Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JoJan (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 10 February 2005 (B.J. Eversole). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 10

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 17:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pokemon Aqua

This seems to be a random Pokémon hack, possibly several, none of them all that notable. Here's a Google search for "Pokémon Aqua". Most of the references seem to be to the Pokémon card game, so I did a Google search for "Pokémon Aqua" game. Here's a couple bits of evidence I found for Aqua being a hack-

Thread about Aqua as a hack.

Mention of Aqua as a Blue hack. It's near the bottom of the page, in the comment from Donut.

So, in other words... delete this. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 00:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as cruft. Wyss 02:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't they have their own websites to fill with every last bit of tedious minutae on their favourite game? Average Earthman 10:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Pokemon. Some of this stuff would be too crufty even for an Encyclopedia of Pokemon. --BM 02:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gotta delete 'em all. (Just kiddin, inclusionists) Carrp | Talk 04:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose, even as a Pokemon article. -- Cabhan 05:09, 15 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 18:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Baruun-Urt

Had its two weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, no one's done anything with it. Topic is OK for an article (it's a place in Mongolia), but if there is anything useful here it needs to be translated. I think it's in Russian, despite the following anonymous remark on this and the (now copyvio'd) Erdenebulgan, Arhangay:

  • Both by the same unregistered IP. One has a link to a Mongolian website, so that may be the language. I flagged one with the new {{cleanup-translation}} instead of the notenglish one. (I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be.) 68.81.231.127 06:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to salvage but delete if left in present form. Oh, and the difference between {{cleanup-translation}} instead of and {{notenglish}} is that the former is for things that are "mostly translated" and not candidates for deletion on that basis, but need further work. This should have been tagged {{notenglish}}. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is the article that triggered the discussion leading to the current use of the template. I did change it to the notenglish template after that was resolved, so it has been flagged correctly for the requisite two weeks. 68.81.231.127 07:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, two weeks are two weeks. Wyss 02:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not Russian or any Slavic language. It's probably Mongolian, which is also written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Time's up, chances of translation are low. -- Curps 02:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Christopher Welsh 00:08, 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 merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Heinlein Trio

This article will never mature beyond a stub, because there isn't any content beyond stub content. It's a reprint of three books. That's all that can be said. Snowspinner 01:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's Heinlein and may be helpful to someone. Wyss 02:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What content can you figure out to expand? If the article is only ever going to be a list of the three books it contains, there's no content to be helpful. We are not a card catalogue. What content can ever possibly be added to this article? Snowspinner 04:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously useful.--Centauri 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree quite strongly with Wyss on this one. —RaD Man (talk) 04:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:03, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sets a bad precedent to have an article for a collection of previously published stories. If i wanted more info on a story in one of my Heinlein collections, i'd look up the title of the story. foobaz·✐ 05:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Random compilation albums, books etc are annoying. Merge into List of Heinlein books or Heinlein. Kappa 06:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Megan1967 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an important compilation by one of the most influential aurhors of early science fiction. This compilation is important because of the socio-political message of all three groups. The historical context ("Pan-Asian" xenophobia) - which, although culturally acceptible aat the time, in a modern context shows what now would be considered obvious, blatant racism of the author that is not reflected, but influenced in his later work, including the cultural mileston, Stranger in a Strange Land. -- DAVODD 06:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • All the individual titles already have articles. What's "important" about this particular compilation? Calton 12:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If there was anything in the article to indicate it was more than a random compilation, I might change my vote. Kappa 07:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the "Editions" and "Publication History" sections in the articles on the individual books. All the relevant information can still be preserved, and is more useful, in those sections. Nateji77 12:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an omnibus edition of three books that already have their own articles. What more could possibly be said about it that doens't go into the individual articles, or the one on Heinlein himself? Calton 12:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't so much matter what can be said about it, but rather that someone searching for "A Heinlein Trio" on wikipedia will find out exactly what it is on that page, which means that it will have fulfilled its purpose as an encyclopedia. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:26, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, that would mean that WP has fulfilled a library index's purpose, which is not WP's. Barno 20:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into articles on the individual books. If there was evidence that this could be expanded beyond a stub, I would change my vote to "Keep". Carrp | Talk 13:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anybody thinks it is a notable fact about Heinlein that his publisher decided to print three of his novels together, then it should be mentioned in the Heinlein article, or perhaps in the articles about the novels. (We have an article on each of the three novels already.) If a particular edition of a novel or compilation of novels was so notable to book collectors or for some other reason then we could conceivably have articles about them. For example, perhaps the term "Heinlein Trio" occurs frequently in discussions of his work. But the independent notability would have to be established. It has not been in this case. --BM 15:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, probably to Heinlein. Each of the novels already has a separate article. The marketing decision to republish three of them as an anthology is not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge relevance (as provided above by DAVODD ) to the three stories' articles and to Heinlein. Since one term can't redirect multiple places, also Redirect to Heinlein. I noticed as a kid that several RAH stories from a certain period had that Pan-Asian xenophobia that didn't feel like his later work. This is "notable" to Heinlein fans, some general SF fans, and people studying racism in literature, but doesn't stand on its own as an encyclopedic item. Agree with comments that compilations aren't generally separately notable enough for inclusion. Barno 20:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in no way warrants deletion under the Deletion policy. Dan100 21:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Bibliography section of Robert A. Heinlein and redirect. Gamaliel 05:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (what little extra there is - basically the publisher and the individual titles) with Robert A. Heinlein and remove circular link from the latter. Uncle G 17:47, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't see any avenues for expansion. Noisy | Talk 01:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge => Robert A. Heinlein Courtland 05:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
  • Merge to Robert A. Heinlein - this volume didn't add anything to the Heinlen canon, in itself. CDC (talk) 03:01, 15 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 18:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Taco rubio

