Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

[[:|WP:VFD]]

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

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

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

Current votes - Oct. 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th

Old votes - 18^th 17^th 16^th 15^th 3^rd Sept. 24^th

VfD history is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion history archive 2004-09-20. Jamesday
Archived deletion debates (effectively a list of deleted articles) can be found at Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates.

Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May, 2004 and 20 September, 2004. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_September_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

October 19

Lourdes Trujillo proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. 1 vote by User:207.189.98.44 was disregarded, because the user was not signed in. Postdlf 01:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lourdes Trujillo

Girlfriend of a rock singer. Someone's been putting up bunches of information about this band and their girlfriends: Nick Gigler, Lydia Wilson, Joel Madden, The Movielife, Lola's...Perhaps the band is notable, perhaps the leader is, but the fiancee and girlfriend of one or another? The clothing line the girlfriend of one started? I don't quite think so... --jpgordon {gab} 00:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete this, along with Lydia Wilson and Lola's. Definitely keep Joel Madden, and maybe keep Nick Gigler and The Movielife, not sure about those. Everyking 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete all but Joel Madden. Not notable, and we don't need to reward a fan. I'd rather see even the Joel Madden stuff folded into Good Charlotte, but it's not requisite . Geogre 19:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep all. anthony (see warning) 23:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Deleting any person whose notability is second hand only seems good at first take, but I would think there needs to be a line drawn, so we don't delete for instance Mary Todd or Yoko Ono. I think keep the band members and unless they are notable in some other way than being the girlfriend of a musician, delete the girlfriends, at most they deserve a mention in the article on the musician they are dating. But caution against phrases like "is the girlfriend" or "is dating", as those will be dated references, prefer "began dating in 2004" as that will remain true even in 2100
Keep all - David Gerard 07:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: If she created a clothes line then surely that makes her notable, or at the very least verifiable. I have asked User:68.117.7.30 to provide a refernce to the clothes line becuase i could find none on google (which doesnt mean that it doesnt exist). The mest however is well and truely a real and verifiable band. The bellman 08:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Lourdes, Lola's, and Lydia. We are not a gossip column and don't need to report who's bonin' who this week. Delete Movielife if not deemed notable and expanded. No vote on Nick. Also, creating a clothes line does not make someone notable unless the clothes line is notable. In this case their notability of each seems to rest on the notability of the other. A circular argument. -R. fiend 18:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
fRiend has it exactly right. Delete. — Bill 21:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Skewer. -Joseph (Talk) 02:51, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Keep - article about a real person. 207.189.98.44 17:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If the clothing line really takes off, she might be notable eventually, but not now. The Movielife, by the way, was a fairly well-known band with a large national following. Isomorphic 23:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. YPB was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 01:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

YPB

Nonsense. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Only a result was found by googling for "YPB" and "You Poor Bastard" together. --Andylkl 13:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Kiddie wiki. Neologism. Geogre 19:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonsence.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete humor, the external reference is to a site with "humor" in it's title banner. Unless it can be shown to be widely used jargon, let's not add this to our repository of culture. We leave it here, and it WILL become widely used jargon.Pedant 00:00, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mahashivratri The Many Camels of Je-Hash Kabib was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 3 votes to delete. Article was already speedy deleted by the end of debate. Postdlf 02:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Many Camels of Je-Hash Kabib

Zero hits. Likely prank related to David Green (see next nomination). Niteowlneils 03:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encyclopedian, (likely) original and badly written short story. jni 10:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Konstant Weader fwow'd up. Useless, non-encyclopedic butchery of the English language. Geogre 19:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Biography NA‑class

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Untitled

David Green was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP AS CHANGED. 5 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete (all prior to edit by User:Anthony DiPierro). Postdlf 02:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David Green

Common name hard to google, but the first book title gets zero hits, and the second, when combined with his name, finds nothing relevant. Likely prank related to The Many Camels of Je-Hash Kabib (see prior nomination). Niteowlneils 03:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Vanity abuse. Geogre 19:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I'm sure there's someone named David Green. anthony (see warning) 23:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony has replaced the nonsense with a sane disambig. page. --Ianb 23:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is the kinda work I like to see, good save. —siroχo 23:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep now. good work.Pedant
Keep. Agree with Siroxo! It's refreshing to see people do the right thing here! Radman1 18:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. PRFT was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 02:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PRFT

I can't find anything to verify this--PRFT gaming -perficient riprock gets zero hits, and other combinations didn't seem to find anything relevant either. Niteowlneils 03:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I can find no trace of this either. P. Riis 16:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: There was a "Flintstones" character named Dash Riprock, and there was a punk musician by that name. Possibly the latter, and possibly someone else entirely, has written a fiction. Ok. Not notable. 19:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. not notable -R. S. Shaw 22:55, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense, vanity. "Dash Riprock" was one of the default player names in the original Escape Velocity too, BTW. 19:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wait possibly not-notable, and I assume Dash Riprock is a pseudonym, but it's a common pseudonym apparently. And something about this seems to ring a bell... I suggest waiting a few days until ILIAD has a chance to finish a thorough search. Suggest the author expand this article in the meantime, to aid in other editors being able to see it's alleged notability. It seems I read some mention of this in print somewhere very recently... possibly in Wired or Animation magazine? I think it would be good to give this one a week (thats how long the longest ILIAD search seems to take.).Pedant 00:52, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- I found this - http://prft.co.uk/ not quite sure what to make of it, sound kinda similar to the article, but i dunno. The bellman 08:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Pup Named Charlie

I think this is a hoax. --jpgordon {gab} 04:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With nothing even remotely matching on IMDb, I think you're right. Delete. Ian Pugh 05:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't exist. Interesting hoax, though! ClockworkTroll 05:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete; self-defensive hoax. Eventually hoaxers are going to find much better formulas, and we'll have to develop much better defenses; a bit like the history of codes and code-breaking. — Bill 12:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. GRider 21:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Bogus. -R. S. Shaw 22:43, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Delete unless an external link is added which verifies its existence. (See RickK, I vote delete sometimes) anthony (see warning) 23:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. alleged is a classic "weasel word". --Ianb 23:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Where is the text? This is not a speedy delete is it? Then why is there still an entry on vfd, when the article is blanked? I remember the recent Terry Teene discussion, where his entry was deleted despite being nominated to the Rock and Roll hall of fame, and his having written and performed more songs than Madonna... simply because there was 'no mention of him on the web'... though his albums are still fetching 10 times their original retail value in good condition, and one of his songs being played every Hallowe'en by Dr. Demento. I'd like a chance to see the article before I vote. That's The Way We Do Things Here, right?Pedant 01:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Amen The bellman 08:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're both correct. However, this is non-existent and is therefore a speedy candidate. Admins, can one of you please repost the text here in the discuaasion? Frankly, I'm curious and these bogus articles couched as fact worry me. I vote delete no matter what. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Boone

- I missed a whole bunch of text and am altering my summary statement. Please have patience on this one as the 'pedia is running slowly! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Boon was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 9 to keep, 9 to delete, 2 to redirect.

Whether to keep or delete is 50/50. There appear to be two main camps here: those who wish to keep because they think the topic needs it's own article, or because they think this is of reasonably good quality. Those who wish to delete largely want to delete because it is "fancruft" (a site discussed to store fancruft on was proposed: "Wikicruft"). It appears that this whole deletion issue has been resolved by the editors of the article, as a redirect has been setup to Mars trilogy and all the material in this article, Red Mars, Blue Mars and Green Mars was merged into this. (apologies to editors - I missed a whole section of text in this VfD). Basically, the consensus on this one was split down the middle in the keep/delete camps and the merge & redirect seems to be a decent compromise.

