politician entry (the which we will start appearing soon). Geogre 03:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- vandalism. Davodd 00:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Someone put this on BJAODN already. I mean, it's kind of funny, but if some folks think that it's vandalism, perhaps it should go. Wouldn't break my heart. - Lucky 6.9 00:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If it's already under bad jokes, then delete it. TheCustomOfLife 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ingo Giezendammer — Add to this discussion

Person in question appears to be mostly unnotable with a total of ~2 Google hits on someone else's personal page. Possibly vanity. -- Grunt 22:12, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely not notable. He's listed on the "List of Neo-Dadaists" that's also being considered for deletion. You know who else is on that list? The already-deleted Lennie Lee! Delete with extreme prejudice, thereby creating a new form of performance art. - Lucky 6.9 17:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. Google is not God. anthony (see warning)
• Delete - Google may not be god but Ingo is not notable. - Tεxτurε 01:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Have you even heard of Ingo before this? I can't think of a more notable graphic artist. anthony (see warning)
    • I've never heard of Ingo Giezendammer. Are you sure you don't mean Ingo Giezendanner?
• This guy is listed as a performance artist, not a graphic artist. I'm convinced it's part of a spamming effort on behalf of "Lennie Lee." - Lucky 6.9 16:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Forever's end — Add to this discussion

unsavable stub. 67.160.75.230 22:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete; agree completely. -- Grunt 22:27, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete. Ultimate Band List has never heard of the band, either. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Can we delete Forever's End as well? That entry and a pile of these other entries look to be vanity from a single source - David Gerard 18:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This is so obnoxious that it's been nominated twice. Check out the bottom of the page. It's our old friend "Skunkhunt" on the loose again, he of "Toas Martial Arts" and "Phartcore Metal" fame. Make this just go away! - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move to the entry on Notable Oxymorons and delete ping 07:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I have never heard or read the expression "forever's end" outside this entry. Probably vanity. Dukeofomnium 19:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True Heavy Metal — Add to this discussion

POV nonsense. 67.160.75.230 22:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I feel this is salvageable with some effort. -- Grunt 22:33, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

• Delete. POV essay and website advert, by a heavy metal fan obviously. I'm another fan of the genre, but this page is not remotely encyclopedic (nor entirely accurate IMO, I play my heaviest bass parts with a pick - not that it's relevant to whether we keep the article). Andrewa 03:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: The author did a good job of trying to report rather than endorse, but the line between compound-noun-artform and adjective-noun-artform is a dark one. POV is intrinsic, and reporting on the POV questionable. It's kind of inescapable that a hierarchy of good/bad is going to be reiterated by the article. Geogre 03:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, not a report of a term in common use ('cos it isn't) - David Gerard 18:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, David Gerard convinced me. Dpbsmith 22:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) Keep. It's not nonsense, and the POV problems not that bad. No different from Arts and Crafts Movement or the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. You can't report on an artistic movement without giving an empathetic presentation of the movement's POV. I think the article is marginally OK already and is fairly easily salvageable. Rewrite the first three sections into a single section with a more neutral point of view (just the fact ma'am) regarding the movement and its creators. Follow it with "What is True Heavy Metal," rewritten without exclamation points in a more encyclopedic style. For example:

According to its proponents, true heavy metal is characterized by: a powerful screaming vocalist with a several-octave vocal range; a shredding lead guitarist who can both blow up and harmonize and or highlight the melody; a thumping bassist capable of good solo work; a double bass drummer with the flexibility to deal with changing time signatures; stage presence; and the use of original material rather than chipeing.

Then the list of "true heavy metal" bands. I don't think I should be the one try this because I detest heavy metal, whether true or phony, and know zilch about it. The only issue I see is whether the "True Heavy Metal" movement is reasonably famous or significant. If the list of bands is a list of bands who would identify themselves as aligned with the "True Heavy Metal," then there's no question as, unbelievably, even I recognize some of the names. Dpbsmith 18:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) P. S. OTOH if David Gerard is right, then... never mind. I did mention that I know zilch about heavy metal, right? Dpbsmith 18:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

None of that list who are famous call it an artistic movement. This series of articles appears to be spam for Forever's End. I could be wrong, of course - David Gerard 18:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the section on "What is True Heavy Metal" an accurate statement of what aficionados prize and what is deemed to be the core of the form? If so, could it be used in the article on Heavy metal music? Dpbsmith 22:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not sufficiently, and I'd want it referenced. The series is indeed Forever's End spam - check the URL of the reference for the section in question - David Gerard 23:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Conceptually POV - any salvagable info should be moved to Heavy metal. Davodd 00:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

• this is incredibly stupid as it stands. But it is a potentially salvagable entry. There should be an entry discussing the furious debate in the metal scene about what is true heavy metal, which, as this entry does note at one point, began with Man-o-war's claims to be true metal, and their slogan 'death to false metal', in the 80s.--XmarkX 11:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It blatantly posits, even in the title, that other sub-genres of heavy metal don't have "quality" or "integrity" and aren't "True." Even if I feel personally that all heavy metal is cut from the same cloth of repetitive self-indulgent tantrums at 120 decibels, I don't write articles proclaiming that... Fire Star 21:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the title is POV. Dukeofomnium 19:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• this is incredibly stupid as it stands. But it is a potentially salvagable entry. There should be an entry discussing the furious debate in the metal scene about what is true heavy metal, which, as this entry does note at one point, began with Man-o-war's claims to be true metal, and their slogan 'death to false metal', in the 80s.--XmarkX 11:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seth Schoen — Add to this discussion

• Keep. This may be a vanity page, but if Google is an arbitor, it's well-deserved vanity - 13 600 hits ain't shoddy. Denni☯ 03:04, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems to have a couple of reasonably notable accomplishments. Where did the explanation for listing this on VfD go, btw? There was not vfd tag on the page either. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:46, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambivalenthysteria 21:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Filip Serafin — Add to this discussion

Someone who was born in Poland, apparently. Zero google hits for "Filip Serafin". -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Grunt 00:47, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Born in Poland, raised in Obscurity. Delete. Denni☯ 03:08, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete, and imho this should have been speedily deleted. —Stormie 03:39, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Either not notable or misspelled. And article has almost no information.Andris 05:59, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This takes the taco for useless substubs. - Lucky 6.9 23:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fire Star 21:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 21

Lea Bridge road — Add to this discussion

An unremarkable road in London, article badly named anyway. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I live near there. I'll see if I can find anything of importance about it. (I have a book on the history of Walthamstow that may have detail.) But yes, it is badly named - David Gerard 13:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If it's just a road, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Given the earlier discussion on Capital Boulevard, where the consensus was to delete a main road in Raleigh, NC, a minor road would have to be deleted. Geogre 10:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • That's not really a convincing argument against this article in and of itself, considering that article exists ... - David Gerard 17:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Imperial College Electrical and Electronic Engineering Society — add to this discussion

• It's a completely unremarkable departmental student club, article written by a past president. --Robert Merkel 04:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• 14 Google hits, completely unnotable. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The university is notable, the department is notable, the society isn't. Average Earthman 10:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: the article is so confusingly written, I can't even make out whether "EESoc" is a designation for the department, as implied by the first sentence ("The Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EESoc) at Imperial College London produces some of the most well educated electrical engineering graduates in the world," or a society within that department. There is an awful lot of promotional and unverifiable language in that article. What the heck does it mean to say that it "produces some of the most well educated electrical engineering graduates in the world" or that "The department’s teaching scores assessments are always excellent?" Once you remove the POV, what's left? Dpbsmith 01:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jinux — Add to this discussion

More fun and self-promotion from the Javalix gang, complete with mixed-up future tenses. - Lucky 6.9 17:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Both an ad and a duplicate of an existing article (although it may not exist for long). -- Cyrius|✎ 00:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ad from temporally mixed up time traveller who forgot to use a spell-checker. SWAdair | Talk 04:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's also technically nonsensical.

"General purpose operating systems such as Linux are too complex too port, but gnu/Hurd and ReactOS was ported, providing for the first time the ability to run Win32 applications in Java."

