Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr Gangrene (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 8 February 2005 (Ministry of Justice of Cameroon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 8

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. Rje 19:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Cambridge Student

Student newspapers are not inherently notable, and the article fails to establish notability for this one. Uncle G 00:31, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • Keep Cambridge is quite a well known university. I will categorise the articlePhilip 01:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC). Never heard of it - where is it ? Brookie 19:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily notable. Samaritan 01:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: expanded to include claims of notability from their website. Kappa 01:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep agree that not all student newspapers are notable, but come on... this isn't Podunk Township Middle School we're talking about here. Well above the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • That the university is notable does not automatically make its student unions, buildings, newspapers, academic staff, catering services, or groundskeepers notable. The worthiness of the newspaper has to be considered on its own merits. The circulation figure is one such datum. But I'm not quite persuaded by it. The (equally) free local newspaper that comes unsolicited through through my door every Thursday, and that I throw directly into the recycling bin, boasts an uncombined readership of 42000, nearly three times that of The Cambridge Student, and it too sports interviews with prominent political figures, campaigns on public issues, coverage of national news, features, and reviews. I'm not persuaded that it is notable on those grounds, so I'm not persuaded that The Cambridge Student is notable on solely the same grounds, especially given the pretty much identical distribution and funding mechanisms. Persuade me either that The Cambridge Student is somehow different to my local free newspaper, or that my local free newspaper is notable. ☺ Uncle G 06:18, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
      • This paper will almost certainly contain contributions from numberous students who go on to become national figures in many fields. It is likely to be a leading training ground for distinguished colummnists and editors. But your local paper should also have an article. I can't understand why some people want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a comprehensive guide to the world. Philip 18:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Student newspapers are frequently notable. This one certainly is. --Centauri 03:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make everyone read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep no less. —RaD Man (talk) 08:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but its not as good as Varsity Fuzz 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student newspapers aren't inherently notable, but the main student newspaper at Cambridge University probably is, and indeed it has a Wikipedia article: Varsity (newspaper). However, this isn't that paper. This article is about the free weekly put out by the Student Union at Cambridge for the last five years or so. I wonder if the people voting Keep even bothered to read the article. Notability not established. --BM 14:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • *GASP* I'm shocked. —RaD Man (talk) 21:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Both the Varsity and TCS are free, and are both "main newspapers" in Cam although Varsity does have a longer history and is more notable, I believe the TCS is still notable enough for inclusion Fuzz 14:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It's a good start for an article. --Neigel von Teighen 14:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Student newspapers do derive some of their notability from the notability of the university they're associated with, by virtue of the fact that the papers derive some of their capability to cover a wide range of things and their circulation from that association. Varsity (newspaper) is probably more deserving of an article in general, but that doesn't mean that this one is not. If the 15,000 circ. figure cited in this article is correct, that makes it a pretty good-sized student newspaper. (I worked many years for my college newspaper, UT's The Daily Texan, the largest student newspaper in the US with a daily circ. of approximately 30,000.) Katefan0 16:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 17:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, campus newspapers aren't inherently encyclopedic, this one is. Wyss 20:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Cambridge University Students' Union. No more notable than the student newspaper I once wrote for - in fact, probably less so since this isn't even the dominant student newspaper for the university. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. --JuntungWu 18:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it.. This is prime wikipedia material (of course if people want it improved - then improve it! max rspct 21:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not? Student newspapers at sufficiently notable universities are notable. - Mustafaa 22:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Mustafaa. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep. Agree with Mustafaa. Bart133 (t) 21:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all of the various student unions, organizations and cruft at cambridge into one keeper article. They don't ~really~ merit standing alone, but may figure in future biographies as starting places of others. Not to mention may aid in research about someone going to that school. --Dbroadwell 19:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Joyous 00:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetable pie

This article is not bad in itself but it's a recipe so it should really be in the WikiCookbook -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:50, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • {{recipe}} is the correct tag for that, not {{subst:vfd}}. Uncle G 02:10, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • transwiki since recipes are one of the few things specifically and expressly out-of-bounds for WP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or delete. Megan1967 07:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki it. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, it's a recipe. Wyss 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - send for Fanny Cradock ! Brookie 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 05:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Alexandru

Someone who gets a black belt at a young age isn't sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Delete.-gadfium 01:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • "Wtf black belts?" Uh... indeed! Congratulations, but delete. Samaritan 01:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a fairly impressive achievement, but not an encyclopedic one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. How many 10-year-old black belt owners do you know? I think his young age makes this sufficiently notable. I would like to see this expanded so it's clear which sport he got it for and it should be edited for spelling and such. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if it were true, how can we verify it? RickK 07:46, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's not a world record, Delete unless it has a place in the articles on karate or martial arts. --Dbroadwell
  • Delete Vanity. JimmyShelter 09:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've now formatted and rephrased the article. Mgm|(talk) 09:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comment: I don't know much about martial arts, so I may be wrong, but at least in some of them there is a "junior" set of belts for children, with anyone attaining a black belt as a child having to begin from the bottom again when he reaches the adult class. Not that it would be much of a problem, I suppose, if he keeps up his training. But many don't, so a black belt may not mean that much at that age. / up+land 09:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to hear of young people getting black belts all the time. There was one on TV just the other night in karate, probably about the same age; it was in the U.S., so it wasn't the same boy. I don't think black belt recipients are notable, even the "youngest Romanian black belt in some unspecified martial art". But my real problem with this article is that the information in it is unverifiable as it currently stands. It could also be vanity. --BM 14:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, standard vanity, lots of kids have impressive personal accomplishments. Wyss 20:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. GeneralPatton 01:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - after a long wiki-day voting against rubbish - we get this ! Honestly! Brookie 19:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 19:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nattering nabob