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this article. It seems to be either a vanity piece about a person with this handle, or an ad for an "upskirt museum". A search for "Taco rubio" OR "taco rubio" gets about 213 hits [1]. --Deathphoenix 01:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, reads like fictional nonsense, article provides no context otherwise. Wyss 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a handle on secondlife.com or something like that. There is no reference for that site, so a user can't be that important. The Jacobin 02:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone's user name in an online game. -Goldom 03:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's an entry for Rubio's Baja Grill that this can be redirected to. That's a Southern California chain specializing in fish tacos. Good eats. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete people's MMORPG chat avatars are not notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, the wonderful world of privacy invasion in fictitious worlds. I'm a little surprised at a lack of wiki for anything relating to the whole Mr. Bungle MUD incident [2] which was one of the first major controversies in the domain- might have to get onto that myself. This one's also pretty interesting and could become as big a deal, but doesn't appear to have had quite the same splash in terms of Google hits, but it's still quite recent, so I'm torn. For now, no vote from me. --Lawlore 18:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, Mr. Bungle definately needs an article (I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have one). I'm not voting on this one for now, either. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:06, 15 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Walter Hartwell-James

This page is a dup of article Walter James. The title incorrectly conjoins James' middle name and surname. Article Walter James is a high quality article, and it pretty much covers everything in the dup. Hesperian 01:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, someone may have been trying some sort of vanity tie-in or whatever... dupe. Wyss 02:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The contributor is a well-behaved wikicitizen. I think this is an innocent mistake. Hesperian 02:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The contributor is an anon IP with less than 50 edits to his name. I think maybe you thought I contributed the article. I didn't; I only added cleanup and category tags to it after it was created. My apologies anyway, though -- I'd actually have speedied it instead of tagging if I'd known it was a duplicate. Bearcat 03:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I was speaking of the anon IP. The contributer seems to be focussed on making Hale School a great article, and making sure every famous person who ever went to Hale School is recognised as such. Despite the single-minded focus, previous edits have been valid contributions. Hesperian 23:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, with the reservation that if information is present in the deleted article but not the "original", that it be preserved. Avriette Thu Feb 10 02:43:30 GMT 2005
  • Merge and redirect to Walter James. Megan1967 06:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is not a case for VfD. Be bold! Mikkalai 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thankyou Mikkalai - I have been bold. Walter Hartwell-James has been merged into Walter James. Walter Hartwell-James is now a redirect (which doesn't work because it still has subst:vfd in it). You may wish to consider the matter closed, and remove this VFD. Or you might wish to continue this VFD, in which case you will be voting for/against the deletion of a redirect. Hesperian 00:20, 11 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 18:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Story Of MY Life