Linux has been ported between various architectures, while Hurd and ReactOS are somewhat obscure [although interesting, but that's another story...] ia32-only operating systems at present. I fail to even parse the win32 applications in Java part; Java can certainly be used to write win32 applications, but isn't a generic interpreter for all win32 apps....

• Delete. I don't see evidence that this software is particularly notable. -Oliver Crow 09:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's also technically nonsensical.

"General purpose operating systems such as Linux are too complex too port, but gnu/Hurd and ReactOS was ported, providing for the first time the ability to run Win32 applications in Java."

Linux has been ported between various architectures, while Hurd and ReactOS are somewhat obscure [although interesting, but that's another story...] ia32-only operating systems at present. I fail to even parse the win32 applications in Java part; Java can certainly be used to write win32 applications, but isn't a generic interpreter for all win32 apps....

Lauchlin Currie — Add to this discussion

• Delete - vanity/advert/bio-response to critics - biographer trying to use Wikipedia to refute critics (see note at top and sig at bottom) - Wikipedia is not the place for Roger J. Sandlands to use his own works to dispute allegations against Currie. - Tεxτurε 18:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Part of me wants to accept this as a pretty good bio; however the header and footer makes me suspicious of the info. Does anyone have access to the ANB (subscription required) who could check for copyvio? DJ Clayworth 19:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• You'll have to check out the original leading paragraph here. We still need to discover the copyright issue. The writer may not own the copyright if the publisher does. - Tεxτurε 21:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • See my comment below, with the same time stamp as this one, concerning copyright issues. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I've removed the vfd notice from Lauchlin Currie and I'll attempt to verify that User:213.107.19.27 is indeed Roger J. Sandilands. If so, fantastic -- Sandilands is an economist of some note. Otherwise we have a copyvio problem (not a vfd problem). NPOV-ification is pretty easy -- if you bother to read the article you'll see that the only editorializing is the note at the very top; I've struck it off. -- Now, I do understand that removing the vfd notice is going to get somebody pissed off at me, and it's possible that User:213.107.19.27 is not Sandilands. I'll take my chances; I'd rather have that, than to piss off yet another knowledgeable contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely. This is what makes this project worthwhile. I'd love to see more articles from people like this and less entertainment-related substubs the likes of which this site is bombarded with on a daily basis from the same joker. If I sound like I have it in for this person, you're right. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed the vfd notice again; I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist, thanks. This vfd listing is a simple mistake, although a rather serious simple mistake. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • My understanding of the VfD process is that you don't remove the tag while it is being discussed on VfD. How are people supposed to know that it has been nominated for deletion? This is not an action you, or anyone else, should take unilaterally. Please restore the VfD tag that you have again deleted. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Nope. If you want to see the vfd tag, you'll have to do it yourself. It's a mistake, & I won't help you make it (or remake it). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've re-added it. It is inappropriate to remove the VfD header while the article is still being discussed here, and if you continue to delete it, you can be blocked for vandalism. RickK 22:57, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh, Rick, you righteous warrior, you. What part of "I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist" are you not understanding? Wile E. Heresiarch 23:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- valid topic. I am listing this on Cleanup if it isn't already there. Davodd 00:02, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it needs adjustment, but it seems a valid topic. Joyous 02:24, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: this is a well-written, well-referenced article about an encyclopedia-worthy person. I hope Roger Sandilands (if it was him—he added his e-mail address to the original version of Harry White, so checking should be easy) continues to contribute more of the same. —No-One Jones 05:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Update: I emailed Sandilands to ask if he is the anonymous contributor and got this reply --

Dear Robert,

Yes, indeed. I did post them yesterday. I was not 
sure what your style and conventions were, but I am 
pleased that you seem happy with them.

With very best wishes,
Roger Sandilands
http://www.economics.strath.ac.uk/Staff/Sandilands__Roger/sandilands__roger.html

• • Could you also ask him if he owns the copyright and is happy to release it under GFDL. If so, I suggest we take his word for it. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Check the link. This is exactly the kind of person we want to encourage; we need more people who know what they're doing. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• To further muddy the copyright question I found this article at [5]. The site appears to have no copyright statement. Don't know if this makes it more or less likely that its a copyvio. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've emailed the author about copyright issues -- the original version states that it's adapted from an article he wrote for American National Biography, so, if anything, the copyright issue is there. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Update: I have received another email from Sandilands. He has emailed me a different version of the Currie bio. At this point I suggest the original be deleted as a potential copyvio (wrt ANB) and post the other version. About Harry White, his contribution was originally posted to amazon.com as a book review. As Amazon claims only a nonexclusive right to use the comments [6], I see no potential for copyvio there. I'll follow up on all this stuff within a day. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Update: I have pasted the alternate version of the Currie biography (as emailed to me by Sandilands) into Lauchlin Currie/Temp. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If the original author understands and approves of GFDL then I'll change to keep. He has to realize that it will not remain in its current form. Others will change his bio. - Tεxτurε 19:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. He looks significant enough to me, a bit of cleaning up and wikification will make this a fantastic bio, and it certainly seems that any copyright question has been cleared up by the email exchange with Mr. Sandilands. —Stormie 03:38, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alexandre Otto Strube — Add to this discussion

Besides the VfD'ed article, an IP's 4 edits w/in a half hour produced the following:

On 1978 (as an event, not a birth!):

* April 17 - Alexandre Otto Strube is born.

On List of people by name: Al (now List of people by name: Ale), misfiled by first names instead of last:

• Alexandre Otto Strube, (born 1978), brazilian, hacker
• Alexandre Straton Campbell, (born 1982), brazilian, engineer

A Google search on

"Alexandre Otto Strube" OR "Alexandre Strube"

produces "about 4,330" hits, of which they "omitted some entries very similar to the 82 already displayed." The 82 suggest a non-famous guy who uses the net primarily to discuss open-source code, secondarily to discuss cars, and on special occasions (2 days before his birthday) for a little vanity.

ESL. Non-WP format. 3 subject-less pseudo-sentences of 21 words, & a link to a Euro-patent-protest page saying "Join this online protest by changing your homepage from 5 until 15 april". Dunno when he plans to change it back.! (On 2nd thot, i nowiki-ed it as a deceptive political ad.)
--Jerzy(t) 19:37, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Looks like personal promotion, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A very thorough puff. Geogre 02:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like promotion. Andris 15:23, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Australia v England 2001 — Add to this discussion

It's about a single cricket test series between these countries; its not complete, its way too detailed, its full of external links and its been on cleanup for weeks. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• A big ugly mess. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 20:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - look at how old the article is! If it hasn't improved after three years... -- Cyrius|✎ 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Can't we just nominate for Featured Articles?  :) Failing that, delete. Dukeofomnium 13:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Harry White — Add to this discussion

A review of a book, something which should not be on Wikipedia. -- Grunt 21:05, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Agreed, though it appears well-written at first glimpse. We should try and encourage the guy to turn this from a book review into a wikified article. I'd hate to see this individual give up on this site. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I've wikified the article, and removed the review sections to give him an idea of what we are looking for. There's lots more information out there about this interesting man. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the modified article. Nice re-write! DJ!
• Keep: could be improved, but certainly shouldn't be deleted. -- Jmabel 00:20, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article was contributed by Roger Sandilands; see my comments under "Lauchlin Currie" above. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Stellar re-write! By all means, keep. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The "rewritten" article referred to above is now at Harry Dexter White. Harry White is now a disambiguation. -- Jmabel 23:59, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Twenty dollar bill