Merge & redirect (already done). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. As another Wiki member so eloquently put it, "Unless the character somehow transcends the book or series (Paul Bunyan, George Babbitt, Don Quixote) to become a cultural icon independent of the original work it appeared in, this is nothing more than Wiki contributors indulging and memorializing their personal tastes with an article." In other words, Fancruft. Radman1 04:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. On this basis, the entire Middle Earth canon could be safely excised, with maybe the exception of Gandalf and some of the more notable shorty hairy things with big feet. John Boone imo is an extremely important character in a major piece of science fiction, in stature not far short of Paul Atreides of Dune, and more than worthy of retention. Boone is certainly a cultural icon within the sci fi community and has certainly permeated beyond those margins. Moreover, Boone characterises a particular planetary ecological viewpoint which has considerable importance from the point of view of evaluating responsible usage of resources etc. He is moreover the subject of serious social analysis: q.v. STS and Utopian thinking, Ellsworth R. Fuhrman in Social Epistemology Volume 13, Number 1 / January 1, 1999 pp. 85 -93. This looks like an exceedingly spurious Vote for Deletion, verging on trolling or certainly time-wasting. Shall we add God or Christianity on the basis that they are spurious fancruft next???? Sjc 05:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't go over the top, it doesn't help your argument. You sound more like a troll for the over the top accusation and the ludicrous comparison to God (here's a question - how many wars have been started in the name of John Boone?). Does anyone have any cites of the use of this character separate to the books apart from in the occasional esoteric and not widely read journal? Average Earthman 08:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - God is just a character in a work of fiction. :) Moreover the current discussion regarding fictional characters in Village Pump is salient to this and a number of other articles currently in VfD. There is no logical reason whatsoever for this appearing in VfD. Sjc 09:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So remove the entire middle earth canon. It's fancruft. As for the religions, they are notable and known to people who are not fans of their foundational works, and so religious detail is pretty distinct from fancruft. I like Radman1's metric. Delete as fancruft. Eventually we'll get around to zapping most of the Star Wars/Trek cruft too, I hope. --Improv 15:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Boone is not notable outside the context of the Kim Stanley Robinson novels. So merge him into Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. Or even better, merge all four articles into one called Mars trilogy. Gdr 08:59, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC) P.S. If User:Radman1 were willing to actually do the work and merge the articles then he wouldn't need to propose a vote for deletion.
Delete. This is a resurrection of a debate we had three months ago, and I personally merged every Red Mars separate character page into the Red Mars main page because the little tiny stubs of every single character were pointless. Including this one. So I did the work, and I'm mighty peeved to see people reviving the pages when the debate's been had, and the pages merged. Sheesh, doesn't anyone read talk pages before going ahead and editing? I'm a big fan of the character of John Boone, but even I know Fancruft when I see it. I know of no significant influence this character has had outside the text itself, either culturally, socially or intertextually with other literature. Sure, if there was a vast sub-culture of 'Booneheads' who went to 'Red Mars' conventions dressed in Mars Walkers and spent their time debating the finer points of omegendorph-popping, then you could argue for an entry under the 'cultural' category. But it ain't so. Just merge the pages back into Red Mars and lets rid the wiki space of the ramblings of fictional characters that have no influence outside the texts in which they were created. </rant>. Mercurius 10:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep, its a reasonably long article, and theres no good reason to delete it. This is not a stub, so there is no clear reason to merge it. As has been acknowledged time and again, one of the great aspects of Wikipedia is that it can contain encyclopedic articles about less notable topics than a traditional encyclopedia. Fancruft or whatever you wanna call it, I still vote keep on this article. —siroχo 11:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- There's a Shock. Has there ever been an article you HAVE voted to delete? "wiki is not paper". Even paper has higher standards. Terrapin 19:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft; but since the English-language Wikipedia likes fancruft (none of the others seem to have this problem: probably because far fewer children outside the US have access to computers), I vote for Gdr's suggestion: merge any useful bits into a Mars trilogy. — Bill 12:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting point about toleration of fancruft in different Wikipedias. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Gee, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day. I sure appreciate you mature response. Seriously, could we address this without personal attacks? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- And as we all know no one outside the US contributes to en.wikipedia.org, in fact no one outside the US even speaks english. I am also sure that the poor and impovrished people of japan, korea, germany, france, finland, australia, norway, england, italy, denmark, New Zealand, Israel, Canada... cant possibly afford to give thier children computers, becuase thier living standards are so far below that of the US The bellman 08:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Hmm, didn't mean to start anything here — all of this now hopelessly off-topic — but this Swiss-born French interpreter and Italophile who learned to read and write in Spanish in Mexico, and who's lived much of his life outside the US wouldn't dream of saying such a thing; it didn't occur to me until you said it.... The standards of living are fine: but have you priced Internet connections in Italy for example? I have. Cable is also much less common overseas (as I can tell from watching my server logs), and parents still somewhat less permissive than in the States. Put it all together, and it's undeniable, far fewer pre-teens using computers outside the States. We need not confuse the equal value of people and of cultures, with observed facts as to Web use! — Bill
Keep. Doesn't fulfill any of the criteria for deletion. And what will be achieved by deleting this article? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and is not running out of space. You are not going to stumble into this article unless you search for "John Boone" or you follow a link from the trilogy. There is no clutter - because it's not like a book. You don't have to turn pages and filter stuff out.--Tomheaton 16:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Just like to note that this has survived Vfd before. Also, I'd appreciate if Radman would cease listing articles for deletion simply because I worked on them; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Spinsane, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Remorse 1981 (and the retaliatory Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Doink the Clown). That said, I can understand that some users think this sort of article merits deletion--I don't mean to attack any legitimate delete voters. However, I'm going to register my opinion and disagree. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Someone should start a Wikicruft project. -- WOT 17:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable fancruft. I can't believe someone compared him to God. Where's the "user ignore" button? Terrapin 19:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weak Delete: We allow articles on fictions strictly on the basis of whether Wikipedians like them. That's what I've learned. We sure don't do it on a rational basis. People write up every stinking joke from their favorite movies as an article. They put up every character, every weapon, every article of clothing, etc. from the game they're playing. Then the VfD debate takes place, and we hear that Wikipedia isn't paper and that there are many people who play/read that thing. I personally address this two ways. One is coverage at all, and the other is a break out. Coverage I agree with. Let's cover those super power bracers of gloom #4 with phase shift. However, let's not break them out into long, detailed articles unless, and I say this every time, they are topics known outside of their fictions. You put them outside their fictions in articles when they're known outside their fictions. If this character is known by the whole science fiction reading community, then it can be a separate article. If not, then it just doesn't make any sense to have it as a separate article. It's not a value judgment: it's a question of whether people will seek and need the information on this common name to refer to this specific thing. A recurrent character in a series of novels is far better off than the single character of Vosk in Star Trek, and that's why this is a weak delete. Geogre 19:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm with WOT, 100%. There seems to be no solution to the flood of this stuff other than to let it inhabit its own world apart. It will have some value in a coupla hundred years to scholars analysing popular culture, just like 18c English broadsheets and scurrilous ditties do now: but it still won't be encyclopedic. I'm not sure that you mightn't have been joking, WOT, but a Wikicruft project is an idea we could take seriously; if we don't do something soon, there's a real danger of undermining the credibility of Wikipedia, and its appeal to serious contributors. — Bill 20:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is certainly an option. However, as I've stated before, one of the major problems is, what would its exact mission be? To serve fancruft? That would be useless in itself - Incidentally, there's already a "Wikipedia" style place for Joss Whedon's works, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. To serve television shows? Maybe, but then no one would post there except for the die-hard fans of cult TV shows - who would do this sort of thing for The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis? However, the major point that Bill makes - to help Wikipedia's credibility - may be reason enough alone. I won't vote here, since it's survived VfD before. But, such as it stands. Ian Pugh 23:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I have said before, a separate wiki will not be a truly viable option until the different wikis are more closely connected. At the moment, it is difficult for the average person to get from one to the next, and searches here would not bring up results from a fandom-specific separate encyclopedia. Also we would have to fight over the exact limits, and what goes where. (Besides, it's bad articles that damage credibility, whether they are about literary characters or concepts in physics.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete as transparent fancruft. GRider 21:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, Yes I know I tend to vote delete on this kind of thing, but this is a revenge posting and has survived vfd before (Meelar, do you have a link for the discussion.) -Vina 22:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See Talk:John Boone. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It attempts to be a serious discussion of the character, not just a reporting of the facts. Just because I don't much care doesn't mean it should be deleted. Mars exploration may not belong to the realm of science fiction much longer, and when it's in the news again, we'll be glad to have such information on Mars-travel science fiction. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Red Mars, as he only appears there. -Sean Curtin 01:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Aranel. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's clearly labeled as being about a fictional character, so I don't think it undermines Wikipedia's credibility with serious contributors. Some of the discussions about God probably hurt our credibility more. (I don't mean that God should be deleted; I mean that there are probably passages about God, in that article or others, that a knowledgeable scholar of religion would consider absurd.) JamesMLane 07:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I merged John Boone, Red Mars, Blue Mars and Green Mars into a new article called Mars trilogy. I took the liberty of removing the VfD tag since the issue is now moot; I hope that is OK. Gdr 22:17, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Acceptable, but only as long as the content remains. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Good Solution, so when do we remove this listing? Should have been done when the info was merged?Keep, and IMHO the term 'fancruft' is bantered about too much. Don't we have a Mycroft Holmes? If Arthur Conan Doyle were writing today, it would be 'fancruft' (and that jargon seems unsuitable even when accurate). I think the custom is not to be insulting on vfd, and whatever it means, fancruft would seem insulting to a newcomer. I've been here a while and it seems so to me. " John Boone" won't just pop up without looking for it, so I don't see it as being a detriment to our credibility.Pedant 02:09, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Pedant(continued): Ichabod Crane but not Lord Valentine or Captain Ahab? John Carter of Mars but not Thuvia, Maid of Mars, and though both the previous are titles of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs and are mentioned in WP, Thuvia is mentioned in Barsoom, Not in it's own article. Barsoom does not exist outside of the novels. Is "Barsoom" fancruft? No. Because it has entered into our cultural heritage. However, when Burroughs was writing about it, Barsoom was was not considered worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As I mentioned before Lucille Ball is not even mentioned in the World Book Encyclopedia, but is Lucille McGillicuddy fancruft? We have Gor and Oz and even Majipoor but no Lord Valentine even though he is the title character of the first book to mention Majipoor, and Majipoor is not the title of any book, but the Majipoor Chronicles -- which is the name by which the trilogy featuring Lord Valentine's rise is called -- doesn't have an article. Measure twice and cut once is what I say. Articles can always be deleted, but once they are deleted, it's a serious duplication of effort to recreate them. In most cases, simply the fact that an article has been created, and has been written well, and is factual even if it's about a fiction means it is notable. the exception of course being outright vanity articles or articles with misleading titles, etc. I think we should ease up on stamping out so-called 'fancruft'... and try to keep an open mind. I might not be interested in knowing that d2jsp.org provides bot scripts for playing Diablo 2, but then again, maybe I have heard of njaguar in another context, maybe he became famous for something else besides the Diablo 2 javascript parser...