And, of course, what is "genuinely free media" without genuinely free advertising and Google page rank manipulation, courtesy of Wikipedia and its mirrors? Uncle G 01:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

________________________

But how can you include entries for some similar webpages, like Daily Kos and Atrios and disallow others? - Carlo

Please sign your comments, User:64.12.116.203. Thanks. Joyous 01:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia tries to include webpages which are important, or at least popular. This article has no evidence of either. Kappa 03:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nawab, which mentions the actual origin of the phrase "nattering nabob." Joyous 01:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nawab. Barno 01:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nawab, otherwise Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to nawab. Samaritan 04:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think a redirect should go to Spiro Agnew, he who actually coined the specific phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity". Or go ahead and redirect to nawab, but credit Agnew in there as the source of that phrase. "Nawab", as written, just mentions the source of the word "nabob", and "nattering nabobs of negativity" is an example of the word in use; the article doesn't claim "nawab" is the actual source of the phrase "nattering nabobs". Bearcat 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, blog advertisement. Megan1967 07:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity" was used by Spiro Agnew, but his speechwriter, William Safire, actually coined the phrase. - Frank P.

  • Delete, blog ad, borderline spam (author may have misunderstood WP's article guidelines). Wyss 20:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Actually, I LIKE this blog - I may keep reading it - but it shouldn't be an entry. - Peachallie
  • Delete -the "Nattering Buffoon" would be better name- a vanity puff from a nonabee. Brookie 19:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vvrg

  • This is an advertisement and is neither notable (4 Google hits [1]) nor encyclopediac. The external link is in Russian Macedonian.
    Carrp | Talk 01:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an advertisement because we're non-profit organization. What do I advertise? The external link is in Macedonian.

User:Eclipse-vvrg 01:51, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:28, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

  • (there is a notice that it is in Macedonian. Any problems w/ that?)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 01:58, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

  • (if this is an advertistment, then what BMW Z4 (for example) is??) (you offend me!)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:05, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

  • (UCK is terroristic organization and it is encyclopediac!??)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:15, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

  • oh I thought you were searching yahoo. sorry! :)

User:Eclipse-vvrg 02:18, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))

  • Comment User:Eclipse-vvrg, the author, has been vandalising this page. I've put it down to unfamiliarity with talk page etiquette, left a note on the user's talk page, and refactored the comments.

Uncle G 02:24, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • Delete. Self-interested publicity relating to a non-notable organisation HowardB 05:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If terroristic organisations like UCK can have page in wikipedia, why we could not? I don't know. Can you please tell me what's my point of "advertising" here?

Delete if you want to do it so much.
User:Eclipse-vvrg 08:53, 8 Feb 2005 (CET)

  • Delete Except if it gets rewritten in a encyclopedian manner, like without the word 'we'. JimmyShelter 09:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Local concerns of a small group, not encyclopedic. jni 13:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article was rewritten in a encyclopedian manner, without the word 'we' Eclipse-vvrg 20:08, 8 Feb 2005 CET
  • There's still the issue of notability. 4 hits on Google is pretty non-notable in my opinion. Carrp | Talk 19:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, press release. Wyss 20:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable - kaal 01:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, please!! DELETE! Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Eclipse-vvrg 11:46, 10 Feb 2005 (CET) OK s- let's not throw our toys from the pram and then disappear as a User! Brookie 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - shallow nonsense of no merit and written badly! Brookie 19:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Hey, admins of Wikipedia?! Are you online? Listen to me really carefully.

Your user (Eclipse-vvrg) is trying to enhance Wikipedia project, to spread the word to the whole planet, that there on the Earth is one non-profit organization called V.V.R.G.. Like they said ... " V.V.R.G. ... devoted in education and aiming the youth to the genuine social, cultural and intelectual values and principles". They are good example for their environment. Someone will see their info at Wikipedia, and maybe this will stoke this viewers/readers to found similiar organization, to activate their young friends, to start some projects for the good of their community. Maybe V.V.R.G. and this new organization will have some together projects from which the whole and the only benefit will see our mother Earth, our global network, your local community Mr. Admin, your children Mr. Carrp (or Mr. Crap, I'm sorry but can't see too clear your name without my glasses),... Or, maybe Wikipedia is oriented to promote bad things, to encourage wars in the future? It must be that I missed that when I became a member of this community.

Try to read between the lines Mr. Admin. Aren't this "DELETE bunch" just a friends of Mr.Carrp? Or,.. maybe Mr. Carrp is an admin itself? God save Wikipedia if this is true! There are lot of intriguers all around. They just want to put their hands in every dish. Get your hands of V.V.R.G.! They are not English people, they are Macedonians, but however they want to spread their ideas to the world. They spread their ideas in English, the language that is not their native one. This is not a plus for them, to their contribution to Wikipedia?! They are not all so English-perfect like Mr. Carrp, but 99% they are. Let me see few sentences from some of this "DELETE buch" to write in Macedonian (the sentences can be no perfect, I will take them as correct). V.V.R.G. want their ideas/projects to be understandable for the bigger part of the earth's citizens, so are you have some problem with that?!