• Delete. This article was the original title of U.S. twenty dollar bill. Zanimum moved the page, SimonP made it into a dis-ambiguation page, and there hasn't been a single new article to link to it since SimonP made the dis-ambiguation page, so how is this article still needed?? 66.245.12.119 22:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Somone will come along and create the article for Canadian twenty dollar bill. blankfaze | •­• 22:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Who wrote this vote and forgot to sign?? 66.245.12.119 22:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Me. Oops. blankfaze | •­• 22:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valid disambig page. RickK 23:09, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, its been in its current state for all of four months. - SimonP 01:16, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Yup, Keep - I've added Australian twenty dollar bill also. - TB 09:14, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • False. IMO, the phrase "dollar bill" is not very common in Australia; the commonly used phrase is "dollar bank note". 66.32.249.213 13:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Srila Vishnupada, H.D.G. Ramakrishnananda Swami — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since April. This guy doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article. He is the founder of a Classical Yoga society. Period. Plus, much of the text is a possible copyvio from [7]. A Google search for "Srila Vishnupada, H.D.G. Ramakrishnananda Swami" gets 15 hits. blankfaze | •­• 22:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Heck, if this is a copyvio then it needs to go away very quickly. It's a teensy-weensy bit POV as well. And if he's not notable, delete. Meditate on this truth. - Lucky 6.9 23:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No guru no method, etc. Ephemera.
• Why isn't the VfD notice on this article? I think the ending date of this discussion should be adjusted to reflect when the notice appears on the article. That said--I vote for deletion--this is a vanity page. Regarding the possible copyvio--the article was already listed on the copyvio page and the author of the website granted permission--on the article's discussion page, although the author appears to have withdrawn that notice after I edited the page to add some factual, although derogatory, information about some of the people this person claims as spiritual mentors. older≠wiser 14:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Good point. I've put the boilerplate on. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agent 212 — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since late April. Poor sub-stub at best about a non-notable webcomic. Google search for "Agent 212 Daniël Kox" (Daniël Kox being the illustrator, according to the article) gets 162 hits. blankfaze | ?­? 23:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Looks like copyvio [8]. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Not any more. I rewrote the text. David Remahl 00:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • ARRRRGH!!! Don't rewrite possible copyvio in place! It leaves the copyvio in the history. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it is a wikified stub. It seems pretty notable, having been around for > 25 years in two languages. David Remahl 00:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some evidence is presented that it is notable. - SimonP 01:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It IS notalbe, google returns 5000 hits, all relevant. Wyllium 14:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

Agent 212 is a popular comic. It was published at a time in the "Spirou" magazine and is edited by "Dupuis" [9]

Bedetheque (the ultimate french reference when it comes to comics), give 33 albums published, [10] , you can find at least one album of Agent 212 in every library in France.

Finally Cauvin is a really popular comics writer his homepage.

So basicly, article need improvment but does not deserve a delete :o) Hashar 02:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• After that info provided by Hashar, it's gotta be a Keep. —Stormie 03:48, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, we HAVE to delete it, then re-create it. We can't keep the copyvio in the history. RickK 04:31, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the rewrite to Agent 212/Temp. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• The rewrite from Cyrius seems ok for me. Whether you delete it and recreate it or just move to content, a page Agent 212 need to be kept. It really deserves it. Every Belgian, French, Dutch (,?) kids has read at least one album of this series. Besides, this series is mentioned in the List of comic books.Lvr 12:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 22

L&L Crip Gang — Add to this discussion

As far as I can see, all Google hits are Wikipedia related. Also, the following page lists _many_ (it scares me) LA "Crip Gangs", but not this particular one. Crips in LA County, Long Beach Crips. Even though I wouldn't oppose including a significant street gang in the encyclopedia, I see no reason to promote this one.

• Delete. -- David Remahl 00:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. They're a street gang, so what? -- Cyrius|✎ 00:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. I have no idea of how significant or not this particular gang may be, but I will say that the Internet may not be the greatest guide to this particular area. In general, its an area where our coverage is very poor. Even clearly historically significant gangs and quasi-gangs (e.g. the Savage Skulls and the Young Lords, both household words in New York thirty years ago) do not even have stubs. -- Jmabel 00:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • The "no original research" wikipedia rule applies...The information in the article is unverifiable. Still, a street gang Wikipedia:WikiProject is a great idea ((un)fortunately not in my field of expertise)! -- David Remahl 00:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I hate the thought of having articles on street gangs unless they've done something notable. It's a scary proposition. Delete. RickK 04:32, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm with you on that. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Both Crips and Bloods have articles; what is the point of adding nonimportant (except to their members and friends) subgangs? Denni☯ 03:41, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Why delete? OK, so they are a gang, but what is the justification for for getting rid of it? Because they're a street gang and don't justify an encyclopedia's time? The article is non-persuasive, non-incendiary (from what I could tell of such a stub) - Wikipedia is all about a growing body of information, why get rid of something that isn't factually incorrect (noone has produced evidence the page is incorrect) or trouble making??? Why should there be an article about a gang is they did something notable? Should we reward for a gang becoming notorious, ADD anyone?!
  • Hm. A sockpuppet (this is his first post) who doesn't even sign. A double non-starter. RickK 22:56, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Forever's End — Add to this discussion

More Skunkhunt nonsense, vanity page for his band.67.160.75.230 00:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, no. Speedy delete, block user, throw salt over your left shoulder, throw Tabasco over your right shoulder, spin around three times and sing "Kumbayaa" in the key of D while strumming a bassoon. Only then shall the bad mojo be displaced. - Lucky 6.9 00:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think their info page speaks for itself:

  Though, the band has played many shows for the last decade and a half, they haven't ever released a CD other than their current demo or had any "RECORD DEALS".

Nice try fellas, but if you haven't gotten a CD out in 18 years, you should probably try something else. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. My rule of thumb: if you haven't released an album, you're not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. —Stormie 06:37, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: My band did release an album, and I don't think it's worthy of an entry in WP. Skunkhunt needs to read any of the Rock'n'Roll 101 books out there: you don't get signed by ticking off encyclopedists, and you don't get people to come to your shows by letter bombing people in far away cities. Geogre 10:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Abigail Toyne — Add to this discussion

• Substub about a glamour model who doesn't even have an official website and has no verifiable biographical details on her agency's site. --Robert Merkel 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, although I can't help but wonder what she looks like... - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Google search can find you (not safe for work, but nothing hardcore) pictures if you're that keen...the short version is "attractive, but nothing exceptional". --Robert Merkel 03:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • LOL! I'll take your word for it. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think this is an attempt at promoting the adult yahoo group in the external links. Delete unless turned into a real article. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I tried to chase down the links to this and another "glamour model" created at the same time, and they were to hobby/fanpages. Being photographed topless doesn't automatically mean significance. Geogre 02:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Silly silly nekkid people should go away. Kevin Rector 03:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 03:39, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, though this is a stub. She's been an actual Page 3 model more than once - David Gerard 09:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• delink-ed the links so that if this is self-promotion they won't gain much google or alex. Can put them back if the article is kept. (no vote). DJ Clayworth 13:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - if we gave every brainless idiot who got paid for whipping their bits out in the national press an entry we would need to spend their combined earnings on new drives.

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 1 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

• It's seems to be a perfectly good topic but it's an orphan and a dead-end and the current "article" is little more than a definition. This is my first candidate for deletion and if this is the wrong place (or thing to do) I appologize to all. Kevin Rector 03:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • Probably should be moved to Wiktionary, if nobody improves it. --Robert Merkel 05:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list on cleanup. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

I've moved some of the article text to the somewhat hardier article at acclimatization, leaving a redirect. - toh 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nimbo — Add to this discussion

Sheesh. Another neologism. - Lucky 6.9 04:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, it's really not that neo- a neologism. The word has been used on Usenet for a LONG time and was listed in the rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks FAQ as long ago as August 1995 - see [11]. —Stormie 05:04, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I didn't get any Google hits that matched, but if you think it's a keeper, I'm fine with that. - Lucky 6.9 06:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• No vote (just a comment). Google gets 708 hits for "nimbo comics." SWAdair | Talk 08:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I just tried "nimbo" and didn't get anything that matched. I can remove the vfd later if no one objects. - Lucky 6.9 16:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valid and much-used term in meteorology, and this is in fact its primary meaning. I've added that to the article and reordered it accordingly. -- ChrisO 18:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Excellent. Keep as rewritten. - Lucky 6.9 21:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