I might think a discussion of Fermats Last Theorem is "mathcruft", does that make it not notable? But then I'm The Kind of Weirdo Who Sets His Browser's Home Page to Wikipedia's Random Page Becaus Everything is Notable] so I tend to be conservative when deleting, so I think User:Meelar's solution is excellent. I've been reading encyclopedias since the 60's, and I think the broader the topic base the better the encyclopedia. IMO many things dismissed as fancruft actually are a huge asset to wikipedia... a lot of people discover wikipedia by accident, searching for something that's obscure or meaningless to some, but which is of interest to them, including fancruft. I posit that the best way to improve the 'good-article-to-fancruft-ratio" is to write more articles about the things one personally finds to be notable and to spend less time deleting. Gardens need lots of weeding, when they are planted sparsely, but if you plant generously, the weeds are overshadowed by the 'good' plants and there is less weeding needed. More pruning, grafting and transplanting time.Pedant 02:09, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Nuke. -Joseph (Talk) 02:52, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Keep. There's a whole list of Harry Potter characters and the Lord of the Rings fancruft would make a wikipedia of its own. I entirely agree with Pedant. Interesting is very often in the eye of the beholder.Dr Zen 03:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Michael Böer was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 3 votes to delete, 1 vote to move article to its own talk page (?!). Postdlf 02:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael Böer

Nothing on Google, not notable. Allissonn 09:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. -- WOT 17:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. The only set greater than garage band members is former garage band members. Geogre 19:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to Talk:Michael Böer. anthony (see warning) 23:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Neolioberalismo

This is a badly formulated rant written in Portugese written by an anonymous editor. It became a redirect, and was then listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. We don't want to delete via this process as it sets a bad precedent. Rather than list as a speedy deletion (which I could delete) I'm listing this on VfD. I highly recommend deleting. There is really nothing to merge into Neoliberalism. If you want to see what the original article said (sort of) I put a google translation on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Why not speedily? P. Riis 16:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete GRider 21:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Quickly! This is nothing but vandalism. jni 13:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as quickly as possible. This is a waste of precious bandwidth. Aecis 16:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What are you on about? Wikipedia is not paper. - <ref>Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Priscus (general) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 3 votes to delete, nominator's vote unclear, but not keep. Postdlf 02:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Priscus (general)

This substub is about Priscus, who already has a pretty good detailed article. "(general)" is a red herring: this is not about any general named Priscus. I bet it should be a speedy delete, but I'm not positive enough about the niceties to do that. Note: no redirect, either: who would look for "Priscus (general)"? and any minor general by that name — I know of none, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were one — should be redirected to another article altogether. — Bill 12:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No content. P. Riis 16:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Article is about the wrong Priscus. The general was someone entirely different (see also Gibbon) and not especially noteworthy. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:34 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Barnsley Canal Consortium was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 3 votes to delete.

Barnsley Canal Consortium

Non noteable. The name has changed to Barnsley, Dearne & Dove Canals Trust according to their website [1] I feel all the relivant info should be placed in the canal articles (Barnsley Canal and Dearne and Dove Canal).Geni 12:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed, this is a news release, and one that's wrong. The canal projects were a big deal in the 18th c. and let the industrial revolution happen, etc. Now, this is a news release. Geogre 04:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As to what Geni mentioned. --*drew 04:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. 00ber (Pokémon) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. At least 9 votes to delete. 2 votes by users not signed in were disregarded, and policy comments by other were unclear on specificity to this deletion discussion. Unanimous results unchanged either way. Postdlf 02:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

00ber (Pokémon)

Nothing about this term really pertains to Pokémon. Googling turns up several thousand hits, but most of them are Wikipedia and mirrors, and the others have nothing to do with Pokémon. In conclusion, this is an inaccurately portrayed non-notable term, better suited for UrbanDictionary or somesuch. Delete. Andre (talk) 13:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - concur. The idea strikes of POV, as well. Ian Pugh 18:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I asked on the Talk page several days ago, why is this disambiguated at all? Delete. Rick K 21:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, eleminating "wikipedia" and a peice of text from the article still gives 960 pokémon hits[2] out of 2290 hits total[3], so it is often a pokémon-specific term, but I don't think the word is notable enough in any context to have an entry. Delete. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 08:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can't we pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze delete everything Pokémon-related? *sigh* Bearcat 06:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I second that 132.205.15.4 07:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I third, fourth and fifth that. Aecis 16:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - While I'm annoyed when people ask to delete everything Pokemon related, I dont care if this page gets deleted or not. No vote. WhisperToMe 04:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No, we really can't. Like it or not, Pokemon was a huge pop culture phenominon (and still is with young kids) deleting all pokemon related articles would be POV. Oh and by the way. Delete--66.30.53.137 23:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I grok that. I'm not arguing that Pokémon itself should be deleted. I just don't think we need a separate entry for every individual pokémon and every last little piece of pokémon-related trivia. Bearcat 21:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Amen, amen. All fandoms with massive amounts of minor information/characters should be merged into single articles such as List of Pokemon 000-050 Star Trek characters (minor) Star Wars ships (and so on, excepting major things such as Pikachu or Kirk or the Millenium Falcon) But I suppose that's a discussion for another time. PMC 23:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 15:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete, This is entirely non-specific to any one show/game. Even the best of gamers will call soemthing uber at some point (: —siro χ o 22:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Siroxo - I've heard people call certain celebrities uber. Non-specific to the nth degree. Delete. PMC 01:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Being a p00r st00dent, I'd agree it's t00 00ber-00ver-00sed in n00merous c00ntexts. Chris 02:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Persecution of Hindus