Hoax. No Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB for "Story Of MY Life" or "Paul Grobman". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paul Grobman. Rhobite 02:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, someone's either trying to sell a pilot, or larking about. Wyss 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real show in Lithuania.
    • Comment It would have been nice to have this vote signed. I wonder if this is the same show they are refering to. There is no reference to Lithuania in the article. The Jacobin 02:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • The keep vote was by the author of the article. Rhobite 03:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete is the story of my life too it seems, lately. —RaD Man (talk) 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. --bainer 04:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A Lituanian TV series starring the voices of Paul Grobman, Hal Stevenson, Adam Letcher, Alice Joyce... An animated series with a schoolkid protagonist named Bart? I'm going to have think long and ha Delete. Samaritan 04:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I'm sure the Hannukah episode plays real well in Lithuania. Rhobite 04:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, If no Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 08:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Story of MY Life: How my article was deleted on VFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:06, 15 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 18:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Grobman

Hoax/vanity. No Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB for "Story Of MY Life" or "Paul Grobman". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Story Of MY Life. Rhobite 02:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, see prior entry. Wyss 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. --bainer 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. Samaritan 04:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, If no Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 08:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Carrp | Talk 04:07, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TAMER M RASHDAN

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 02:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he's a swell chap, but nothing remotely close to meriting an entry in Wikipedia. Delete. older≠wiser 02:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the CV. Wyss 02:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 03:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice guy...but he didn't read Da Roolz. - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this guy is not-notable. The first thing that comes to my mind when reading it is "So what?" Zzyzx11 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not important, needs to turn the caps lock off. Average Earthman 10:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much a textbook example of a vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:08, 15 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 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dunlop

This pagename is a brand of a musical audio effect product. The device is a brand of Wah-wah pedal which is redirected to the musical effect Wah-wah. It probably could be Merged into Wah-wah if someone thinks that it is a notable brand, otherwise Delete. Another factor is that the Dunlop brand is more highly recognized for automobile tires. hydnjo talk 02:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and/or Delete. hydnjo talk 03:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep. See below
  • 25500 web hits for +Dunlop +"wah-wah". Merge and keep as disambiguation (also to John Boyd Dunlop of the tire empire and John Thomas Dunlop who was briefly in Gerald Ford's cabinet). Samaritan 04:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur Kappa 07:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 06:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup into disambig page. In addition to Dunlop tires, there's Dunlop golf balls, and lots more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup into disambiguation. There's also prominent Australian war hero Edward "Weary" Dunlop and the suburb Dunlop, Australian Capital Territory which is named after him. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if someone starts a Dunlop disambib page then I think this article should be moved to Dunlop pedal - hydnjo talk 01:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Dunlop Manufacturing, Inc. and Jim Dunlop for articles about this product. It seems to be pretty fragmented (spread around under several pagenames) right now and with links from musicians (eg:Jimmy Hendrix) to articles other than this Dunlop article. Is there any reason not to move this to Dunlop pedal right now, withdraw the VFD, and then try to tie the other articles together in some way? hydnjo talk 01:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. ☺ Rewritten article. Keep. Uncle G 20:01, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote after the work done by Uncle G. Thanks Uncle. I still think that Dunlop Manufacturing, Inc. needs to be linked to Wah-wah and Wah-wah pedal because of its prominence as a brandname for those effects and devices. hydnjo talk 23:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Added some links with thanks to Uncle G for the framework. hydnjo talk 01:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work! =) --Andylkl 07:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's nice to see a rehabilitated page. Carrp | Talk 04:09, 15 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 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enneacontakaienneagon and Hecatontakaitriacontakaioctagon and Heptacontakaiheptagon and Tetracontakaihexagon and Triacontakaiheptagon and Icosikaitetragon and Heptacontagon

Not notable, and not used (if mathematicians ever needed to refer to these, they'd call them a 77-gon, 99-gon and a 138-gon, etc. etc.)). -- Curps 02:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:Polygons if there are any more that are not notable.