White Nationalist Party — Add to this discussion

• Delete. This is nothing but an advert for a very small white supremacist group. Coolmoon 04:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't decide on this one. On the one hand, political parties should be documented, regardless of how distasteful their politics. But on the other hand, although the article describes them as "a United Kingdom political party", a quick Google reveals that they have not actually contested any elections, merely announced that they intend to in the future. And the article itself says "the Electoral Commission refused permission for the WNP name", so if they do ever achieve any prominence as a political party it will be under a different name anyway. —Stormie 06:36, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • • Not all political parties exist to stand in elections - on the far left and far right they often don't believe in electoral politics. Secretlondon 12:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The article should be kept but edited to reflect all of the foregoing. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for now. User:143.117.143.42 added to it and their contrib list shows evidence they know their way around this stuff. If Nick Griffin is involved then definitely keep (though that's not clear from this article). It's a defective article, but documenting the neo-Nazi splinter groups is entirely encyclopaedic IMO - David Gerard 09:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert for their views and promotion for their group. - Tεxτurε 19:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree that that's a criterion for deletion. Are Neo-Nazi groups encyclopaedic or not? You seem to be saying they aren't. This article doesn't read to me like a promo at all - David Gerard 21:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I want to add: I've been trying to fill out Category:Neo-Nazi topics and I'd really rather not lose stuff - David Gerard 20:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I'm almost certain this has been listed before. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of White nationalist FAQ, whose deleted revisions have mysteriously disappeared. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I assume this is the same party? Notable enough for me. Everyking 06:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Any fool can form a political party. It takes several fools to make one a legitimate presence on the political landscape. Just another kind of vanity page. Denni☯ 04:29, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
• No vote. This is a real party, active in various parts of the UK, which is encyclopaedic. The article needs so much work that I'm not going to vote to keep it, but would if it was rewritten. Warofdreams 18:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - its an active politicial party in the UK. Secretlondon 12:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)

Empire of Septempontia — Add to this discussion

Another idiotic micronation for your deleting pleasure. - Lucky 6.9 04:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete all micronations. RickK 04:33, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. A mention in the Micronation article is more than sufficient. —Stormie 04:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• While all articles about all "Micronations" should be deleted, I think it's at least a bit funny that the National Anthem is "Seven Bridges Road". Kevin Rector 04:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not verifiable. Google results: "Empire of Septempontia", Septempontia—mostly from their own website. Newspaper archive searches turn up nothing. —No-One Jones 05:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Kill it, kill it now, before it breeds. Oh, and in case that wasn't clear, delete. Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete only micronations that lack any sort of claim to fame, as is apparently the case here. Everyking 08:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In case there was any confusion, I meant that as a plain delete. Everyking 16:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. i.e. Delete this one. -- pne 05:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I don't have a specific problem with micronations that have some sort of presence, but this article needs at a minimum a rewrite. Exploding Boy 14:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, but only if verifiable. Even then, there's a potential "slippery slope." Maybe it's best to nip this in the bud now and just mention it in the micronation article as suggested. - Lucky 6.9 16:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, don't list in micronation either. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not bit enough to count as a significant society, it's not big enough whatever grandiose title it calls itself. Average Earthman 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wolf Szmuness — Add to this discussion

Conspiracy theories ya us. RickK 04:41, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

• The article is problematic, but not a candidate for deletion IMHO. The person was noteworthy, and the fact of the conjecture about him is interesting. Needs careful editing, but keep. --Woggly 05:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the introductory paragraph (thank you Catherine), and trash the rest. Google gives 367 hits for his name. Of the original article, the only notable part of his history is in the last three paragraphs. Those statements are extremely questionable. I am not in favor of an article describing an obscure conspiracy theory. Delete the original content, but keep the intro so that a real article can grow from it. SWAdair | Talk 06:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep the background details as well unless there is cause to think they are false. Work on POV as necessary. Everyking 08:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: On cleanup, I and others are trying to make it acceptable and NPOV. It might be possible to report the conspiracy theory without endorsing it, and even to offer a few countering phrases without engaging in polemics. Geogre 13:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neocles and NEOCLES

If he's of "no distinction", why do we need an article on him? RickK 05:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Even his son didn't consider him important enough to link to. :P --Woggly 05:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This is nothing more than a line lifted from the Themistocles article which in turn came fom the 1911 Brittanica. Our indistinct friend is already mentioned there almost word for word. Speedy...? - Lucky 6.9 07:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect Neocles to Themistocles. Delete NEOCLES. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FleetBoston — Add to this discussion

Useless stub, very uninformative and not worthy of notation without expansion. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:56, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - slow down the deletion train here. This is a real bank that has been bought out and the facts can be verified. There are lots and lots of one line stubs in Wikipedia, and it will be improved. As such, I have listed it one Wikipedia:Cleanup. Burgundavia 06:45, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I've been bold and changed it to a redirect to the better-named and more informative stub FleetBoston Financial. If [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] agrees, I suggest that he be the one to remove this section from VfD, otherwise that he adds a VfD message to FleetBoston Financial. - TB 09:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep re: What to list and not list on VfD. FleetBoston is definitly notable enough for inclusion in WP. Davodd 16:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Like the railroads, pretty soon there's only going to be four banks left (or two), and this proto-behemoth is likely to be one of them. --Gary D 07:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and hope it grows. FleetBoston was a very substantial bank of regional (Northeast US) importance. There is a lot of reasonably significant information that could go in the article. Like, the time I had a CD with Bank of Boston or Baybank of Boston or whatever it was called a merger or two ago, and when Fleet took it over and the CD matured, they sent me a notice informing me that I could either roll it over or redeem it... but that if I chose to redeem it, they were going to sock me with a $25 fee. When pressed, they agreed to waive the fee "just this once," as if there were ever likely to be a second time. In the transition from BayBank to Bank of Boston to FleetBoston customer service declined and fees increased with every merger. I believe it was Fleet that set up the special express tellers that you could only use if you had more than $25,000 in your account. Grrrr..... Fleet's logo looked like the dorsal fins of three sharks, and when they merged with Bank of Boston the new logo looked like a green and a blue shark circling. A friend of mine changed banks to get away from Bank of Boston, only to have the new bank swallowed up by Bank of Boston, changed again, and had the second bank swallowed by FleetBoston. Are you getting all this? because it might be just a tad too POV to put in the article. I moved all my accounts to a little neighborhood bank that pays 3.5% on their AutoMax savings account. I hope they survive for a while. Dpbsmith 20:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jeffrey T. Nomura — Add to this discussion

about a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 07:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• The man is clearly on his way to sainthood. Nevertheless, delete, although if someone was to create an article on the high school it'd be nice to have it mentioned that he teaches math there. Everyking 07:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, Gawd, no! If we HAVE to have articles on every school in existence, do we really need lists of all of the teachers? Please, no! Especially since they'd be impossible to keep up to date. Oh, and delete this article. RickK 19:03, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it'd be interesting to the reader to know how many teachers they had at a particular time, how many for each subject, how long a teacher generally stayed at the school, etc. I don't think it'd be impossible to keep up to date; even if no actual students or faculty contributed, school websites might be sufficient for gathering most of the necessary info. Everyking 20:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of things people allow to get out of date already on Wikipedia, without adding more. Delete. Average Earthman 14:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• ouch... delete. Non-noteable, and the style is waaay over the top. Lupo 09:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wonderful article. Now delete it. —Stormie 12:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Uh...yeah. Nice gesture, though. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fire Star 21:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Del. Non-famous. Jerzy(t) 14:14, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Wow, someone should print this and send it to Nomura, and then delete it. Chris N. 20:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. About a high school teacher. anthony (see warning)
• My vote is to delete.Cody The Blue Bomber 04:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Especially considering vandalism of User:CML relating to this page. --ssd 06:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Best of Country Cooking 2000 — Add to this discussion

• What appears to be a very non-notable cookbook. Or should I have an article for every individual O'Reilly "In a Nutshell" publication? --Robert Merkel 09:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• No-notable? Is that why it is part of a series of books? Keep. Antonio Super Vacuum tongue Martin
• Delete, if we had an article for every cookbook ever published by a magazine publisher, we'd have.. well, too many from my kitchen alone! —Stormie 11:53, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Real book. Keep unless someone can show evidence that Reiman Publications LLC is a vanity press operation. Wikipedia is not paper. Rossami 15:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and about a real book. Antonio Modesty Aside Martin
• Delete. Not notable. Vanity pages are about real people, but people have to be notable to be included. In the same vein, articles on books should be about notable books (imagine what would happen if every book got an article). Minimum standards of inclusion must apply. Wikipedia is not paper - Servers are not cheap. SWAdair | Talk 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a real book and wikipedia should have as many articles as possible without including non-famous people. Servers are no cheap, no, but for $200 a month you can have a server than can hold 500,000 normal sized novels of data. If we need to donate more to wikipedia to let it expand I for one will donate. (anon user)
• Delete - went back and forth but can't see it expanding as an article. Right now it has less than you'll find on any book site. - Tεxτurε 18:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Solomon_Holbourn — Add to this discussion

Although one in my list of notable lifeboatmen, the article about solomon featured his kinsmen rather than himself, and so is irrelivant.