This article looks like spam for a website, but it could probably become something more. Someone that knows a bit about Hindu history should probably take a look at it. Paulr 14:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

on a copyvio notice. Dunc|☺ 16:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment. The article is already a copyvio that an anon user continues to vandalize by removing the copyvio notice. And the VfD message was never added to the article.--Lucky13pjn 00:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Kirisutan Holocaust was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 9 votes to keep, 2 votes to move to new title and keep, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 03:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kirisutan Holocaust

I think this is false anti-Japanese propaganda. I find no evidence that any such "holocaust" occurred; further, the editor's other contributions are all intensely pro-Korean anti-Japanese POV. --jpgordon {gab} 15:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Rename, perhaps, to "Kirishtan Holocaust", which seems to be the better-known name of the incident. JPG, it irks me that you asked my advice on what to do about this article and then ignored it when I replied that my research indicated some substantiation of the basic facts. If it's a "blood libel", as I pointed out, it's one that fooled the University of Redlands. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you submit another VfD based principally on the fact that you don't trust the editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (P.S. Oh, and it looks like the New York Times also agrees that the events you can "find no evidence" for happened -- and yes, I did check to find out if this was actually an article published in the NYT rather than a fake article assembled by a website determined on "blood libel".)

I'm sorry you're irked; I saw no response -- I guess that's why conversations here tend to happen in the disjointed "your talk page, my talk page" fashion. So I erred. That's why we vote on deletion -- because mistakes happen. --jpgordon {gab} 17:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I don't know anything about the actual events referred to, but the page appears to have a kernel of legitimacy. If it does, it would need a substantial rewrite. I am not sure about using the term "Holocaust" since most people associate that term with World War II and the Jewish (and gypsy, etc.) extermination. Mona-Lynn 20:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would agree; it clearly does need substantial rewriting. I suspect it may be much better known under some other name than either "Kirisutan Holocaust" or "Kirishtan Holocaust", and if we knew it, we'd have access to more than the one POV on the events; unfortunately, I haven't found many clues what that name would be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found this: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~stranger/mypage/chrinjap.htm Looks like a total dead about 3,000 and although people emotionally affected by this event appear to refer to it as the Kirishtan Holocaust, whether it's an unbiased or appropriate name would have to be investigated. Perhaps someone could move some of this discussion to the page's talk page once it's decided the article should be kept. Mona-Lynn 04:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This came to me in an e-mail from my Japanophile friend: "I do know a bit about the topic. I actually wrote a paper on the 'hidden Christians' that existed underground for a couple of centuries after the events spoken of. I don't know about the person's stats. I do know that a pretty substantial number of people were killed but the reasons and numbers are debatable. The greatest number were killed after the Chrisitan Daimyo on the Kyushu staged a rebellion. Lots and lots of people were killed but were they killed because they were Christians or because they were rebels?" Mona-Lynn 22:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, clean up. according to some dusty manuscripts in my possession I studied some Japanese history at college, and events along the lines described here did happen. The article Tokugawa Iemitsu contains a reference, no doubt there's more info somewhere. Ianb 20:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs work, yes, but this is a definite KEEP. GRider 01:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, maybe rename to Tokugawa persecution of Christians or somesuch, clean up and expand. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep or move to Tokugawa persecution of Christians. Not much of a holocaust, if it took 250 years and killed so few people. Hopefully rewrite so as not to be so one-sided. --Improv 16:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen the figure of 3000 people killed and I've seen the figure of one million people killed. I don't know which is correct. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter figure, because if there were only 3000 Christians to kill they probably wouldn't have been perceived as a threat to begin with, and if there were enough Christians to pose a threat and in 250 years they only killed 3000 of them, it seems damned inefficient. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, clean up, and please be a bit more responsible about what you nominate for deletion in the future. —siro χ o 22:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
I believe Keep and move to Tokugawa persecution of Christians is the best choice. While the number of death is no determinant for a holocaust, even when it had been against a religion, Christian at that time had options of leaving Japan or converting back to other faiths. Now, the figure of a million is way over mark, the population of Edo period was only about 25 to 35 milion and several famines of that time were on the order of ten thousands. For any killing in order of a million, we would and should be seeing hundreds of ghost towns in Kyushu. That's clearly is not the case. [This seems to be ignoring the most basic fact, that this Chirstian movement was largely limited to Kyushu and Keikyo and Catholicism were two different faiths. Keikyo faith was so Chinanized that it fused and disappeared quite quickly perceived as nothing more than a varient of Buddhism. What is written here, is nothing more than a cult teaching. Revth 05:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to Tokugawa persecution of Christians [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 19:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Tokugawa Persecution of Christians does not make sense for these persecution happend during Toyotomi Hideyoshi's period as well. It is a holocaust because the Japanese government did Christian hunting (Kirishtan Gari) which is equivalent to Nazi persecution of the Jews. Japanese Catholics did not concentrate on Kyushu but throughout Japan. 80% of Japanese were peasants and many did convert to Catholicism. Please do not delete this for this is an accurate even that happened in Japan and it is in Japanese textbook as well. Japanese government does admit its atrocity. Study Japanese history accurately before nominating this for deletion. It is an insult.
Overhwelming Keep. This should have never been VfD'd in the first place. Remove it already. Radman1 16:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Subramanyam shanker was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 03:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subramanyam shanker

Quite un-notable. --jpgordon {gab} 15:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's courier industry? Curry industry maybe? Delete, though. — Bill 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. not notable. -R. S. Shaw 23:26, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity article. Maybe he is a delivery man. Geogre 04:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Legendary People was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 03:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Legendary People

Vague list. Jay 16:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Purpose would be better served by a Category:Legendary Bandits or whatever. Delete. — Bill 20:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: First, this is a List article not named such, so it's not allowable. Second, there are plenty of categories for criminals and crime. Third, "legendary" as in "existing only in legend" would be totally different from "people other people tell tales about." Hogwash article. Geogre 04:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 14:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Can't we speedy delete this? Gamaliel 05:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Jame Gumb was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to The Silence of the Lambs. 2 votes to delete, 5 votes to merge/redirect. Postdlf 03:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jame Gumb

Like the John Boone article a few paragraphs higher; book maybe more notable, but the character not independently so: same principle, delete. — Bill 16:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be expanded. I haven't read the book, so I can't say, but if we can get a good level of detail in it, keep; otherwise, delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:58, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:39, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Geogre 04:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect is fine here. The difference between this and John Boone, where I voted Keep, is that there's so little information here that there's no need for a separate article. JamesMLane 08:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. While Hannibal Lecter has become enough of a cultural icon to warrant a separate article, this character hasn't. Average Earthman 13:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redir. GRider 23:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Afghan Baha'is was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 4 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete. This vote, however, has no bearing on the resolution of the alleged copyright violation of the material. Postdlf 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Afghan Baha'is