Once again, these terms are not used even by mathematicians. They just refer to N-gons, where N is whatever the number is. Probably it would make sense to delete anything where N > 10 (with some exceptions, see comments below). -- Curps 02:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, silly. Wyss 02:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid. --Woohookitty 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism dicdefs. Gazpacho 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • IANAM' but there was one hit on Google groups for Enneacontakaienneagon The Jacobin 03:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the individual articles, but there must be an article on compound words where they can be, at least, listed for trivia's sake. There's a similar article (I forget the exact title) dealing with names for very large numbers that are never used in any practical sense. 23skidoo 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; agree with Curps except I'd preserve the dodecagon and make the rule N > 12. (Is that nitpicking?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, that makes sense. -- Curps 04:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But also keep N=17 (notable), and perhaps N=20, N=100, N=1000 (see comment below). -- Curps 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, silly. Follow Jpgordon's suggestion of making the rule N > 12. --Idont Havaname 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OK N>12, but keep circle. Kappa 04:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a few N>12 that we'd want to keep. In particular, heptadecagon (17-gon), because Gauss showed that this can be constructed with a ruler-and-compass, and asked for one of these to be inscribed on his tombstone. "Heptadecagon" gets a reasonable number of google hits because of this. Icosagon (20-gon) also gets a reasonable number of Google hits, perhaps because it's a relatively simple word, as does hectagon (100-gon), and oddly chiliagon (1000-gon) gets a very large number. Really, it's the bizarre random-number ones (138-gon???) that are the main problem. -- Curps 06:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article whence these names came from is Polygon — it seems someone's just created the articles for a lark. All the strange-numbered polygons should be deleted and de-linked, since there's nothing encyclopaedic to say about them. Raven42 07:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Curps. Mark1 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There's nothing here that's not already covered under Polygon, which also includes a little formula on how to construct these names. I wouldn't want an article about every single polygon up to the googolgon (1e100 sides). I linked two of these to my own user page for a lark, but I have no problems with deleting all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 14:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the corresponding number pages, and update links on the polygon page to match. (e.g. merge on 24 (number) for Icosikaitetragon.) Note that there are multiple hits on Icosikaitetragon in google. — RJH 18:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are 109 hits for "Icosikaitetragon" in Google, which isn't a lot, and a number of them seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia's Polygon article. -- Curps 19:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge these not-notable ones all to an article on such words as 23skidoo suggested, also Merge them to the corresponding number pages as RJHall suggested. But Keep the commonly used ones where N = 12, 17, 20, 100, 1000, and 1e100, and make sure the retained articles provide evidence of notability such as Gauss's construction, or approximations of a circle when trying to "square the circle". I used to play D&D but that doesn't mean I think its polyhedral dice are encyclopedic, let alone polygons. Barno 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge all the polygon articles into one article listing all of the polygons that have very long names. - Latitude0116 12:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • IHNPAMOT. Nothing useful to merge. Redirects are pointless. Remove the hyperlinks to these articles from polygon; remove the other dangling hyperlinks from polygon, to reduce temptation; and Delete. Uncle G 17:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Merge. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, silly constructable terms Jok2000 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all except the ones mentioned by User:Curps, do not merge or redirect the deleted ones. This is a prank. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete N>17, but not 20, 100, 1000 Jonathan48 09:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary this is a definition article... -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete extrapolationcruft. I'm wondering if we can formulate a policy on articles of this kind; that is, there is articles whose only content is to define a name which can be formed by a regular process from any number. Wiktionary does not need "definitions" of terms that are never actually used. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No fewer than 4 days have gone by since the most recent vote, and no fewer than 9 days since voting began. Yet, this deletion debate has not gotten a consensus yet. What happened?? Georgia guy 16:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we create a Redirect, whcih will redirect us to a merged article, for example, Polygons: 90-99? Androo123 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Korath (Talk) 20:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Joyful Child Foundation

Seems like a vanity article. Non-notable organization. My vote is delete. Spinboy 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Samantha Runnion was just up for deletion a few days ago. This article was created as a result of a suggestion in that VfD debate. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samantha Runnion. --Idont Havaname 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Organization appears to be notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (IMHO). —RaD Man (talk) 04:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They were on GMA. - RedWordSmith 04:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 04:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, less than 240 Google hits - sorry just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 06:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote this article after Katefan0 and Idont Havaname suggested that we merge the Samantha Runnion article into an article on the Joyful Child Foundation. I created this article as a consequence - I have no connection with it. My personal preference was to keep the article as it was a widely reported case and the trial is still ongoing with the potential for it to be a capital case going on for years. As the Foundation has 50 childwatch programs established in Southern California with plans to do more, I thought it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 13:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 15:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete a page on a non-profit with a fairly significant outreach and that has links to a crime that had some news coverage. Katefan0 18:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 20:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 04:11, 15 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. (Just kidding. KEEP) dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isolecithal and centrolecithal