• Delete. No google hits, and if the current text is correct that it "raises copyright violation problems", then it should be deleted first anyhow so that the copyright violation is gone from the history. - Centrx 20:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Culmer_family — Add to this discussion

The above two items have been deemed unsuitable by the original contributor, as they lack wikification, and raise copyright violation problems with my own copyright. I further feel I have uploaded several pages that are of no real value to this encyclopeda, and will be selectively seeking their removal, or ammendment before futher contributions are submitted. These actions are required to improve my overall contribution and avoid possible copyright conflicts later.

Kai Brinker — Kai Brinker

Sorry, misunderstood the user page, accidentally posted an autobio myself. newkai 13:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Grandfather's brother paradox — Add to this discussion

Appears made-up to me; no Google hits except for Wikipedia entry and sites reproducing Wikipedia content. -- Schnee 14:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Appears to be rubbish. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Not a paradox. Not interesting either. This "paradox" was inserted into at least one other article that I remember - and immediately edited back out. Delete. Rossami 15:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If I remember correctly, this article has been vfd'd and deleted before (perhaps back in February or March). If so it's a speed delete. I can't find any record of it, however. Delete it slowly if not speedily. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Not a paradox, and badly written. Delete. --Woggly 18:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Hah. That was just silly. No point what so ever. -- David Remahl 19:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I found it quite amusing, and it seems like it might raise a significant issue in the theories that surround these matters, but if it isn't an acknowledged paradox, delete. Everyking 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Why did the monkey fall out of the tree? Because it was dead. The article is profound as that joke. Delete. Fire Star 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - didn't we delete this once already under a slightly different name? - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Found it, zap the sucker # 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 Pcb21 deleted "Grandfather's brother paradox" (still as fake as the last time vfd voted to delete this) - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• OK, a kinda funny parody of grandfather paradox. Now delete it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:37, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

History is written by the victors — Add to this discussion

The Headline seems self-evident, at least to this one member of the human species. If I have strayed in social understanding, perhaps some better informed human should point out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.58.91 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 3 2004, consensus was not reached, page was redirected to Philosophy of history. Discussion:

• Personal essay; POV pervades. Needs either deletion or major work, Dukeofomnium 14:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not a rant, but it's provincial ("American education" "political correctness"), and it's highly unlikely to be searched for by a user. Therefore, it's kind of null. Geogre 15:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The subject itself should perhaps be mentioned in pseudohistory, historical myths and philosophy of history. I can't imagine anyone would search this elementary business out named as such. Delete. Fire Star 20:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry to be such a bother, but in my defense, I didn't just invent this topic out of thin air. I followed a pre-existing link from "terrorism", but when I clicked the underlined words, Wikipedia told me that no one had written the article yet, but if I wanted to write something, please, by all means, go right ahead. Now you tell me you don't want an article on this subject. OK. Whatever. I figure you guys are always quoting me as an expert, so maybe I should eliminate the middle man and just write the articles myself, but as I said, whatever. As for provincial... since I can't speak for New Zealanders and Guyanans, I didn't want to assume that they also dismiss multiculturalism as "politically correct", that's why I specified it as an American thing.Matt28 21:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I meant no insult by saying that it's provincial, only that too often articles fail to note their native bias (UK as much as USA, India as much as Australia). It's true, of course, that the phrase is trotted out as a truism and a stalking horse (many of the "losers" were preliterate and therefore couldn't write the history), but once we get into that we get into POV. I agree with Fire Star: the discussion should be a section in pseudohistory or philosophy of history, and the link you followed ought to redirect there. Geogre 00:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Mm. It's not... useless, not per se... um. But it's badly named, situated, etc. Some good information, which should be saved (I'd do it myself, but am not up to the task), but as for the rest of the entry - delete. DS 22:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with history and redirect. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

Life force — Add to this discussion

Cross between a personal essay, conjecture and a nearly incomprehensible dicdef. - Lucky 6.9 16:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It sounds like it's striving for something like Akasha--something like soul...but different. There are several articles that link to spirit's disambiguation page that I wasn't able to re-direct because the concept they refer to doesn't seem to exist. See my talk page (Anthroposophy edit). I don't have enough knowledge of spirituality to develop the idea, but I think the concept is very valid, although the execution at the moment is not good. Joyous 17:28, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete in this form or CleanUp: There is a movie by that name. There are books by that name, I'll guess. It's a common noun. This dictdef is, essentially, essence or soul, and those entries already exist. The concept of soul/essence goes, in the West alone, from Heraklitus to Kierkegaard, and a nice, tidy, encyclopedia entry that could cover all that ground without POV would be a task for titans, sages, and fearless fools. Geogre 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Awesome. I love this kind of writing. Did you make up the bit about titans, sages, & fools? Rock on, dude -- Wile E. Heresiarch 22:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, there is no tie to any primary reference justifying use of this particular phrase for this concept--a valid concept, as Joyous points out--and there currently just isn't enough to even show this phrase merits a redirect to spirit or soul, because of the other uses Geogre notes. Maybe after further development of the spirit article, we might find a redirect or even a small article is justified. For now, delete. --Gary D 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to soul. -Sean Curtin 20:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Rewrite and then redirect to soul or spirit's disambiguation page, otherwise delete. Fire Star 20:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Dear Lucky: It's not incomprehensible to me. Mind you, I have an interest in "New Age-y" stuff. Surely there's some room in Wikipedia for an alternative cognitive or

literary style, such as this represents.   Refreshing.   And it sure isn't taking up much memory space! The term is related to the oriental ki, the Indian prana, Wilhelm Reich's orgone, and similar ideas. I could add something to that effect, but I don't want to go off willy-nilly and mess up the conceptual purity of what this writer is putting over. I sense here a bit of a conflict between the "right brain" and "left brain", or scientific vs. mystical, styles of thought. Have mercy, left-brainers! Give this poor, well-meaning person some slack.   -- I'm not a registered user. Don't know if I get a vote, but if I do I think you know where I stand.

P.S. In reply to Gary D , While the article gives no reference, the term "Life Force" in that exact literal form does appear quite frequently in the writings of some philosophers, spiritual teachers, alternative medicine people, and the like. Also, it's not necessarily an exact synonym for "spirit". Life force is often used to mean something like "the thing that causes inanimate matter to become alive." Spirit is a little more closely asasociated with consciousness. Thanks for listening. -- fos, 23 June.