This orphaned article represents an arbitrary intersection of topics. -- WOT 17:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What it really seems to be is an advert for the website. On the other hand, both Baha'ism and Afghanistan are top-level domains, so to speak, and this is no less arbitrary than an article on the Gallican church or American Methodism (haven't checked that we have such articles, but wouldn't object to them if we did). Keep although watch for POV. — Bill 18:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Top-level domains, as you put it, are more likely to produce encyclopaedic topics, but I don't think it is sufficient to indicate a notable intersection. The Gallican church is notable in its own right--as for American Methodism, I'd say probably not; any information appropriate to it would probably be best suited to the main Methodism article or a History of Methodism article. The Afghan-Baha'i intersection would likely yield little of encyclopaedic note that wouldn't fit well in Baha'i. -- WOT 19:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but remove any POV. We have many other articles on a certain religion in a country, e.g. Islam in Canada, Judaism in India, Hinduism in Russia. - SimonP 22:17, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, The history of any group in different countries is a valid article. Ratafarianism in Belgium How can Baha'i begin to touch on all the paths the faith has taken in different nations without becoming huge?
Delete: Baha'i in Afghanistan is simply not at this point something large enough or noticeable enough to be sought by users of the encyclopedia. As such, they should be discussed within the #Religion section of the Afghanistan article. They are not yet a separate church, whereas the American Methodist Church is. If the subject is Baha'i, and you want to talk about it in Afghanistan, then the information should be in the Baha'i article. If the subject is Afghanistan, and you want to say that they now have missionaries from Baptists, Baha'i, and Buddhists, then discuss it in Afghanistan. However, until this religion's expression or history in this particular place is a special subject notable in its own right, it should not be broken free. Geogre 04:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, move to cleanup. Significant topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and start again wikipedia:copyvio of this http://www.afghanbahais.org/afghanbahais.htm

I put in the copyright violation notice as instructed. Feel free to correct if I am wrong. Mozzerati 20:32, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Abstain. I don't think the history of any group in different countries is a valid article -- in this case only, the ability to write an interesting article could be proof of notability. In other words, by my standards, it's not non-notable by nature, but may be non-notable by specific fact. Unfortunately, it's difficult to know ahead of time whether it's possible to write such an article or not -- whether the specifics of the topic provide such material. If it is possible, I hope it is done. If not, I won't be bothered by a deletion. --Improv 16:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

So what happen? Is it being deleted and not created again? Peggy Kerry was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 18 votes to keep, 7 votes to delete, 1 vote to merge and redirect. Postdlf 03:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peggy Kerry

No reflection on Ms. Kerry, but not notable. People have brothers and sisters, and many thousands of people fill various mid-level bureaucratic posts. — Bill 17:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete notability-by-association article and bureaucruft. -- WOT 18:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unlike in the royal system, where I'm less sure that people who were never in line for the throne are not notable, in the American political system, relatives of politicians never merit notability that stems only from that blood tie. --Improv 18:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article was requested on the village pump. anthony (see warning) 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um... not voting. User:Darwinek just tried to remove the VfD notice from the article. func (talk) 19:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep we have articles the entire Bush clan. - SimonP 22:12, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Merge with and redirect to John F. Kerry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, its pretty standard across the board to have articles about people who are notable by association to figures of leadership, including people of various royal bloodlines who were otherwise non notable, this is no different. —siro χ o 23:31, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- anthony, SimonP, and Siroxo have all given good reasons (though I find SimonP's most compelling, and I admit that anthony's reason wouldn't justify any article, though I think it justifies this one). Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't so hard, now is it people? GRider 01:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, we had this discussion on the VfD for the daughter of Tony Blair, and I believe the consensus was to delete. I would disagree with Siroxo's comment about "it's pretty standard across the board". IMO, relatives who do not themselves demonstrate notability are themselves not notable. -Vina 02:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Peggy Kerry is campaigning actively in battleground states for John Kerry with 225 articles on Google News [4] and Google has 151,000 entries for Peggy Kerry [5]Capitalistroadster 06:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good try.... In fact, Google has only about 700 hits for "Peggy Kerry"

Keep. I hadn't planned on voting, but 674 google hits for ( "Peggy Kerry" "John Kerry" ) is a lot more than I was expecting. Maybe 5 years from now, no one will care, but for now, she's notable. func (talk) 22:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep if expanded. Unlike the daughter of Tony Blair, Ms Kerry is actively contributing to a political campaign. I'd like to believe that you get notability in the US political system by merit alone, and not by having a notable relative, but there are plenty of precedents that that isn't the case. Average Earthman 13:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Conti|✉ 16:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A Kerry cousin who works in a bar would not be notable though. --Ianb 23:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Not nearly notable enough no matter how many hours she has put in on the campaign. Indrian 23:22, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This should definitely not be merged with John Kerry, which is already overlong. If this article is deleted, let the information be lost from Wikipedia. JamesMLane 06:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, schools which have been attended by many thousands of people are not notable, but a very ordinary person who just happens to be the sister of a politician and has contributed to his election campaign (surprising that!) is notable? There goes logic! I wonder if she'd be considered notable if she was the sister of a non-American politician. Delete. -- Necrothesp 14:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There is no policy that "schools which have been attended by many thousands of people are not notable". anthony (see warning) 14:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm fully aware that there's no policy, although many would have us believe that there is. -- Necrothesp 19:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You certainly seem to be implying it yourself. But if you agree there's no such policy, what is your argument for deletion? Revenge? anthony (see warning) 19:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I believe I said, but if you missed it...She's not notable. Ordinary person doing an ordinary job. Just happens to be related to someone else. Aren't we all? Not revenge, no. Nothing to get revenge for. I was merely making a comparison. -- Necrothesp 22:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Why isn't she notable? For that matter, why aren't we all notable? anthony (see warning) 23:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep As noted we have articles for most of the Bush family, what makes the Kerry family exempt, at least until the election is over. If he loses, delete, if he wins keep. PPGMD
Postpone decision until election result is known. Chris 00:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What happens if the election is a tie? :-)
  - Then George Bush will win due to the Republican majority in the House of Representatives... Deleteme42 10:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. if John Kerry won't become president, it might be a candidate for deletion in a few months Deleteme42 10:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not notable, which makes it all the more intereseting. --Quintucket 17:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Round file -Joseph (Talk) 02:54, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Weak keep. Gamaliel 06:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Not notable at present.
Strong keep. It appears that we are not going to reach a concensus here. Can the VfD be removed please?? Radman1 16:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 19:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this is abuse of VfD. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

Second vfd vote

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peggy Kerry 2

Spinoza's Coat was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 03:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spinoza's Coat

It's a local club. -- WOT 18:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The coat story, if true (philosophy is yet another thing I don't know much about), is worth parking elsewhere. But the actual subject is a supper club; those things can be wonderful, mind you. Delete.. — Bill 22:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Deletejericho4.0 23:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Philosophy is cool, and I participate in such groups, but they're everywhere. --Improv 17:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't Delete. I have searched far and wide, and have not run into any philosophy groups that have been meeting every Tuesday for almost 4 years. If there are other philosophy groups that study philosophy in such a way and are non-academic, let me know, and I'll create a philosophy group article instead. -- Barce
- In Pittsburgh, there's a Socrates Cafe group that meets every .. monday, I think, and has done so for several years. If you find groups that meet on tuesdays to be more significant, I don't know what to say :) I was also in a group in Columbus that met every Wednesday, I think, for a few years, but it fell apart not so long ago. --Improv 14:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Bruere was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete.

Bruere

I know I just corrected this article (wuz browsing the Dead-end pages), but finally shouldn't this be a delete? It's just a genealogical dump. — Bill 20:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Definitely delete: non-encyclopedic nothingness. Geogre 05:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic text dump. jni 07:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. for reasons above. --Ianb 23:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We're not a family tree. --Improv 16:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Chris Keeler was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP AS REDIRECT to Christine Keeler. 2 votes to delete original content, 1 to keep as redirect to different article; no objections voiced to redirection. Postdlf 03:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chris Keeler

This too brought to you by Dead-end pages. Googling "chris keeler" rugby australian just returns a few porno sites. — Bill 20:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete - schoolboy rugby player - possible add when he plays for Australia or at least for a Super 12 side. Capitalistroadster 06:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DR Kill this article, replace with redirect to Christine Keeler. Chris 00:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In fact, nothing links here, so I've done just that. Chris 01:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Colobium sindonis

Another deadender. The colobium sindonis (which exists) is a coronation shift, not a pillow; the Latin means nothing remotely like "bottom rest". The entry is patent nonsense; I'd insert the right info, except it's at best a Wiktionary entry. — Bill 21:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say do exactly what you suggest (: —siro χ o 23:27, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