Redirect both. A couple of very Wiki-worthy terms which it has apparently never heard of. Could someone please define them but is it in Egg (biology) or Ovum. (I didn't know mammals laid eggs but MSN Encarta mentions mammals as well. VfD is probably not the right place for this but it is a popular place so this request may get noticed.) -- RHaworth 03:18, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • Comment yes one mammal does produce eggs, the platypus, no vote as yet. Megan1967 06:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Isolechithal. Looks like a spelling mistake of Isolecithal. Centrolecithal does exist - 13,600 Google hits. It's the food yolk placed at the centre of an ovum. Megan1967 06:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • My spelling mistake has now been corrected - thank you. -- RHaworth 08:13, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be willing to expand both articles by tomorrow night. Just stubs at the moment. Megan1967 09:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you want to redirect, then just do it. VFD is long enough as it is, please don't fill it up with things that aren't deletions. sjorford:// 10:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Both articles have potential, keep. Leanne 22:03, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Humanist League Manifesto

The article's creator, 24.236.152.155, has been on a spree to hype his "Under Construction" website and some guy (probably himself, but that's speculation). Advertising/non-notable. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 04:06 Z

  • Delete. 1 Google hit for title of article, non-notable, POV, advertising. Quite an obvious delete with this one. --Idont Havaname 04:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, vanity. --bainer 04:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling around I see that there are some 'humanist leagues' in Europe but I don't get the sense that this site has anything to do with them. It's just an under construction page with one link asking for a donation. --Lee Hunter 04:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A social/political ad/attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. Delete. Samaritan 04:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost a cool band name, though. Wyss 20:49, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spambellish

DicDef for a neologism. No hits on Google. --Lee Hunter 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Although, possibly merge with spam? --bainer 04:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Wyss 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. dpol 02:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:11, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This article can not be deleted due to block-compression errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Electron/temp

Time to go? Looks like done. Mikkalai

  • Delete. Looks like merge has been completed already. Do not leave redirect. jni 10:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:41, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anabolic (band)

Failed VFD once due to not enough votes. See: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anabolic (band)/Old -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 05:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article provides overwhelming evidence of vanity. Wyss 20:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the article does not meet the guidelines of WikiProject:Music. Tuf-Kat 09:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Out of curiosity, why was the previous vote tallied up to 2-1? Does the nomination of an article to VfD not count as a vote for deletion? — Ливай | ☺ 11:37, 15 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.

The votes were 13 delete, 9 keep.

Diane Mela and Robin Gabrielli

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living persons. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albert Luo

Article on just some ordinary Harvard undergrad, Delete, would be nice of it could be a speedy.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This guy is not-notable. All I can say is "So what?" and "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 08:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a winner, but not encyclopedic. Katefan0 18:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 20:38, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belokk (Mortal Kombat character)

This is a videogame character that never even made it into said videogame - which itself does not have an article as I write this. Hence this is all minor, non-notable videogame trivia. CDC (talk) 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, minor fictious character, fancruft. Megan1967 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put a minor note in the relevant game article when it's written, but if he didn't make it into the game, we don't need an article about him. Mgm|(talk) 08:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-canonical or hopelessly minor character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this cruft. Wyss 20:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Microcruft if not an outright hoax. My son used to delight in beating me senseless at this game and, as such, I became familiar with the lineup. I have never heard of such a character. That goes for the secret ones, too. - Lucky 6.9 21:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If he doesn't actually exist, it seems ridiculous to include him in an encyclopedia. -- Cabhan 05:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fatality... Carrp | Talk 13:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL!! Flawless victory! - Lucky 6.9 18:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC

It should stay as they have fictional stuff like ET in Wikipedia!