And what about Google? I think this is another project than Google Mr. Whatever! Are you an employee in Google Ltd? Aren't you promoting online search engine of a PROFIT ORGANIZATION here?! Is Wikipedia prohibiting new terms to be presented, other that Mr. Whatever, Mr. Howee Bee, Miss Broke E. knows ?! Greenpeace was BIG/notable organization from the first moments (seconds is better term) of it founding?! Hah! V.V.R.G. is not notable?! So?! From when Google DOT COM is relevant factor to present some new term to Wikipedia?! Say "power to the big companies, smash the new non-profit organizations". That's your silent words "DELETE bunch"! I can smell that, and my respiration tract is clear as summer sky in Vratnica, Macedonia, believe me.

People, take the information (if you want it) and go further. This article about V.V.R.G. is just a plus for Wikipedia, not a minus. However, if my words wasn't enough to convince you to keep the article - then simply delete it. And don't put this kind of "voting pages" in future. Simply push the button (DELETE of course, not the one from the Chemical Brother's song "Galvanize" :) ). For sure You got the power (not that of "Snap", but however you got it). Another :) .

I'll monitor this page to see what will be the conclusion of the Wikipedia Crew. Just for info (nothing more, I swear): if V.V.R.G. 's page will be deleted, Wikipedia's links at few of my web sites will be not there anymore. I don't want to support someone who don't want to present earth's "things" to the human kind (V.V.R.G. don't ask to link back, they just point to their own web site to inform the world about their news/realized/and new projects in future - A NON-PROFIT WEB SITE, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION; I don't ask to link me back neither, I am your user and I am enhancing O-U-R project ... Wikipedia).

V.V.R.G. (Vratnica Virtual Reality Group) will continue to exist whether it is on Wikipedia (DOT ORG?,.. Hmm?) or not.

Peace! DeeJay 16:36, 14 Feb 2005 CET

  • Comment:That's quite the message. I know how I'd like to respond, however I'm a calm and reasonable person that has great respect for the policy of don't bit the newbies:
I have nothing against the V.V.R.G. organization. When I posted a VfD on the VVRG article, I was only stating my opinion on the article, not the organization. I'm sure it's a wonderful organization, but it does lack notability. When a user believes that an article's subject is non-notable, they may choose to post a Vote for Deletion. This gives other members of the Wikipedia community a chance to express their opinions on whether the article should be included or removed from the encyclopedia. If it turns out that the subject is notable, the article is kept. It's a very common process and as you can see from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, there are many other articles nominated for deletion. From the voting thus far, other users seem to agree that VVRG is not yet notable enough for inclusion. I wish you happy editing, although I do suggest you try to observe the guideline of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 17:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: --- Yes, Mr. Carrp you just noticed that there are newbies at Wikipedia, so give them support. They'll return to all of us with some new articles/stories for the things we don't even know they exited. And by the way I am not making any personal attack at Wikipedia users, that's my style of writing. No offense word was used in my "Support the V.V.R.G." article. They are all in function of my support to V.V.R.G. (to present better my viewpoint for this "case"). There is present "playing with the words thing", but that doesn't mean that I am attacking someone. Have a nice day/night! DeeJay 20:00, 14 Feb 2005 CET
I fully support the newbies of Wikipedia, after all, everyone here was once a newbie (except perhaps Jimbo). This support does not extend to letting newbies add any page they wish. This is an encyclopedia and there's standards that an article must meet. When a user believes an article doesn't meet these standards, procedures such as this VfD come into play.
As for the "no personal attacks" comment, I was referring to when you wrote "...Mr. Carrp (or Mr. Crap...". Now, I wasn't very offended, but some people would have been. Insults don't help you to "present better my viewpoint for this 'case'". I do hope you enjoy editing here at Wikipedia and wish you the best. Carrp | Talk 19:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: --- I am not an expert in English language, but in colloquial way (language) 'Crap' means 'whatever thing/things, anyone,...' (besides the bad meanings, that for sure I was not alluding to). In my sentence Mr. Crap means Mr. Whatever, like you can see in the rest of the comment. Happy Valentine (holiday in Catholic church) & St. Trifun (in Orthodox)! DeeJay 00:45, 15 Feb 2005 CET

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ben sobelione

  • Delete. This is the fake name that a movie character assumes for a few scenes in the movie Analyze This. I wouldn't even vouch that it's spelled correctly. I don't think it's even worth a redirect. Joyous 01:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Carrp | Talk 01:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt even the people who claim notability isn't a reason for deletion would be sad to see this one go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit from a web dictionary. Megan1967 07:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable by a long shot. JimmyShelter 09:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The correct spelling is Sobeleone anyway, with which one finds a full five Google hits. (Please don't take this as an invitation to create that article.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft. Wyss 20:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete um....because everyone else says so??????
  • Delete pointless. Christopher Welsh 04:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 19:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rade

