Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 16
January 16
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 move listing to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion
- Only a redirect to a category, which also may be removed. Ellywa 23:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both, not particularly useful, since most things will be debatable anyway (how much of global warming is "man-made"?), in my opinion. --Spangineer ∞ 03:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The wrong place for both. The category needs to be on WP:CfD, and the redirect on WP:RfD (where it has now been listed). The category still isn't listed on CfD, though. Noel (talk) 15:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the 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 DELETE. Vacuum c 16:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't establish notability.Silly Dan 00:54, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- All the information found about them at [1] leads me to vote Delete. --Spangineer ∞ 02:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, not as ubiquitous as they would have hoped. Delete vanity. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:02, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Greaser 01:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 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.
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 to delete.
- I'm sure the two comedy groups listed are hilarious, but that's not unique enough to warrant an article. (Besides, the phrase "bring the funny" is probably more closely associated with The West Wing or the webcomics weblog Websnark.)Silly Dan 01:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, same rationale as with Ubiquitous They. --Spangineer ∞ 02:37, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. Also too generic a term to be re-branded into something specific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Haha not funny. Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable... - Greaser 01:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 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.
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 delete.
- Again, sounds like they're funny, but they aren't notable (not to mention defunct).Silly Dan 01:18, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, what Megan said. --Spangineer ∞ 02:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- A voice in my head is telling me to delete and lobotomise. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity by Strand... - Greaser 01:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure he's a very nice person and does good work in the Scouts but he doesn't seem notable to me. Dbiv 01:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Oh, man, no offence intended, but I kinda feel sorry for this guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, probable vanity, not notable, though I'm not sure why reaching eagle scout status is reason to feel sorry for someone. --Spangineer ∞ 02:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Khanartist 02:43, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- AFAIK, "be prepared" != "put your CV on Wikipedia". Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, definite vanity... - Greaser 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this vanity has been fought on the Eagle Scout page for a while and now on the List of Eagle Scouts as well Cavebear42 07:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This has nothing to do with vanity!!!!! NOTHING!!!! I worked on this article from scratch as the boy's leader. He is a very notable young man. Just because you have not heard of him does not mean he is not noteworthy. Who are you to decide? If this article is deleted, I will replace it. I do not appreciate these negative comments on this accomplished young man. His story is an encouragement to young people everywhere. I don't understand this site at all. You allow criminals like serial killers and rapists to be listed, disgracing the honor of the Eagle badge; but you want to take issue with the addition of articles about accomplished youths who are making a difference in this world and living up to the Eagle Scout honor! HE IS NOTABLE!!!!!
User: Sistertina aka Tina Reed, MA, LPC (scout leader) 20 Jan 2005 --Sistertina 13:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is not an endorsement. It's recognition of the fact that someone has done something significant. Becoming an Eagle Scout is not, in itself, significant. If this article is deleted, it will stay deleted unless and until the individual concerned becomes notable. I had thought that being in the Scouts was about growing up. Dbiv 15:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. This young man has done more than something significant, in addition to making Eagle. And making Eagle alone is significant You would know that if you have ever been in the scouts. As a veteran leader, I know what I am taking about. I have been involved in scout leading for over a decade! I support this article and will continue to support and edit it. And, for the record, these boys are more grown up than most youths will ever be! --Sistertina 15:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If he's done something significant, then what is it, and why isn't it on the page? As a matter of fact I was in the scouts in Britain for a time. According to Eagle Scout, 4% of Scouts become Eagle Scouts, and given that there are millions who join, that must still be a large number of people. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base at index 6. Dbiv 15:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with you. This young man has done more than something significant, in addition to making Eagle. And making Eagle alone is significant You would know that if you have ever been in the scouts. As a veteran leader, I know what I am taking about. I have been involved in scout leading for over a decade! I support this article and will continue to support and edit it. And, for the record, these boys are more grown up than most youths will ever be! --Sistertina 15:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is not an endorsement. It's recognition of the fact that someone has done something significant. Becoming an Eagle Scout is not, in itself, significant. If this article is deleted, it will stay deleted unless and until the individual concerned becomes notable. I had thought that being in the Scouts was about growing up. Dbiv 15:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Finis White's achievements are listed in his bio; and I am in the process of expanding it to include his recent contributions to society. For the record, its 2% who earn the Eagle, not 4. These stats are reported by the Boy Scouts of America in all of scouting's literature and leader manuals! --Sistertina 15:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- According to the BSA website there have been 110 million Boy Scouts since 1910. If 2% made Eagle Scout, that's more than 2 million. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies and say whether you honestly believe this biography fits, bearing in mind that a Google search brings only 3 hits. I did say at the top that I'm sure he's a very nice man, but he just ain't notable. Dbiv 15:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Lupo 14:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, being an Eagle Scout does not qualify one as notable. john k 15:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Sillydragon 19:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Reasons previously stated. Segekihei 21:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I am an Eagle Scout, and am absurdly not-notable. It is indeed a fine achievement for a young man to reach that rank, but the Wikipedia is not here to document people who have achieved wonderful things. Tuf-Kat 02:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:24, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Two hits, both at blogspot.com. Niteowlneils 02:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Khanartist 02:42, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete, pretty poor humor. Oh, and not notable. --Spangineer ∞ 02:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable (but hygenic). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't even think he's remarkable, which is why I vote delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- It's amazing how many people see themselves as the second coming; plus swearing doesn't make an average person notable. - Greaser 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This may well be more significant than anybody realizes. Livornese
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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
This is a completely inaccurate dicdef which is not worth even moving to Wiktionary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. May not actually be wrong. It's from the Latin root vagari, which means wanderer, as are vagabond and vagrant. While I've never actually heard the word used in this particular manner, it may be simply uncommon or archaic. If real, should be moved to wiktionary. Khanartist 02:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete. It is actually wrong, nonetheless. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- I'd say dicdef, transwiki iff it was correct. It's not, so delete it. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- "Vagary" does have a particular meaning, and this ain't it. Delete. Edeans 21:18, 21 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
penispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenis
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Cdc 03:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Khanartist 03:37, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Huzzah! Aussie spam and vanity. Then again, they are from Sydney... delete for nn, v. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete... Vanity without notability. - Greaser 02:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete with hails of derisive laughter, Bruce. Edeans 21:29, 21 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Joyous 21:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable, nor does it appear its creator was moving in that direction anyway. --InShaneee 03:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yawn. Keep. School. —RaD Man (talk) 03:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's bad article, but the school is worthy of inclusion. Khanartist 04:02, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Another school to keep. --Centauri 06:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 07:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.--JuntungWu 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The Palo Alto Unified School District deleted the school itself for twenty years, after the end of the baby boom. It has only recently returned to operation on its former premises, which has since become a Jewish Community Center. Not notable. --BM 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All schools are worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopaedia. Dr Zen 05:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Lacrimosus 09:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 11:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All schools are inherently notable. --Andylkl 14:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable- Wikipedia still has no policy on whether schools per se are notable or not, and this fails to establish it's notability. --G Rutter 14:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article fails not to establish its notability. GRider\talk 17:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting info that's probably better served by merging into the Palo Alto article. This is a potential orphan as it stands. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yawn. Delete. School. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not inherently notable or encyclopedic. Article establishes neither. Gamaliel 16:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is in no way notable or encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Indrian 20:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. More schoolcruft. Edeans 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep this please. Yuckfoo 21:53, 21 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.