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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beertools

Looks like advertising for a website. CDC (talk) 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All advertising. Nothing notable. Zzyzx11 08:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- blah! Free advertising. Katefan0 18:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this five-day free ad which'll inevitably make its way onto a couple of infrequently maintained WP mirrors and waft around the Internet for decades. Wyss 20:36, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hashim fakher hashim

A prank played on poor Hashim fakher hashim who, having a degree from "the prestigious University College London", would clearly never do something as silly as making a vanity page on Wikipedia about himself. (Unverifiable article on non-notable graduate student.) / up+land 05:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, whatever. Wyss 20:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, despite 0 google hits, our mysteriously unlisted friend also finds himself concurrently listed among famous UCL alumni stochata 00:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 13:19, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad movie warning signs

Original research. Neutralitytalk 06:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - inherently incapable of being NPOV. DAVODD 06:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only objective thing in it is the bit about skipping critic screening, but really that just applies to reliably predict that critics will pan the movie, not that the movie itself is in any objective way "bad". If there's some article somewhere on film criticism, that could be mentioned there. The rest is irredeemibly POV. Postdlf 07:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, inherently POV , etc. etc. etc. Szyslak 08:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Echo all the above comments. I can think of great films that break all of these rules. But I must admit I do have an odd taste in films. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mildly amusing fluff, mostly original research and anecdote. Wyss 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Especially since the category it's in is linked from Wikipedia:Unusual articles. There is a feature article currently in the Christian Science Monitor about Unusual articles. Zanimum 00:19, 2005 Feb 11 (according to history Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))
  • I'd like to know where Wikipedia:Original research article warning signs is. Delete. Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many reasons, all discussed above. Carrp | Talk 04:12, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stuart Reid

also Stuart reid Vanity/not-notable.--ZayZayEM 06:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rhobite 06:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 06:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Hoary 08:51, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed with ZayZayEM. Mgm|(talk) 08:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not establish notability. - Jpo 14:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Careful, this guy attempted to change the votes. Grue 17:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Wyss 20:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:13, 15 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. I think I'll merge it.

The votes were 4 delete, 3 merge, 2 keep. dbenbenn | talk 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stephanie Bellegarrigue

Copilot of a plane that crashed, taking her with it. A sad story, but I think not a notable one. -- Hoary 08:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 09:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can merge it into the article about the golfer her airplane was carrying (Payne Stewart)? Mgm|(talk) 13:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't see any harm in including her name in the Payne Stewart article -- the other pilot too for that matter. Katefan0 18:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge it into the golfer aarticle, she wasn't encyclopedic as a co-pilot. Wyss 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. How quickly people forget. What was notable about the incident was that the aircraft flew with both pilots dead for over 1,400 miles; Bellegarrigue was one of those pilots. Dan100 20:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that she isn't notable for anything other than the crash. So I fail to see how she merits her own entry, whether she flew while dead or not (can the FAA ticket for that?). Katefan0 21:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, can't it be merged with Payne Stewart? Please...[user:twinjalanugraha]
  • Delete. Sad? Yes. Notable? No. Merge? Perhaps. Carrp | Talk 04:14, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Six by nine. Forty-two.

I had redirected this to The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything and placed it on redirects for deletion, but I guess that's cheating when the article contains so much material. Delete this unuseful spelling. Gazpacho 08:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, duplicates content. Wyss 20:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page was created only to fill an empty link. I am aware of the fact that it duplicates info. However, if one intends to link to something, one should make sure there is something to link to. I was merely cleaning up after someone else. 

                              -ManetherinBlade

--The leopard watches in satisfaction. 04:00, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Le Joshua

Mistake. Very notable and influential Los Angeles punk band.

  • The above edit is by anon user 68.68.216.55, the creator of this article, NOT RickK. Szyslak 01:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable teen band. RickK 08:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Nateji77 12:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band's website has .tk domain. Band isn't signed to record label. Does not reach notability standards of the Wikiproject Music. Mgm|(talk) 13:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not close yet. Wyss 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as bandcruft, even though they're from my old neck of the woods. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typical bandity. Szyslak 01:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 03:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:14, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voes