A vanity page which the subject helpfully signed for us. No evidence that xe meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, of course. Uncle G 01:58, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • Keep actually, due to his association with Sens Unik, he meets a lot of those guidelines, at least the first seven. Admit this is a clumsy attempt at an article, but he's a fairly notable ex-member of a VERY notable group! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Starblind is right; Sens Unik even have a fairly detailed article already, and it does mention Rade. Google also confirms. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 06:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if he wrote that article, evidenced by the signoff, then its vanity. Wikipedia frowns on autobiographies. Outside of Sens Unik, he hasn't done anything notable. Megan1967 07:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article adding information about his career and taken off the signature. However, in doing so, I have discovered that our article on Sens Unik is an almost direct copy of this article. 1. I will report it as a copyright violation now. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not copyvio as that article is credited to Wikipedia and GNU license at the bottom of the web page :) Fuzz 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Could be vanity, but the rewrite is good. JimmyShelter 09:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to rewrite, though I'm not sure we are all looking forward to the solo album he will record in 1995 Fuzz 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Wellspotted Fuzz. have corrected the typo. Capitalistroadster 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm likewise suspicious of the "started off in 1998" date. Evidence and references supplied. However, I'd still like to see things like, say, the man's actual name (compare Scooter). Moreover, the Sens Unik discography belongs in Sens Unik (and is already there). Rade should tell us "Rade appears on Sens Unik's albums X, Y, and Z.", and only go into details of release dates and hit songs if they are relevant to Rade specifically (such as if he wrote them, for example). Keep and send to Cleanup for removal of duplicated information. Uncle G 17:33, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Capitalistroadster's attentions should be an official reason to pull articles off vfd. :) Samaritan 15:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sens Unik. As usual Cr's rewrite is a great improvement, but in this case I don't think there is a need to have the same information twice, unless there is some notabile information about this musician which doesn't make sense to mention in the article about the group, such as a released solo album. --BM 15:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 20:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in tact with corrections by Capitalistroadster. Do not redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 21:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neologiphobia

It's a neologism. :) - RedWordSmith 01:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup. Wikipedia is neologiphobic. What a shame. Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 02:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If I vote to delete it, does that mean I have it? I just did. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologiphobi... cruft? Samaritan 05:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think someone's bitter. Delete, but do it for being "anti-Wikipedia POV" rather than "neologism". Bearcat 06:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing personal, it's just that I fear the unfamiliar. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The word frightens me. JimmyShelter 09:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But honestly: not bad Lectonar 10:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense as mildly amusing Fuzz 13:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, heh heh. Rant. Wyss 20:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 06:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikinonsense. ElBenevolente 07:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with slight laughter. Neologism! -Idont Havaname 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to jokes and deleted nonsense -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 00:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity, and not well-written vanity at that. EvilOverlordX 17:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

  • 07:17, 2005 Feb 18 Jni deleted Hardmob (Vandal sandbox, see its VfD entry for further discussion)

Hardmob

Page has no useful content... and looking back through all its edits, none of them appear to be very much better. Talk page also looks like a sandbox. -Goldom 02:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as joke/attack page. It's actually a Brazillian video-games forum, if anybody cares. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete.HowardB 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible prank/joke. Megan1967 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete (the guy is creating this insistingly also in wiki.pt) muriel@pt 00:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I speedy deleted it as a vandal sandbox. Every revision was either a CSD #3 (General class) or a CSD #1 (Article class) case. Given that also this VfD-page was (successfully) vandalized, there is not much point in voting any more. Move along, move along... jni 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It was apparently merged. dbenbenn | talk 19:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Great Books, Santa Fe