• Delete -- I don't think it's synonymous enough even to be a redirect Dukeofomnium 13:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I've already voted, but another reason for my vote is that the origin of the concept of the Life Force, in those words and as a concept, is George Bernard Shaw. He wrote about it quite a bit. Therefore, if there is an article by this name, it should be about GB Shaw's philosophy, and not the more nebulous concept. Geogre 02:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I believe "life force" has sometimes been used as a specific term by philosophers. Keep if life force is revised to review the historical use of the term, redirect to vitalism otherwise. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vespin Love Kit — Add to this discussion

This has languished on the cleanup page for a long time and others have suggested listing it here on VfD. 30 Google hits for this local band out of Dallas/Denton, Texas. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not nearly notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Stormie 03:34, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wyllium 14:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ranked Majority Defeat Disqualification

Looks sensible, but also looks original. Few Google hits - anyone any comments? DJ Clayworth 18:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - unless support can be found that proves it is real. - Tεxτurε 21:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain, as I'm reluctant to delete something that seems quite formalized. However if it can be proven to be accurate or inaccurate, I will vote for/against it. —siroxo 01:51, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Appears to be a real proposal, possibly invented by one Mike Ossipoff (name at bottom of original version; see also [12]). User:Tomruen might be able to shed some light on this (I believe he subscribes the to same mailing list as Ossipoff). However, since it hasn't yet attracted any attention, it falls into the original research category. So delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I suggest that this page should be deleted. In my opinion, RMDD isn't even an election method because RMDD isn't defined for every possible profile. Actually, the only reason why RMDD meets SSSD is that RMDD isn't defined when for each candidate Y there is a candidate X such that a majority of all the voters prefers candidate X to candidate Y. Markus Schulze

Griphook

There simply isn't enough information about this character to write about.

There are less important Star Wars characters with entries. Plus, the series isn't finished yet; he could reappear. Keep. Sean Curtin 21:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle — Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. I note, however, that even many of the "keep" voters expressed reservations about the current content and tone of the article. Based on that concensus, I am going to reimpose the "cleanup" tag. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle

Overly credulous and fairly ridiculous description of a subculture that already gets five paragraphs in the main vampire article. Cleaning this up would necessitate cutting it down to the size of vampire's section about this group. This was previously VfDed in June 2004 (see Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete); the majority voted to delete, but no consensus was reached, and of those who voted "Keep", most added that it should be sent to Cleanup. Eight months' worth of edits later, only a few of the crazier claims have been removed. Redirect to vampire. -Sean Curtin 02:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonk^talk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with vampire
• Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

DoubleClick — Add to this discussion

• Obvious ad. -- Grunt 21:21, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
• copy of http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/. A decent article about DoubleClick would be very welcome, however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I started a real article. It needs to discuss the controversy over spyware which centered on DoubleClick instead of advertising for the company. The spyware is the only reason it became known to the public. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep texture's rewritten stub. Doubleclick is significant (even if it is just a significant annoyance). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, although surely the original version is a copyvio, and we need to delete the article and create a new one with Texture's text, right? —Stormie 23:15, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I imagine that the original was probably created by an advocate or employee of the company but I don't object to deleting it as a copyvio and starting anew. - Tεxτurε 23:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. They are quite a large company. I added some public info about them. I'm sure they will appreciate any feedback you would care to send them :> Thesteve 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keeep. According to our own article it is the tenth most visited website. - SimonP 14:04, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Like the common cold and mosquitos, they are annoyingly significant. Average Earthman 14:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a large company and very well known (even if for not the best reasons).
• Keep (in current, non-advert form). Timbo 20:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• delete. terrible article. -Pedro 01:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Rosenblatt — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Pure and simple. TheCustomOfLife 22:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think your mistaken. It can't be vanity if its not done out of self interest, considering the article is not on myself. Its an attempt to expand the horizons. If this is a free encyclopedia, we should not have policing of the material as long as its not purporting to be something other than it is and as long as it is factual.

I can write an article on my Wikipedia friend Owen Blacker here, but it would still be vanity. See Mr. Nomura's vote for deletion topic; some student wrote it for him but it's still a vanity entry. With that issue aside, the person still has to be notable, and Mary Sues and Bobbie Jos and Danny Rosenblatts are not. TheCustomOfLife 22:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no clear definition for what constitutes notability. Indeed, I would have no objections if you wrote an article on Owen Blacker. As long as it does not interfere with the obtaining of truthful information, it should be allowed.

A regular high-school student, with no other merits to his name other than the fact that he went to a closed-down school and has ADD, is simply not notable. I don't think anyone would fight that reasoning, either. Also, if you want to sign your name, do four tildes (four of ~). TheCustomOfLife 22:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a completely subjective position. It has factual information and it does no harm. There is not reason to expend the effort to delete it. I will join you in protecting the encycolpedia's integrity, but this is no threat. We should remove it from the deletion list.

We'll see what other people have to say on the issue, but I really don't see it surviving. I don't have anything against you or Danny, but he's just not famous enough. TheCustomOfLife 22:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We'll see what the general opinion is. I hope that they support the freedom to post factual information over a tyrannical stranghold on what they believe is unnotable.

Hi there, newcomer. Please have a look around our information pages, including Welcome, newcomers and the FAQ. — Please don't think of this as a "tyrannical stronghold". We are not here to battle against you or your opinions; it's just that the community at large has pretty much come to the consensus that there is no point in including pages on people who are not notable. Yes, you are right, it's a subjective classification - we vote on the borderline cases on a case-by-case basis and thus ensure that the majority is happy. — Notice also that disallowing this entry does not make Wikipedia any less "free". You see, the content is free in the sense that anyone is free to take it and make their own encyclopedia fork from it. If you think including factual information on any individual whatsoever would be nice, we welcome you to start a new project to collect this kind of information. On Wikipedia, as I said, we have consensus not to do this. We would end up with a lot of articles the contents of which are relevant or interesting to only a very very small amount of people, and are extremely hard to verify due to a lack of reliable references. — I hope you understand this, and I'm sure you will find things you know a lot about that you can write about in Wikipedia. Honestly, we do accept a lot of obscure things that you don't normally find in a paper encyclopedia. — Timwi 23:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. —Stormie 23:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Joyous 23:13, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Hear, hear and well-said. Dan, yours is what we call a "vanity page." If you wish to contribute to this site, by all means feel free to do so within the boundaries. It's free to sign up and you can talk about yourself on your very own user page. BTW, this isn't a tyranny at all. In fact, it's the closest thing to a pure democracy as you're likely to find anywhere. I'm voting to delete your article, but encouraging you to sign up as a user. - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree...delete. Ilyanep 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Preserve this page, if you do nothing else. If factual information is being restricted, it is tyranny. The majority may support it, but it is still tyranny. The weakness of democracy is that the majority don't always have the correct point of view. Regardless, it is the best system we have and we must work within it. Vote to preserve this page. This is more than about an individual- it is about the very freedom we hold dear. Where will they stop next? Will any information the majority, or a minority of self-styled police, find uncomfortable also be restricted? The Internet is the last refuge for free information in our society and must be protected. A stand must be here before it goes to far. Join me in voting to preserve this article

I was going to hold my tongue, but please get a grip. TheCustomOfLife 23:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Let's try this again, Dan. You do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Neither do I, for that matter. Therefore, my contributions have been on general topics. So too are the contributions by each and every person to cast a vote here. So in short, do I have a page under my real name? Of course not. Personal information is on my user page. It's only fair to warn you of the possibility of this conversation showing up on the very popular "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" page. To be blunt, you're going to look rather foolish. Take a breath, count backwards from fifty and consider the advice we've all given you. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is not an article on myself. It is nota personal article. If I look foolish in defending my freedom, than so be it. I will not abandon my principles: that it should be permissible for me to place factual information at times and places of my choosing so long as it does not obstruct others.

• This is the final time I'm going to be nice about this. If you don't think that this is a personal article, let's review it: An inhabitant of Aberdeen township; born 1987 in Long Island. Daniel subsequently attended the New School High School, later known as the Atlantic School and now defunct. He busies his time with computer-related activities and with the visitation of extremist websites. Sounds personal to me. If you want to start a user page and contribute to this site, go ahead. If not, your acts are very much obstructing others. Are you understanding what I'm trying to tell you? You...are...welcome...here. Just don't write about yourself. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: "Freedom" does not mean license, as Benjamin Franklin observed. The vandal cries out that he is being censored when the cops are called, too. Encyclopedias differ from phone books, personal web pages, and commerce, even though those things might contain facts. This encyclopedia permits more than most (because of its format: it can allow more topics of ephemeral importance, as it is constantly updated and needn't fear being obsolete the day it's published), but that is not anarchy. In a state of total freedom, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Geogre 00:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How are my actions obstructing others? Perhaps we will be doomed to censorship. The last bastion of free communication, the Internet, is about to be lost. The misguided tyranny of the majority may have its way. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call?