You're on; I'll wait about three/four more days and if nobody minds — I've put this on my watchlist — I'll write up the squib myself. — Bill 22:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed Howdershelt was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 03:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed Howdershelt

Another deadender. This article states, pretty by way of an excuse for the non-notability of its subject, that it was inserted into Wikipedia as a reciprocal link for some website. Izzis something Wikipedia does, or are we being snookered? — Bill 21:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. We don't do reciprocal links this way. Not notable. Note that there was not VfD text, so I added one. --Improv 17:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, as evidenced by the many different references to him on Google, He seems to be very notable in some circles, the article probably can become encyclopedic with a little work. —siro χ o 19:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It is against policy to trade links. We don't need to, and we don't, and we can't and maintain integrity. If someone makes him notable, fine. Not like this, though. Geogre 01:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice: I expanded the entry a bit from what I could find on the net. —siro χ o 11:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete not-notable author of vanity-press books Wolfman 17:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 09:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Electronic publication does not generally make one notable. Isomorphic 23:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Earthworm organic cycle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT WITHOUT MERGING. 1 vote to delete, 2 votes to redirect, 1 vote to merge and redirect. This translates into 3 to 1 in favor of keeping as a redirect, but 3 to 1 in favor of not merging any content with the redirection target. Postdlf 03:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Earthworm organic cycle

Delete Redundant - material already covered in Earthworm --Cje 21:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Earthworm. Topic is notable enough that people may search for it by name. --Improv 17:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge anything not included in Earthworm, and redirect —siro χ o 19:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to earthworm. I have to add, when I was originally scanning the Contents list at the top of VfD, my eyes conflated this heading with the next one down, so for a few seconds I thought somebody had actually written an article on the earthworm emotional cycle. I'm feeling better now. Bearcat 17:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Emotional Freedom Techniques

Emotional Freedom Techniques was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep, but fixup the article so it doesn't look so much like an advertisement.

1 vote to delete (original submitter), 2 votes to keep, 2 votes to abstain. Of the votes to abstain, one expressed an interest in the topic.

I'm going to list this on cleanup. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable advert. — Bill 21:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. It's probably quackish, but it's also notable because of its popularity. --Improv 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this could certainly become encyclopedic. —siro χ o 19:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. However, the existing article is certainly an advertisement, mostly for Carrington who owns two of the three domains in the external links section. She is just one of what appears to be many practitioners of this EFT (whatever it is). Ben James Ben 02:23, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Abstain. While I think it'd be an interesting topic to write about, the way this one is written really is little more than an ad. Mo0 02:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with the originator of the VfD request. --French Tourist 15:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Elfe was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 03:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elfe

Nothing establishes notability. — Bill 21:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable family history. jni 08:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogical site, and I also doubt very much that the name is related to "elves," except that "elf" meant "man" as late as the 17th c. in English. Geogre 01:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not a family tree. --Improv 17:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. East African Procurement News was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 03:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

East African Procurement News

I bet you can tell I'm still doing deadenders: the letter E for some reason has tickeld my fancy, I guess. Anyhow, advertising for a non-notable corporate project. — Bill 21:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: nonnotable. Less annoying than most of the promo material we get, though. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. Geogre 01:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 03:46 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Pat Lee was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pat Lee

Very likely fiction, or at the very most extremely non-notable, as far as I can discern. Also, this article was created by the same anonymous user that created the Joel allan article, which is currently here on VfD, with only delete votes. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 21:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you guys trying to get rid of my article? I made it at school, as did my friend, who made the Joel Allan article. Every word is the truth. This explains why the IP address is the same.

Delete and ban: Does it also explain why you deleted my vote? DCEdwards1966 00:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - hoax. There's nothing on Amazon.com or Google about Pat Lee or any association with Ringo Starr. The history of this VfD reeks of vandalism. Ian Pugh 00:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain slithering towards Delete. If I knew country music better, I'd say it was a hoax. — Bill 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. We need cites to generally respectable sources here. Average Earthman 13:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Definitively fails the google test. --Improv 17:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: School prank. Woo-hoo. Geogre 01:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Wolfman 17:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Prank. — Gwalla | Talk 23:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Elboai was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eboai

Letter E deadenders, continued. Call me an Eboai, maybe, but this looks like a neologism, or original research, or an advert (notice that the article starts with an external link), and intrinsically POV, don't know which, but whatever it is -- out. — Bill 21:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete trollcruft. -- WOT 21:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Troll neologism. We already have Internet troll article, there is no need for POV near-duplicates. jni 07:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Trollogism?
Delete: trollvertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Economists working on India was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Economists working on India

Despite the title, this is a web directory. A very small one, too. — Bill 21:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. If there was a page containing a comprehensive list of such economists, and a website containing a comprehensive list of their websites, then a link from one to the other would be desirable. This is neither one nor the other, and not encyclopedic. --Ianb 11:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Economists working on India? What are they doing to it? (Oh, and one more time: lists are lists and are named lists. If they're not named lists, they're supposed to be discussions.) Geogre 18:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Of any size. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Immolate. -Joseph (Talk) 02:55, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Eastern technical highschool was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 04:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eastern technical highschool

Entry doesn't establish notability. — Bill 21:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Entry merely establishes that the original author doesn't use a spellchecker. Delete. Average Earthman 13:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet high bar for preuniversity school notability --Improv 18:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 23:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete. All these "magnet" schools must be affecting the students' brainwaves. --Ianb 23:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Elfrid Sundqvist

We just had this under another name about a week ago. Hoax, or at least Min Gut Sniffer Ratz. — Bill 21:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) CountrySize was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CountrySize

Uh . . . real-estate-branding-cruft? -- WOT 22:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. jericho4.0 22:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Sietse 11:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cruft. --Improv 18:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. — Bill 22:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I saw this months ago when it was created, and intended to VfD it, but I guess I must've forgotten. It was one of a bunch of very local-interest articles being created by this page's author. Isomorphic 23:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Avena (demogroup) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Avena (demogroup)

Delete. Not notable, not even within the uber-niche German Atari ST demoscene. GRider 01:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Underground group without names serving a small niche of a niche.... Not notable. Geogre 00:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nadavspi 01:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. jni 13:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Reminds me of GNAA. --Improv 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. North Garden was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North Garden

This is about a web cartoon based on South Park; a search for "North Garden" "web cartoon" gets no google hits, and according to the page, availability fluctuates based on server performance. Sorry, but this doesn't have a wide enough audience for an entry. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:12, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Is famous with exactly one person, it's creator. DeleteWyllium 23:35, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
It was, according to this article, "unofficially created". It doesn't even seem convinced of its own notability. Delete. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable, and apparently not extant. Geogre 00:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Linda (Futurama) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 15 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linda (Futurama)

I'm one of the biggest fans of Futurama that's ever lived, and Linda is a spot-on impression of Mary Hart from Entertainment Tonight. But she's not deserving of an article. Delete, no merge or redirect, because all pertinent info is already on the Futurama article. Ian Pugh 23:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not enough detail possible for a real article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Morbo says delete. Geogre 00:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! Ian Pugh 00:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No future for this article. Delete. Wyllium 01:00, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed. See Futurama. Nadavspi 01:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Minor comic relief character. Delete since information is redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Kittens give Morbo gas. In lighter news, the article on Linda is doomed. Delete. Average Earthman 13:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above. Fire Star 20:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 17:15 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Morbo agrees: Delete Ha, ha, ha. Neuropedia 00:23, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Delete. --JimQ 14:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obliterate -Joseph (Talk) 02:55, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Delete due to redundancy. Radman1 04:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Land of Muggy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep ("G.P Weston", giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was the article's author). Postdlf 04:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Land of Muggy

Fictional country. Google search shows it to be very obscure. Wyllium 23:27, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Delete: A map without a fiction made "by me and my brother," but it seems to be known to few and participated in by few. Not notable. Geogre 00:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Nadavspi 01:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. The Land of Muggy is a Bruce Henderson artistamp invention. Aside from than that it is non-notable, and the article itself verges on the incoherent.--Gene_poole 07:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable original work of fiction. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Un-delete: Land of Muggy is not a creation of artstamp producer Bruce Henderson! If you had read...created in 1962, you might have realized-can you add? And various works are known by publishers: the map is not currently 'particated' in by anyone; and is the hub of 'Muggy Literary Archeology'- Author- G.P Weston.