I don't see how this is useful/notable...it's just a curriculum for a class at some college. Adam Bishop 02:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you'd followed the links, you'd know that this is not merely part of a class curriculum, but is part of St. John's College, Santa Fe's Great Books Program. Certainly as notable as say, a TV show episode list. --Calton 04:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Are we going to list every college's curricula? This is not encyclopedic. Delete. RickK 06:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, more than just some college's curriculum. Click on either St. John's College, Santa Fe or Great Books and see. Maybe you'll decide it's still not noteworthy, but at least don't mischaracterize it. --Calton 10:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote delete too --nixie 07:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat.
  • Delete Non-notable. JimmyShelter 09:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not really much more notable than the summer reading lists given out at every middle and high school in the universe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is more notable than the summer reading lists given out at every middle and high school in the country, because it is the entire curriculum of a well-known four-year baccalaureate program at more than one university. -- Dominus 20:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Andrew Starblind Lenahan. --Neigel von Teighen 14:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP not a reading or webguide, this is not an article. Wyss 20:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (and then delete, with proper history notes in Talk for GFDL Dpbsmith 10:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Significant educational philosophy and the list of books actually used is a valuable datum. Assuming the list is the same as that used at St. John's College, Annapolis, merge there, as it is the original campus. The use of direct source texts of the "great books" is a fairly interesting educational philosophy. Notice that this is not just a recommended reading list, these are (supposedly) the books used as the textbooks. I don't think there are many colleges other than St. Johns that do this, so it is a notable curriculum, not just any old typical liberal arts curriculum. It might be worthwhile to try to coordinate and refactor the articles on the Harvard Classics, Great Books, Great Books of the Western World, the two St. John's College articles, the St. John's book list, and, I dunno, maybe Stringfellow Barr, Mortimer Snerd (sorry, couldn't resist), Charles W. Eliot, Robert Hutchins, etc. since these all bear on the same idea. I've always wondered how the teaching at St. John's is actually done; I'll bet the professors have developed elaborate methods of subtle cheating to insure that students don't end up believing that combustion is caused by phlogiston and that light waves are caused by vibrations in the aether. Maybe the Great Books are the only official texts but the students smuggle in current textbooks and hide them inside copies of Playboy so they won't get caught? Maybe the upperclassmen trade lists of the books you really need to read in order to ace the tests? Just wondering... Seriously, this list is a keeper, but not as a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I just learned something new from Wikipedia. This educational philosophy is known as Educational perennialism in general, and secular perennialism in particular. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
P. P. S. Sufferin' succotash! Four whole years of nothing but dead white European males... no, if you stick it out for three years you do get W. E. B. Dubois and Virginia Woolf in your senior year. By the time you graduate, you probably think Allan Bloom is a radical. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, wait, you get Jane Austen in your junior year. Sheesh. RickK 23:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
^{Above comment aimed at the curriculum, not Dpbsmith). RickK 23:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I still don't "get" Jane Austen. Maybe when I grow up... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For once, it is a coherent list that illustrates the notable and unusual curriculum of a college. I'd comment, by the way, that at a lot of the more demanding colleges the humanities undergraduates will read a substantial percentage of these books in their entirety and even more of them in part. Plus, they will read a great deal more besides. Depending on how much depth they go into, if this is the entire 4 year reading list, it seems a bit light. --BM 23:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there have been far less notable, trivial lists that have been kept on Wikipedia. Perhaps the article could de with a bit more explaining on why those books are chosen. Megan1967 00:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a book list is totally useless and does not convey anything. If this curriculum is important or unique than it should be written and expalined in the article. Otherwise it would open the floodgates for people putting down curriculum lists in wikipedia for the thousands of courses. kaal 01:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • So, what would you think about "merge into St. John's College, Annapolis and delete?" The article(s) on St. John's do "explain the curriculum." BTW, I've done a bit of Googling on "perennialism" in various combinations, and so far St. John's is frequently mentioned as an example of a college using that philosophy, and I have yet to see a mention of any other college using such a philosophy or curriculum, so St. John's curriculum is notable as one of the few actual examples of such a curriculum in actual use. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there's agreement (which there currently isn't), I'm prepared to do the kind of merge-and-delete that merges histories, keeping things GFDL-kosher. I was thinking of just doing the merge right away, but the history shows contributions by too many editors to just put a simple note on the Talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Copyvio? The article was contributed in almost its present form by User:Desert Pyrate on 28 October. Three edits to this article are his only contributions. The article is essentially the same text as this list from the St. John's website. Since then, there have been scores of edits by several editors, but virtually all of the edits consist of linking or fixing links in the names of the works and their authors. Since I want to keep the list, I'd like to think that there isn't a copyvio, but I dunno. An anthology of public domain work certainly can have a compilation copyright, but is its table of contents copyrightable? Is this just a list of names like a telephone directory, or does the creative act of selecting them make it copyrightable? Could St. John's sue me successfully if I were to start my own college and use their booklist as the curriculum? I'm probably losing the argument to keep this information anyway so it probably doesn't matter, but... whom to ask? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the folks at St. Johns would almost certainly ne more happy than not if others copied their curriculum. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep .. although I think it should be merged with the Annapolis campus book list. St.Johns is a very unique school, and this list is very helpful for those wishing to study the Great Books. If you have never heard of St.Johns or the great books program I could understand why it might seem non noteworthy. In any case if this does get deleted, please let me know first so I can copy this down somewhere for my own personal reference! --Stbalbach 22:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The list is available on the St. John's website at http://www.sjcsf.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302 . Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Stbalbach, though I wouldn't object to a merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is more notable than it may appear. I'm not sure about the "Santa Fe" in the name: it seems "Annapolis" or "St. John's" would be more appropriate. So maybe move. LizardWizard 08:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP:It's well written enough, intresting, St. John's seems notable, unusual, --The_stuart 16:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable in any possible way. What this boils down to is a list of books that in the opinion of this college are the most important in western literature. In that sense, one could even argue that the article is inherently POV, though I admit that could be stretching it. Indrian 20:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not inherently POV to report that "X said Q" or that "Group Y believes J" or "Institution Z holds core principles K," and such statements are encyclopedic if X, Y, or Z are important and notable. The issue is really whether St. Johns and/or its curriculum is a) notable, and b) notable enough to be worth including this level of specific detail. I think they are, since this is all part of the Great Books movement, and which books are considered "great" is important in understanding the movement. The article on the Harvard Classics lists the actual contents of the volumes, and that makes it a better article than it would be without the list. Great Books and Educational perennialism are significant, and St. John's is notable as a reasonably well-known, successful, well-regarded institution that actually puts these ideas into practice. I don't think the detailed curriculum of any old "good small liberal-arts school" like Haverford College or Reed College would be notable, and I don't think St. John's would be notable if there were a hundred schools that followed the same curriculum—but there aren't. (I've recently learned of two more: Thomas Aquinas College, http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/, in Santa Paula, California, and Gutenberg College in Eugene, Oregon, which are respectively Catholic and Protestant Christian schools with a Great Books curriculum). By the way, I think it's clear from my flippant remarks above that I am not personally thrilled by the Great Books idea; it's not my POV. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. or merge. St John's and the Great Books movement are a significant, although non-mainstrean, educational philosophy. Probably this should be merged into the main article on the origianl St John's, or else one on the Great Books movement as a whole.
  • Keep unless the list is available on a web site to which Great Books could link. It's clearly neither just a college curriculum nor restrricted to one college (as a glance at the Great Books article confirms). The fact that some users disagree with what's on the list (as in certain respects do I) is irrelevant to the VfD debate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Annapolis campus article and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand; why do you think that this should be done? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable list developed at University of Chicago many years ago. Unique curriculum that is well-known as well-respected. A list of the books is a useful reference (one I have actually looked for). -- Decumanus 19:53, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Varun Chandra

Some fellow rambling on some other fellow he knows, the kind of stuff you'd find at urbandictionary To quote, for instance, "Varun Chandra synonyms - Wanker/ cock face / loves to be liked"

  • Delete or even speedy delete, clearly a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unequivocal speedy material. Samaritan 05:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal attack/rant. Megan1967 07:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as libelous patent nonsense. -- Curps 08:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spencer Fontaine