A term being used for unpleasant, yet not extreme feelings. If someone's behaviour makes you uncomfortable, and so that person makes you think: "i really don't need this, " then that person is VOES. Etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Hoary 09:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • It also isn't a repository of nonsense. Delete. RickK 09:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently a made-up word, article provides no explanation of who uses it and doesn't know what an adverb is. Kappa 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, probable neologism as well, no useful content or history. Andrewa 10:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand how this page tributed to the already wealthy Wikipedia community, besides i know what Voes is, it's dutch (Belgian) slang and has flew over to the States over the years. Steefje 12.30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...comment actually added at 11:44, 2005 Feb 10 by User:84.194.89.38
  • Transwiki to Dutch or Belgian Wiktionary if they want it. Dic def. Mgm|(talk) 13:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm still going with delete as inadequately informative. Note that definitions written in English go in the English wiktionary. Kappa 18:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree. I've sent the contributor, a self-confessed newcomer, a welcome, and I think one of our fellows owes them an apology for what he hastily wrote above. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, way obscure slang dicdef. Wyss 20:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, not in real use. Compare Tuulk above... I'd accept verifiable evidence that the word actually is being used in the U.S. but none has yet been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no, that's not Dutch or Belgian either. 212.206.63.108 10:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Carrp | Talk 04:15, 15 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brian Gillis

Vanity. RickK 09:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Righty-o. Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:46, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael C Molesky

Is he really notable ? Can this ever become an encyclopedic article ? JoJan 09:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • ULTRA EXTREME KEEP. Notable and verifiable (from what I can tell). By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong (and cite references).
  • EXTREME DELETE. Not notable nor is it verifiable (from what I can tell). By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong (and cite references). —RaD Man (talk) 09:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Google finds some hits, all of them seem to be unrelated. jni 10:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is notable only for the number of times it uses the word notable without ever justifying the claim. Andrewa 10:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. - Jpo 13:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article provides no evidence for its encyclopedic claims. Wyss 19:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established by the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Michael C Molesky is very famous in the Oxford area due to his involvement in the most contraversial elections in Oxford's history. He has developed a cult following, with parties and events held in his honour.
  • Delete. Based on current article, Google search and links cited on article page. If being quoted in the Cherwell is notable, every one of the 10,000 students in Oxford is. JuntungWu 04:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, people are notable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:51, 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.



Round One

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. —Korath (Talk) 20:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

B.J. Eversole

Is he notable ? Looks like vanity. JoJan 09:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problem having it removed; I (like almost everyone in my party save perhaps David McReynolds) am not notable. It wasn't for vanity as much as it was a small joke associated with a lack of sleep. I wanted to have a Wikipedia article for my party, and just for kicks made a stub article with my name; I figured that it would be marked for deletion anyway. I am the real Chairman of the Socialist Party of North Carolina, a real (albeit small) political party. Thanks to the person who found my letter and expanded the article; it almost makes me look important. I have seen Wikipedia articles for truly famous or important people that are shorter than mine. After looking at it I am impressed; it will almost be a shame to see it go (hell, I'll throw in a photo if it is not deleted); but I can certainly see reason to remove it. If it is deleted, do not put any of it in Socialist Party of North Carolina; none of it is important enough to be included in the article.

One other thing: Please, Please do not delete the party's article or merge it into the Socialist Party USA; I believe that we are distinct enough from our national party to deserve our own article. --Bjeversole 06:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 09:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's turning into not a bad article, and there is room for it here. It's not like we're running out of space. If we can have all of those blessed articles on fantasy gaining characters, we should have room for political activists who engage in the fantasy of socialism. Kevintoronto 14:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My own belief is that being a leader of a registered political party operating at the state or national level, even a minor one, should suffice to merit an entry whether they're elected to a legislative body or not. I wouldn't support having an article for every individual who's ever run as a party candidate in an election, but party leaders pass my keep line. Bearcat 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Bearcat. CJCurrie 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, leaders of registered state political parties are noteworthy. Shimeru 20:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, this is the sort of detail that makes wikipedia valuable in that it can be included here where in other encyclopedia space considerations would lead to exclusion. AndyL 02:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worth keeping as it is a good little article. What does B.J. stand for, I wonder?Capitalistroadster 08:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my original request for Vfd. The article has been expanded in a positive way. If the author would only add his photo, then I can say Keep JoJan 09:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. 68 hits on google. [3] GRider\talk 23:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has been expanded. Carrp | Talk 04:17, 15 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_10&oldid=10126245"