Comment: Perhaps you might then care to explain how the only noteworthy web reference for Muggy is a page owned by Mr Henderson, and linked directly to his "ICIS" group of artistamp fantasy nations: [6] --Gene_poole 07:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Cruft.--Lucky13pjn 00:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent. Gamaliel 05:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Maitham Dinani

Just some ridiculous comments by 67.71.167.122. Seems like somebody who does not like Gujarat. Here's more from the user:

[7]
[8]

Alren 23:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I would say make it a speedy delete, but I can't quite figure how to fit it into one of the categories. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as vandalism. When someone puts up a "sucks!" page, it's vandalism. This was a "This guy sucks!" article. To me, whether it was one line or 3,000, it amounted to one non-notable kid slagging off on another non-notable kid, which made it use of Wikipedia for insult. Geogre 00:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Digital Library of Wielkopolska materials list was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 04:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Digital Library of Wielkopolska materials list

I have no problem with having an article on Digital Library of Wielkopolska, but this isn't the appropriate article. Rick K 23:42, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

You forgot Poland! Erm, delete. Wyllium 00:58, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Delete: You're never going to get more allies when you keep forgetting Poland, heheheuhuhuh. Mixed signals. Uhuhuh. Geogre 18:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D "Off the Germans". Well, they always say you shouldn't write off the Germans, but never mind ... Chris 01:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Andrarchy

Neologism. Google returns weird results. Wyllium 23:45, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Move to androcracy. I am currently working on this new page, and the word is well-established as the correct and proper term to describe government rule by males, in relation to the social control by males known as patriarchy. I am working on expanding this page, which is why I wrote "in progress" in the edit summary when I created the page. --Viriditas 23:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a "well-established" term return more relevant hits in Google? Wyllium 00:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

No. Google test merely looks for common usage. The word is used in political science. See the refs. --Viriditas 00:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a valid formation, but is it really established? Patriarchy already covers it, and I can't see any way the two are distinguishable. Abstain until later in the VfD period to see if it's clearer then. Geogre 00:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ Move to androcracy. - the word itself does not appear to be well-established (lack of online presence, lack of reference in online library catalogues, lack of occurrence in online or print dictionaries - all of which surprised me, as I'm familiar with the term as well); the distinction described above does not seem to be well-established at all: it is etymologically legitimate, however this is not sufficient in itself to argue the creation of an article which defines a term not in wide usage. A reference or source for this division would help, otherwise it would be better served as a subset of the patriarchy article.Ziggurat 00:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refs posted. --Viriditas 00:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Do these references define the term, introduce the distinction mentioned above, or adopt it in a de facto fashion? If the term is not in common usage (particularly where using it diverges from the more common definition of patriarchy) it would make sense to list its proponents in the article on Andrarchy (i.e. "a term used by suchandsuch authorities to distinguish between...") rather than introduce it as the one proper terminology. Ziggurat 00:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on the article to address your points. However, patriarchy is an entirely different concept. Patriarchy is a social organization where descent is traced through the father, as opposed to matriarchy where descent is traced through the mother. These are social concepts. Andrarchy is a form of government or political organization where men rule or make decisions. While there is certainly a relationship between the two concepts, they are two different concepts altogether. In a survey of the popular literature, Donald MacKenzie discusses the differences between the two words in The Social Shaping of Technology. Pippa Norris references Studler's and Welch's andrarchy paper in Passages to Power : Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies and in her book, Political Recruitment : Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament.As does Jenny Chapman in Politics, Feminism and the Reformation of Gender. Vivien Burr explains why people use the term andrarchy in Gender and Social Psychology. The use of the term in political science is really fleshed out and defined by Michael Pusey in Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A Nation-Building State Changes its Mind. Authors Marianne Hester and Margaret Thornton also use the term in their books. --Viriditas 02:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the distinction between patriarchy and andrarchy; I withdraw my uninformed generalisation :) . However the majority of the references given above refer to the same article by Studler and Welch (once!) rather than use the term in any cohesive fashion as best I can ascertain. Regarding the term as describing a government or political organisation ruled by men, the far more common term, which passes both the dictionary and google tests, is Androcracy, so perhaps this article would be better sited there with 'Andrarchy' introduced as an alternative term? Ziggurat 04:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the articles seem to refer to Studler and Welch, and they probably refer to Aberbach as well. You make a great point about androcracy; that word seems to be more current. Do you suggest a move? If so, feel free to move the article. --Viriditas 05:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not positive what the Wiki process is when it's listed on this page, so I'll just change my vote to move to Androcracy. Look forward to reading the finished article! Ziggurat 05:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ziggy? I was hoping you would help me. Heh. --Viriditas 05:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just wasn't sure if it needs to go through the whole deletion voting before it can be switched; my suggestion is just a vote, after all! Ziggurat 06:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know. But if you want to contribute to the proprosed androcracy article (or the current article), please do. --Viriditas 06:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Original research. Neither Andrarchy nor Androcracy is in [the dictionary]. If the terms exist at all, they are probably technical terms confined to a limited academic subspeciality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The word, "Androcracy" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, and that's really the only dictionary that matters in this case. OED defines it as, "the rule of man or the male, male supremacy," and it's referred to in the context of sociology. I did not find the word, "andrarchy" in the OED, however. In addition to the authors already listed, it should also be mentioned that feminist author Mary Daly uses the word in her book, Gyn Ecology, to refer to the system that oppressed women as witches. Also, Robert Miklitsch uses the word to describe the same system in a journal article published by Duke University. Robert A. Scharf probes the pyschological and historical implications of androcracy in two journal articles. I think that author Riane Eisler popularized the term in her book, The Chalice and the Blade. --Viriditas 03:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm wrong, but I'm not quite ready to stop arguing yet. Re "androcracy," if it's "in the context of sociology," and if it's only in the full twenty-odd-volumes-when-in-paper OED, then I'm not yet sure I'm wrong in calling it "a technical term confined to a limited academic subspecialty." Well, strike "limited" and "sub-". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) I dunno about insisting on proper technical terms. I had an unsatisfying exchange with an academic because I said that some characters in Jack London's novels expressed "racist" sentiments. He insisted that they were "racialist," not "racist." I pointed out that my (layperson's) dictionary defined racialism as a synonym for racism. He said that academics who study literature don't use it that way. But, But, OK. Just don't ask me to call a starfish a "sea star." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move to Androcracy [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - A better word than androcracy, and both andrarchy and gynarchy are better formed than the more commonly heard matriarchy and patriarchy, which technically refer to government by female or male ancestors, but are commonly misused to refer generally to rule by women or men. Perhaps merger at the most commonly used words might be appropriate provided that all are discussed. Andrarchy may be a neologism, but its one whose meaning is fairly obvious, and it is a better fit to the meaning than the words it was made to replace. Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with the opinion that these terms should be part of the proposed article for androcracy. See my changes to the current article. --Viriditas 09:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, Move to androcracy. —siro χ o 22:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