This article is filled with nonsense. — J3ff 03:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • "He is the first foreign born black woman to hold that position." (U.S. Secretary of State) IMO makes it speediable as patent nonsense #2 ("while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it.") Samaritan 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, there was nothing there at all a few minutes ago... HowardB 09:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment That name sounds familiar. Didn't we delete some high school vanity article by or about someone with a name like that a while back? Seems to me it was a Canadian high school student, and he or someone else had put in the names of several friends as notable alumni.... "sfontaine" sticks in my mind, we don't seem to have a User:Sfontaine, maybe that was his email address... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reynolds Secondary, that's what it was. Yeah, I emailed him and he replied "Hey mate. Sorry bout that I used it to show my friend Mike (Michael Jordan (Anker)) how to use Wikipedia." Methinks Anker or maybe Lappy has been up to some mischief. Given the circumstances it seems virtually certain that this is a prank or some other Reynolds student's newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reese J. Davidson

non-notable — J3ff 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - less than 20 Google hits, article comes across as a personal attack. Megan1967 07:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, clearly a personal attack. Mgm|(talk) 09:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, vandalism, libel. Wyss 20:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, v. obviously a personal attack --Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arif shivji

non-notable — J3ff 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. Agriculture 04:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. utcursch 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. at0 06:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 20 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as user test with zero context. Wyss 19:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eversole

non-notable family — J3ff 03:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Entire text "The Eversole Family of SouthWest Ohio. They are a Capatilist Family that has lived in the area for over a hundred years." Delete. Samaritan 06:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable JimmyShelter 09:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sub-substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as genealogical fragment, possible vanity or prank. Wyss 19:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mike Naso

Vanity. Gamaliel 03:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Above user is author of the article.
  • Above user is also a subject of the article.
  • To be fair, he also helped write quite a bit of it --Newprogressive 06:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this bad role playing game. Samaritan 05:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 05:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Micronationcruft. And of the utmost nonsensical epitome of it. Delete. RickK 06:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. gives appearance of notability that is not deserved. not-notable. RJFJR 06:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Delete. ComCat.
  • Keep Anyone against this denys Mike Nasos landslide abilities.
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, and mostly nonsense. Megan1967 08:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable, vanity, nonsense, sockpuppets. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has no real information value what so ever. JimmyShelter 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. If he's really that important someone who doesn't know him personally will write the article. Not notable, no clear explanation of what Atlasia really is. Mgm|(talk) 09:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Egotistical nonsensical delusional fictional micronation cruft. Average Earthman 10:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; and to think that all this furthers entropy...Lectonar 10:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as micronation-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsensical vanity. jni 13:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I denys Mike Nasos (where's the apostrophe?) landslide abilities. Does that mean he's capable of starting landslides? No big whoop. :^P Delete as vanity, though better written than most. - Lucky 6.9 19:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense, vanity, sockpuppets...this page has it all. Carrp | Talk 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this prankish vanity, note the heavy smell of socks. Wyss 19:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This will likely now be deleted, though I would like to thank Lucky 6.9 for saying that its well written. I would also ask why there is a heavy smell of socks. I would also like to challenge the defintion "vanity", since this isn't written by the person it pertains to. Vanity has many definitions under the dictionary, and I believe that this particular page is better fitted by "total and utter b****ks" or similar. --New Progressive 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Vanity.
  • Read that, but it really is so vague as to encompass all manner of sin. You people really ought to come up with something a little more specific --New Progressive 00:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't do what? There's no plan to troll over wikipedia or any such action. BTW we are fine for you to delete it now since we have acquired our own wiki site; I hope this meets with the approval of the guy who has a problem with entropy. With Vigour and Decisiveness --New Progressive 15:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Non-encyclopaedic. Also possibly criminal for impersonating the White House Chief of Staff? The article should at least stop inappropriately using the succession box. --bainer 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally irrelevent and pure vanity. Plus, we have to keep egos in check, there's only so much space in the world afterall. --Kross 8:55, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
  • Delete I am aware of the community surrounding this article. There are no sock puppets involved, I don't think. It is just a number of people conspiring for a joke and should be deleted. I don't see malicious intent. --131.191.48.179 01:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -his hair is enough for a deletion vote on its own -nonsense Brookie 15:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pure vanity, not notable GeneralPatton 01:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete already. (It is funny, though.) Rlw 17:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 20:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stungun

Looks like a vanity page. - Omegatron 04:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Middle school band of no notability. Delete and redirect to Stun gun. RickK 06:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stun gun. School band has no notability. Megan1967 08:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to stun gun as per above. Mgm|(talk) 09:29, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. It's time for the Wikipedia Happy Fun Double Bonus Quiz Round! Quick! Name something less notable than a high-school garage band! BZZ! Time's up! The answer was: a middle-school garage band! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, middle school vanity. Wyss 19:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to stun gun. -Sean Curtin 00:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Band has notability. Band has been featured in such magazines as Time Out New York multiple times and has multiple recordings, as was noted in article. -Travis Emergency 21:10, Feb 11, 2005 EDIT: I have moved the page to my user page. Is this OK?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kyle Melwing