• OK, we've all had a laugh, and now it's time to end this. Kid, you're an idiot. You're half brain-dead, and that's the good half. You've been welcome until now to create a user page and type away about Danny Rosen-bleeding heart until hell freezes over. Instead, you plead "freedom" and "censorship" in the most agonizingly melodramatic way possible while all this time laughing your hiney off at the stupidity you've wrought. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call? You sound like a Dudley Do-Right cartoon. Do you have any friends, Danny? I mean, outside the ones you watch on Cartoon Network, that is. Consider getting a life outside of "extremist websites" and spending less time with a copy of Maxim and a bottle of Jergens in the freaking bathroom. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This little SOB has been going under the user name of "Colinrorr." He blanked the discussion on this page and turned "Danny Rosenblatt" into a redirect to Freedom of Expression. I hope that I've redone it properly. What's the matter, Dan-dan? Do we gots to call the WAHHHH-mbulance? - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) .

Colinrorr, you do not have the right to clear text on public pages when you do not like what has been said. TheCustomOfLife 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page was moved from Danny Rosenblatt to Freedom of Expression; moving VFD page to match. -- Grunt 01:14, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

"Colinrorr" has been warned that his behavior is unacceptable. If he tries it again, open fire. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VFD tag is being removed repeatedly from this page by Colinrorr. -- Grunt 01:17, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete, as not notable. Encourage user to create a userpage (; —siroxo 01:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

• And we close today's discussion with a zinger! - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nonfamous.--Jerzy(t) 01:31, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a question of "free speech" or any other noble abstract moral term, it's simply a question of following the rules. Wikipedia is not anarchy. Wyllium 14:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probably autobiography. Note: after being transformed into a redirect to Freedom of Expression, the page was deleted by User:Guanaco. I'm not sure whether it was proper to do this prior to the expiration of the discussion and wish User:Guanaco would comment, but I think the original page was obviously deletable under Wikipedia policy, I think the consensus for deletion already exists, I think the redirect probably qualified for speedy deletion as patent nonsense; so I think it would be silly to restore the page just to allow the discussion to proceed. Therefore, in order to allow the discussion to proceed, here is the content that was originally under discussion. Users can still vote, and the article can be restored if there is no consensus at the end of the full VfD discussion period. Dpbsmith 20:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Rosenblatt is an inhabitant of Aberdeen Township, where he has lived since his birth in Long Island in 1987. He attended the now defunt Atlantic School for four years before its closure. His hobbies mainly focus around Japanese culture. Daniel is afflicted with attention deficit disorder. He rose to prominence with his visitation of extremist websites.

• I certainly haven't changed my mind. Maintain speedy deletion. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree. I don't see why there needs to be more debate. There have been enough users who've decided on deletion. Mike H 21:37, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculous waste of time for all concerned -- the offending page should be deleted at once. If Danny Rosenblatt is indeed the fellow who wrote the article, he is truly afflicted with attention deficit disorder, not to mention a lack of plain common sense.66.1.40.242 00:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No prominence, no significance, no point. Average Earthman 14:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Look, I'm really sorry about all of this. My friend, whom you lovingly know as Colinrorr, thought it would be hilarious to post an article about me. Feel free to delete it, but don't get rid of everything he put here. For some absurd reason, he wrote an incredibly extensive article on the Iraqi resistance [[13]] which is completely acceptable but inhumanly long. As for what he said about freedom of speech, he was probably making fun of you for taking him so seriously. He's a smart kid, but he has some really strange ways of amusing himself. Anyway I hope that this clears things up.--Sumolegend 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I just got a similar apology on my talk page. Hey, at least we have a great new BJAODN entry! - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• One last thing I hope everyone here understands, I am not colinrorr, and none of the statements he made here are mine. He is friend of mine, who decided to play a joke on me. I just found out about all of this pretty recently. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up any confusion.--24.228.72.84 04:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bill Hartzer — Add to this discussion

Hoo-wee, do we ever have ourselves a self-promotional ad! - Lucky 6.9 23:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete Delete Delete! Ilyanep 23:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• 24.228.82.146 went and blanked the page. I'm going to revert it. - Lucky 6.9 23:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I restored the VFD notice after 24.228.82.146 blanked the page, but failed to muster sufficient enthusiasm to restore the article text. —Stormie 23:22, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I wonder if this Bill guy is hot. Oh, I'm sorry. Delete. TheCustomOfLife 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• LOL! Shoot, I went and put the text back up. I don't blame Stormie for a lack of enthusiasm! As for this guy being hot...that's a mental picture I can do without, thank you.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 23:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Apologies, dear editor! :D TheCustomOfLife 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 23:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not to add insult to injury -- ok to add a little -- if he's a writer by trade, he ought not begin every sentence with his name and use only simple SVO constructions. Geogre 00:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 01:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Canni put my resume up too? Delete. --ssd 06:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional, non-notable. He "has tried just about every website promotion trick in the book." I'll wager he thinks putting promotional articles in Wikipedia is a good "promotion trick." Although I guess I have to give him some kind of credit for not mentioning http://www.billhartzer.com/ in the article. Dpbsmith 02:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless ol' Bill can tell me how you "do" a website without leaving it , well, um, all sticky afterward. Denni☯ 05:14, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Oh, groovy. Still another mental picture I can do without. - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is his best work, I'm afraid I won't be hiring him. Isomorphic 08:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SPACEDEV Inc. — Add to this discussion

   Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SPACEDEV Inc.

June 23

Zarqawi Letter

• Delete - Wikisource if necessary but it isn't an article - Tεxτurε 00:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I posted it as a speedy to get a sysop's attention since I wasn't sure what to do with it. It's real, but it doesn't belong here. Didn't think of Wikisource, but that's a great place for it. - Lucky 6.9 00:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's influence — discussion

Note: This is an archived copy of a closed discussion with regard to an article that has been deleted. Please do not edit this page. If you disagree with this article's deletion please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Thank you.