Supposedly "of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures." I'm pretty sure that anyone who actually qualifies as an Internet tycoon gets more than three Google hits, and hits from somewhere other than the website for Troop 167. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity HowardB 04:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, vanity. Megan1967 08:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what Antaeus Feldspar said. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is one of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures in the same way as I am one of the 13th centuries most acclaimed philosophers - i.e. not at all. Average Earthman 10:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while Radium5 does seem to exist, it's very obscure, with some 250 Google hits, most of which are "minor" things like URL matches, and only 1 Google Groups hit. If it truly had the sort of multibillion-dollar growth as described in the article, it would be a Fortune 500 company by now, which it obviously isn't. It's either deliberate fraud or a joke (the joke theory being supported by the final two paragraphs). If Mr. Melwing (or whoever wrote the article) happens to read this, I would like to suggest to them that it isn't generally a good idea to publically claim to have 40+ billion dollars when you really don't, as groups like the IRS and the CIA tend to take notice of such things. [Note: the page has since been blanked by the original author] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article has been blanked, too. Wyss 19:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keystone Phil

Vanity. Gamaliel 04:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this bad role playing game. Samaritan 05:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per VfD comments on Mike Naso. Megan1967 08:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Odd name for a President: PBrunsel. Doesn't explain what Atlasia is. Suspected RPG. Vanity. Mgm|(talk) 09:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Suspected RPG." Congratulations, Sherlock. 10:10 GMT Feb 8, 2005
  • Delete. Vanity, fictional (and not popular fiction), nonsense, inconsequential. Average Earthman 10:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, This truly serves no purpose as a unique article. If anything should be included in whatever fantasy it derives from. Eelozano
  • Delete as micronation-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More entropy Lectonar 14:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, amounts to a vanity prank. Wyss 19:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dirty pirate

There is nothing more I can say. Samaritan 05:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research. --MarkSweep 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't belong here. also dict-def, non-notable and non-sense. RJFJR 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made up terminology. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not even anatomically possible, as it would require that both the perpetrator and victim be simultaneously laying down and standing up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, prank, vanity neologism, borderline speedy. Wyss 19:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ooh, rather imaginative. Gross, but imaginative. I recall a bunch of similar "how-to" articles a few months back. Most were deleted. Shiver me timbers and delete this too, mateys! Avast, ye scurvy scum! - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spinboy 23:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Of course it's possible! The victim would have to be squating as the perpetrator would be standing and facing him/her, thus the possible ejaculation into the eye because the penis and eyes are at the same level. Then, you can kick them in the shin. So it can be done. But it's sick and wrong, so get rid of this. Frank12
  • Delete. Sounds like something that should be on Urbandictionary.com
  • Delete. unless a parrot could be worked in there somewhere :) --Monk Bretton 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tao of quitting smoking

Blatant advertisement, also probably copyvio. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • "The Tao of Quitting Smoking is a spiritual guide written in a no-nonsense Dr. Phil-like way..." That Dr. Phil, he's my kind of Taoist. 249 web hits for "Tao of quitting smoking", nearly all online bookstores, one Usenet hit that is from the book's author. Delete this press release; it can't be worth improving. Samaritan 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, book advertisement/promo. It's either a copyright violation or plagiarism, see [2]. Megan1967 08:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We shouldn't have to waste time voting on this kind of commercial self-promotion. HowardB 10:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Wyss 19:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which was done on Feb 8. dbenbenn | talk 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Kim

Vanity page — Zeimusu | Talk 05:27, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • 'His ability to take any music and play it straight through, flawlessly, gives him the right to call himself "The King of Violin".' I noticed king of pop was created earlier today. But... not the same. Delete this vanity. Samaritan 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've turned this into a REDIRECT for Daniel Dae Kim 132.205.45.148 20:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Army of God Party

Entire text: "The Army of God Party is a U.S. Political party founded in 2001. It's sole purpose is to ensure that the laws of the land reflect those in the bible. Many Republicans are rumored to be closeted Army of God members, including President George W. Bush. Celebrity Members Mel Gibson The Rock James Van der Beek" Is there a political party of that name somewhere to redirect to? The only web hits are two references to Shiv Sena on a message board, which doesn't seem like nearly widespread enough usage for a redirect; we'd be popularizing an idiosyncratic translation. Samaritan 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm, a top-secret political party. Seems a bit counter-productive. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, note the anon author (69.162.158.161) of that article removed VfD and has a past history of vandalism. Megan1967 08:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likely hoax, certainly unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 'Army of God' is the name of a U.S. anti-abortion organization and web site that posts hit lists of abortion doctors and so forth. If they've launched a political party, I can see why members would keep it a secret—but there's just no evidence that that has happened. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles about top secret organizations that exist supposedly and that, somehow, someone could grab information misteriously about them without any refernce?? No, thanks. --Neigel von Teighen 14:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, political hoax, rant. Wyss 19:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would be a pity to spoil the total secrecy that they've managed to maintain until now. --BM 02:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parlish

Neologism. A weird one too. O_o —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-8 05:58 Z

  • Delete, maybe even speedy. Same user also created the article Flagmore: President Flagmore was the 24.5 president in America. He founded the state Franchester, but died before the plans got through, he was in presidency for 5 days. He died from the Death disease.. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a neologism, a silly hoax. Delete it. Samaritan 06:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --nixie 06:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN that was awesome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 19:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Silly but funny. Inter 21:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Idjut crew

A group of some college students. Vanity, unverifiable, etc. - RedWordSmith 07:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Utter nonsense. Delete. RickK 07:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep [This is by Scpivo21 whose all edits are related to this article jni 13:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure crap. jni 13:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity campus prank. Wyss 19:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You obviously don't have to have brains to go to college. JimmyShelter 20:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Idjut sounds suspiciously like idiot. Inter 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Interesting and creative. Obviously a well established society of intellectuals.
  • Delete. Nn. Carrp | Talk 01:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd give them points for creativity if only they'd taken the time to read the blurb about not writing about yourself. For shame. Made me smile, though. Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Oleg Alexandrov 00:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Annie bodowski

Google search for "United Malay States" yields only 4 hits. Adding the name "Bodowski" to that search brings the total to zero. While the U.M.S. may have some notability, I don't see what this woman has to do with it. If reason is found to keep it, the article needs some serious cleanup. Dismas 07:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 08:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably written when drunk. I'd wager he or she doesn't even remember doing it. BTW, there is no such thing as "United Malay States" HowardB 09:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like nonsense, no evidence of encyclopedic content here. Wyss 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bridges in art

This isn't encyclopedic. Letting this survive will lead to articles such as Chairs in art, Oranges in art, Pyramids in art, etc.. (unsigned)

  • I think it would be best to include such info in the article about bridges. Move and delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that it was originally split out of bridge. Interesting, useful information. Keep or merge back with bridge. Kappa 09:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've expanded this, and may continue Kappa 11:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Entirely encyclopedic. If we can have a book The Pig in Art, Michael Ryba, ISBN 0-85613-544-5 or this external page Noli me tangere in art, then we can have many articles such as this in Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 12:36, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Marge back interesting and encyclopedic, but doesn't need its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Keep information, definitely. Does not much matter whether it is a separate article or merged somewhere, but I think there is enough content here now to warrant keeping. I don't agree that this is a precedent for a family of Cruft in Art articles, because bridges are widely regarded as having an aesthetic dimension. "Earth has not anything to show more fair:/Dull would he be of soul who could pass by/A sight so touching in its majesty"—Wordworth, and I will add this to the article soon. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the information; no opinion really on whether this belongs in a separate page, but there seems to be enough here to justify a page separate from bridge. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bridges can be aesthetic, like many designed objects, and partly because of this, they have been the subject of art works. So what? There might be something interesting to say about what makes a subject fit for a picture or a poem and why bridges fit those criteria. But that wouldn't be this article, since it is just a dumb raw list of poems, songs, paintings, etc that have some connection to bridges, in some cases a very slight connection. For example, it includes "Bridge TV", a cable channel that tries to bridge between opposing factions in the Middle East. If it is not deleted, at least it should be retitled to something like List of art works about bridges, and cleaned up. --BM 16:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps a move, or a merge into something (not bridge), but this is quite encyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 18:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with bridge. Wyss 19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Enyclopedic, interesting and useful. The sort of article Wikipedia needs more - not less - of.--Centauri 21:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done. Gamaliel 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Centauri and Gamaliel said it best. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 21:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well done. humblefool® 00:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Patrick 00:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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. dbenbenn | talk 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roby Thomas

Only two Google hits for "Roby Thomas" + vioxx, and one of them (ironically named vioxxsucks.com) doesn't seem to exist any more. Note that the article was created by User:MrThomas. RickK 07:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. JimmyShelter 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Mgm|(talk) 09:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 19:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Carrp | Talk 19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and no content Brookie 15:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vioxx (band)

Only one Google hit for vioxx +hodowanez. See also Roby Thomas, above. RickK 07:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sachin Kadam

I came across this page on December 6, and posted a note that it might be a VfD candidate on the talk page. Since then, no one has responded to the comments, so I felt that a VfDing was appropriate. "Sachin Kadam" returns 60 google hits, all of them, IMHO, not notable. However, my opinion isn't set in stone, and I recognise that most non-English-speaking people (as Mr/Ms Kadam may be) cannot always be guaged in notability from their google hits. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 08:12, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, very likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity CV frag. Wyss 19:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and no content of note Brookie 15:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lewinsky

Slang term for oral sex. Originally created as Lewinski, proposed for speedy deletion but does not seem to fit the criteria. It's probably not used much anymore after a number of years have passed since the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and it's already mentioned in the Monica Lewinsky article. -- Curps 08:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Monica Lewinsky. Do not merge. RickK 08:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monica Lewinsky. Since the info is already there, a merge is not needed. Mgm|(talk) 09:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Monica Lewinsky. I misspell the name as Lewinski all the time. Do not merge. jni 12:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with all; redirect both, with no merge; her article mentions the usage. Samaritan 14:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, obviously, content is plainly unhelpful. Wyss 19:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. No merge. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monica Lewinsky or delete. Nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 00:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ministry of Justice of Cameroon

Not actually about the "Ministry of Justice of Cameroon", or even the "Justice system of Cameroon". Propaganda more than anything else. Dr Gangrene 09:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Since Capitalistroadster's edit, this looks like an excellent article, and should be kept. Dr Gangrene 14:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy as political ad, put in bad faith under a misleading title. They may be wrong, they may be right, but this is neither the correct place nor method to further a political agenda. UPDATE: Edits by CR have vastly improved this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy. Could this count as a speedy criterion #11? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as vandalism, libel. Wyss 19:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV political rant. Megan1967 00:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten this from the ground up based on The Statesman's Yearbook 2005 entry for Cameroon, United Nations reports and the US State Department entry on Cameroon. As we are top of a Google search for this term and as I consider Government Departments in general to be both notable and encyclopedic. I propose that we keep this version. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Trust Capitalistroadster. --JuntungWu 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another keep due to CR's edits. —RaD Man (talk) 21:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)~
Yep to that, well done CR, keep. Wyss 21:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spinboy 23:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_8&oldid=10063194"