Article Elvis Presley's influence listed on WP:VFD June 22 to July 1 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Elvis Presley has a long section containing all this and more entitled "enduring influence". No need for this. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) User:Marcus2 has taken the material that used to be in Elvis Presley and moved it to this article. Should it still be deleted? I'm personally neutral, barring evidence. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I almost posted this myself. It's just about useless. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It is completely useless. Who's going to look for it, and what on earth can that person learn from the search that isn't in Elvis Presley? Geogre 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Thank you for listing this: I speedily deleted it the other day then got complained at rather bitterly by Marcus2 who created it (see my message on cleanup). I still think it needs to be deleted. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This looks like a classic case of starting an article before you have any material. Delete, but without prejudice against any real article that may pop back up here. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If the "influence" section in main Elvis Presley article is expanded to a point where it burdens down that page, then it can be moved to here, but we're nowhere near that point yet. —Stormie 03:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with deleting for now; hopefully this or a similar article will be recreated in the future with plenty of details once the main article grows to a certain point. Everyking 05:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm still of the delete opinion. To me, the information belongs with Presley. It's a natural informational development of a discussion of the singer. On the other hand, robbing people of that information in that place to expect them to search separately for "EP's Influence" is unreasonable. It's just not as useful an organization. Even if we keep this article, the info should be in the main EP article. Geogre 02:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I don't think the "influence" material on Presley warrants a seperate article at this time. Revert the removal of the material from Elvis Presley and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree. Replace the material in the main Elvis Presley article, and delete. There is no good reason to separate this information from the main article. The elvis article is not overly long with the influence material. Separating it just makes it harder to find useful and interesting information. —siroχo 08:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Wait a minute, if you think that Elvis Presley's influence material shouldn't of been moved from the main article, I was wondering if you were aware about the article entitled, the Beatles' influence. If anything, it has no more reason to exist than the EP's influence article, and it has no more reason to be included in the Beatles' main article. --Marcus2
  • That article was split out from the main article when it was twice the size of the Elvis influence material. If you want to break something out into a seperate article, you're going to have to make a better case than "This other article did it (under different circumstances)". -- Cyrius|✎ 19:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia exists for its articles to be expanded. --Marcus2
  • So expand it. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I looked at the article, and it doesn't look that easy for me to do. I'm not too familiar with Elvis's influence, and there is definitely someone who is superior to me in the knowledge of this topic. --Marcus2
• Comment: It's been rightfully pointed out that Wikipedia is not paper, but nor are servers cheap. This article doesn't say anything different than what one would find at the main article and it's highly unlikely that anyone would type in "Elvis Presley's influence" before merely typing "Elvis Presley" or even "Elvis." IMO, this doesn't even make for a good redirect. Tossing in the obligatory two cents yet again. - Lucky 6.9 23:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The influence info that used to be found in the main article has been cut out and moved to the EP's influence page, and it's no less unlikely that someone would dare type in "the Beatles' influence", an article that already exists. --Marcus2
• Keep Elvis Presley's influence as a separate article. The influence of a deceased artist (using the term broadly here) is as much about the influencees as the influencer. Also, moving this stuff back into Elvis Presley would make it too long. Fwiw I don't think the server issue is relevant here, since, if anything, server load is lessened by splitting articles (assuming the total amount of text stays the same). Wile E. Heresiarch 15:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but Elvis Presley should have a summary rather than just a "see also" link. Fredrik | talk 17:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move back to Elvis Presley and delete. RickK 18:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Again, were you not aware of an article entitled "the Beatles' influence"? --Marcus2 20:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Here's an important consideration. The Enduring legacy section is only vaguely about influence and mostly trivia about him and his accomplishments. If we wish to keep this page, the entire section titled "Enduring legacy" will have to be moved back to the main Elvis Presley page, leaving a stub. Regardless of whether people vote to keep the stub, that section must be moved back to Elvis Presley or at the very least to Elvis Presley trivia. The latter causing even more separation of information. So I keep my vote at delete. —siroχo 19:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • OK. I've moved the section to the new article you pointed out. Now, as you know, there is a good amount of separation on info about the Beatles. Marcus2 00:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• merge and redirect; the main article is still to short for it to be split like this --Jiang 00:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the article needs some expanding, but don't expect me to do all of it. Marcus2 00:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Splits like this should only be made if the article is too long. This rarely occurs. Doing the split before it is necessary makes the article hard to read. --Jiang 20:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Revert or re-merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 01:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean by this? Marcus2 09:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, don't expect me to do every bit of expanding. Everybody should chip in. Marcus2 13:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • If you weren't going to expand it yourself, why did you separate it out? Your arguments make it look like envy of the number and size of the articles on the Beatles. I really hope this is not the case. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Much to your satisfaction, not really. I just wanted to create this article so that in the future someone with far more knowledge of Elvis than I have will add more details to the article. That's what Wikipedia's all about after all. Marcus2 20:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • When it comes to splitting things out, we expand first, then split. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Is that exactly how it must be all the time? Marcus2 22:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless somebody makes a convincing argument to make an exception. Which hasn't happened yet. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - for this you need an entire article? - Tεxτurε 00:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• By the way even though the article has been altered my vote is still to delete (I've crossed out my original vote above that referred to a sub stub) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I may not know a lot about Elvis's influence, but I do know that it's strong internationally, so it makes sense to me to begin an article about it. Marcus2 12:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There isn't a single section in the Elvis article that's large enough to need a separate page, especially considering how sparse the article is right now. -Sean Curtin 16:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Now, most certainly not. Marcus2 22:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Nobody's saying Elvis can't have a page on his influence later. It's just that now, there isn't enough there for one. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, what about other pages that have stubs? Can't they exist if there isn't enough info yet? And besides, a lot has changed since I separated the inflence section from the Elvis Presley page. Marcus2 12:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm getting tired of repeating the same statements. This article was a section of an existing article. We generally do not separate out sections into their own articles unless they are big enough that they pose a problem for the original article and/or can stand alone. The section on Elvis's influence does not meet that criterion as it is a Please stop talking about other articles, and talk about this one.
• And now Marcus2 has made things worse by separating out another article, Elvis Presley trivia, leaving Elvis Presley's influence as barely a stub! If people have a problem with this one being too small, what made you think it would be a good idea to turn it into two smaller articles!? Merge Elvis Presley's influence and Elvis Presley trivia back into Elvis Presley, and delete Template:Elvis Presley. As has been stated repeatedly, if you want them to have their own articles, expand them until they justify it first. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • How's about we just let it stand and see what becomes of it. Marcus2 21:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • How's about we don't? -- Cyrius|✎ 22:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • If you keep this up, I wouldn't be surprised if the Elvis articles all get protected at least until the VfD is over. Also: vote to re-merge Elvis Presley trivia into Elvis Presley and delete Template:Elvis Presley. -Sean Curtin 22:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have a very good reason to keep it up. I'm still trying to get some sense into you. Let's just let it stand and see what someone has to say in the future. It's when something is separated that gets quicker attention, not when it's still part of an article. Marcus2 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And I have not been frequently editing Elvis's pages! Marcus2 23:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Electronic voice phenomena

I really don't know what to do with this article. It is about spirit voices in audio recordings and it takes itself very seriously. I'm not sure if it should be deleted, noted as factual malarky, or rewritten to say how this ridiculous thing is believed by some people. I'm leaning toward deletion since I haven't a clue how to make this a factual article. - Tεxτurε 03:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP - It is malarkey - but it's malarkey that has very wide circulation. Shouldn't be too hard to re-write appropriately.--Gene_poole 05:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• WOW! 139,000 hits. I had no idea this craziness was that popular. I guess that means keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• And a moment later I realized why - I forgot to enclose the phrase in quotation marks. Adding those leaves only 6,510 hits. Still, that's enough for a keep. SWAdair | Talk 06:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a fairly-well established concept in the paranormal milieu of forteana, ghosts, etc. --Gary D 07:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Debt-free Money — Add to this discussion

Debt free money is the term a small number of groups on the very fringe use for what economists call "fiat money". It either needs to be completely reworked so that it is NPOV or deleted. (This unsigned entry was submitted by User:Stirling Newberry) ---- SWAdair | Talk 04:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Strange - the VfD listing does a better job of describing "debt free money" than the article does. A more complete, NPOV version already exists at Fiat money. SWAdair | Talk 05:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• How about a redirect to Fiat Money? Abstain Thesteve 08:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to fiat money as suggested. FWIW Debt-free Money was originally written by User:Johngelles to promote his ideas about monetary reform. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We already voted to delete a similar article by User:Johngelles entitled (Debt-free, Tax-free, Indexed Fiat Money) so it is arguably a candidate for speedy deletion. Dpbsmith 19:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Didn't we dismiss those as original research? Either delete or redirect if so. - Lucky 6.9 21:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect. The concept described here is not the same as fiat money. It is, however, original research by User:Johngelles. Rossami 21:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• In which case, buh-bye. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 00:09, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to fiat money if the term is used outside of Wikipedia. anthony (see warning)

Klutz

Dictdef. RickK 06:28, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Bupkes

Dictdef, from same guy as above Klutz. —Stormie 06:33, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Chutzpah

Dictdef, from same guy as Klutz and Bupkes. RickK 06:42, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have suggested to him that he might like to have a look at adding these to Wiktionary, rather than Wikipedia. —Stormie 06:44, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Guy had a lot of chutzpah to list these in the first place, and it takes bupkes to move them over to Wiktionary. That is, unless you're a klutz. Or a meshuggeneh. I love Yiddish, and I'm not even Jewish! Seriously, move all to Wiktionary. - Lucky 6.9 07:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Chutzpah and Klutz in Wikipedia; these have become cultural terms. Move Bupkes to Wiktionary. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 23 Jun 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}} ~~~~

[[fr:Wikip&eacute;dia:Pages &agrave; supprimer]] [[sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som b&ouml;r raderas]]