The absolute reference (OED) NOTE the following is a copyright violation, do not include into the article:(before a vowel andr-), repr. Gr. -, combining form of man, male. androcentric (ændrsntrk) a., having man, or the male, as its centre; so androcentricity; androcracy (ændrkrs) [-CRACY], the rule of man or the male, male supremacy; androcratic (-krætk) a., pertaining to or involving androcracy; andromoncious (-mni()s), a. Bot. [MONCIOUS a.], having male and hermaphrodite flowers on the same plant; andromoncism (-mnisz()m) Bot., the condition of being andromoncious. 1903 L. F. WARD Pure Sociol. xiv. 292 The *androcentric theory is the view that the male sex is primary and the female secondary in the organic scheme, that all things center, as it were, about the male. 1959 Guardian 6 Nov. 6/5 The Fathers of the Church accepted from their cultural environment the androcentric standpoint. 1954 Theology LVII. 326 Do we see anything of this *androcentricity in the Christian ministry? 1903 L. F. WARD Pure Sociol. xiv. 376 The stage of gynæcocracy was succeeded by the stage of *androcracy, and the subjection of woman was rendered complete. 1893 Athenæum 7 Oct. 494/1 Marital relations among tribes in the enjoyment of an *androcratic government being generally far more satisfactory. 1903 L. F. WARD Pure Sociol. xiv. 399 The androcratic régime, during which woman had no voice in the selecting process. 1877 *Andromoncious [see ANDRODICIOUS a.]. 1888 G. HENSLOW Origin Floral Struct. 227 *Andromoncism signifies that the same plant bears both male and hermaphrodite flowers.[9] If you have a subscription, follow this link.132.205.15.4 18:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Somehow, I thought I never would see anything like "the following is a copyright violation", followed by said violation, from the same author in the same post, on Wikipedia. Learn something new everyday, I guess. Wondering if this VfD should me marked as a copyvio now. :) --Improv 14:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - That would be interesting :) 132.205.15.4 03:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have moved Andrarchy to Androcracy and I have removed the VfD header. If this is not ok, please let me know. --01:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zahran

This vanity page consists of a long list of complaints and bragging. Apparently, somebody didn't let Zahran copy their homework. No evidence given of notability. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, no doubt. Speedy? Nadavspi 01:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hedonist Party of Canada was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 04:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hedonist Party of Canada

Not notable. Google returns 10 results, none of which are relevant. Wyllium 00:27, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Nadavspi 01:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It gives me pleasure to delete this non-notable party Party. Geogre 15:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about making a Non-notable political parties of Canada article, and put it there, along with any future ones 132.205.15.4 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While I can believe hedonists do indeed spend a lot of time partying, they are also excruciatingly non-notable in this editor's opinion. Delete. Fire Star 23:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm always leery of political parties whose websites don't even have a "How to join" link. Smells suspiciously to me like a political party that exists only as a marketing tool for the maple-leaf-and-beer-steins T-shirts available on the Cafépress link. Delete entry even I wouldn't file under Category:Canadian federal political parties. Bearcat 23:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 23:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. I'm just curious if any Canadians have heard of this party? (And how many votes here were from Canadians?)
Keep - a real politcal party. Mark Richards 19:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Just because they are real does not make them noteworthy. Indrian 19:47, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

October 20

Aaron Walters

Non notable. Needless to say, Google doesn't turn up anything relevant that relates to the text of the entry. Zachlipton 00:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, suggest speedy. Ian Pugh 00:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So long, Aaron. Delete. Wyllium 00:55, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Delete. These things should be speedy deleted.. Nadavspi 01:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. utcursch 10:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: By rule, these can't be speedy deleted. We can either change the rules to meet the practice or the practice to meet the rules. I made my effort. People thought I wanted Sysops to get more power. Good luck to all other reformers.Geogre 15:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That's fine, just so long as it's gone soon. I just wasn't sure if this constituted as patent nonsense. I suppose since there's at least one coherent sentence, it doesn't apply. Oh well. Ian Pugh 23:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Newbie test pages can also be speedy deleted, can't they? - Mike Rosoft 21:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Newbie test page. Not encycplopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed: Speedy deleted by me for being a test page and for having had more than 72 hr on VfD with a unanimous delete vote. Geogre 21:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kingdom of Vicia and Elizabeth I of Vicia

An entire (sub-)kingdom under the protection of the United Kingdom with over 750 years of history and yet not a single Google hit. Delete this drivel! [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note that this is an anonymous user's only contribution. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, it seems the same user has wasted even more time writing even more drivel. I have listed the page accordingly. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 00:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just speedy-delete the stupid thing. I would, if it wasn't here. - DavidWBrooks 00:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I would have done so if there was a speedy case that applied to this article. While it is an obvious attempt to cloak fictional information as truth, that doesn't really qualify as patent nonsense and I felt obliged to put it here instead. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 04:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bet the UK can't protect it from being deleted.Wyllium 01:35, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Speedy delete both as patent nonsense. Jeez, why couldn't the person responsible for these put the same amount of work and effort into real articles? Go figure. - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- I do like the Kingdom of Broad Beans, though. --jpgordon {gab} 01:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Good effort for a falsehood, though. Postdlf 01:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete both. "Patent nonsense" in the {delete} context is strictly defined as either "Total nonsense, i.e., text that has no assignable meaning at all. This tends to be created after the consumption of too much alcohol." or "Stuff that, 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.". I think both articles are FAR too coherent to qualify. fiction!=patent nonsense Niteowlneils 01:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Then perhaps we need a speedy delete rule for "utter bullshit"? --jpgordon {gab} 01:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite possibly (User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Grunderlings). Also "genealogic research" (User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Fluge Flugel Flugelman, III)(possibly only after posting the question at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk), "personal information" (such as giving out someone's Social Security number or the equivalent), "ASCII art" (User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/Cows), and "fan mail" (User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/NameofWhatever Star), none of which I know of a speedy case they clearly fall under. Niteowlneils 02:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enviro Board

Advertisement for the "Enviro Board Corporation", which is coincidentally the only one whose products meet the definition of "Enviro Board" -- the way that presumably the Enviro Board Corporation is defining it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, and non-notable. Nadavspi 01:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ad. Geogre 15:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons above. --Ianb 23:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pure pwnage was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 10 votes to delete, 1 vote to redirect. Postdlf 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pure pwnage

Suspect item is not notable. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is part of gamer culture and is widely known in these circles. Also, there are 100+ bittorrent-downloads of the movies at any time...

Abstain. I'm not convinced either way, I'd like to hear more about why this is notable. RaD Man 02:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for a series of non-notable homevideos. Vanity. leet fancruft. jni 07:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to pwn, which has survived the wringer here. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Thoroughly non-notable game about gamers. There are many ephemeral parodies; they don't get independent articles. Geogre 15:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not notable. Pwnage ... I mean Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no|\|-n0t@bl3. --Ianb 23:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
De1337. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Demonslave 14:27, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
D Three letters for you. W, T and F. Chris 01:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Destroy -Joseph (Talk) 02:57, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ben Gibbard was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 11 votes to keep, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 04:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ben Gibbard

Delete. Vanity. Unnotable 27-year old. Radman1 02:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep: lead singer of Death Cab for Cutie, a very notable band. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Seems redundant then. Merge, delete and redirect. RaD Man 02:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Well known Emo musician. Alkivar 02:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A notable indie musician. Pyrop 04:27, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not redundant, as Gibbard is the lead singer of two notable bands, Death Cab for Cutie and The Postal Service. Another revenge posting by Radman. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:32, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --*drew 04:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Sjc 06:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -Definitely- notable. Nadavspi 14:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. In two notable bands, and notable on his own too. --Improv 20:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep and Don't use VfD to make a point —siro χ o 09:56, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
It would seem that for some people, "unnotable" means "Well, I've never heard of the guy!" Keep. Bearcat, who thinks Transatlanticism is a fantastic album 23:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A no-brainer. Remove listing from vfd. Gamaliel 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Floridation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Floridation

A self-admitted neologism, with a totally POV article. Besides which, the very first sentence is untrue, as a simple Google search for "floridation' will show. Can anything happen to this other than reduction to a dicdef? --jpgordon {gab} 03:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Rick K 04:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. NOT a neologism. I cleaned up the article's content after jpgordon's suggestion to Google the word. I thought I had coined it, but the word was first used in 2000 and has now acquired apparently independent usages for American elections and for foreign elections influenced by the United States. Many journalists have used it before I did. If "vote-rigging" deserves its own Wikipedia entry, "Floridation" certainly deserves better than relegation to the dictionary! Cshea 05:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)cshea

Keep A valid entry. The backstory that caused the word to be coined is too much for a simple dictionary entry. DCEdwards1966 06:11, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)'
Delete. Neologism that is not yet in significant or widespread use. Googling is complicated because the vast majority of hits are misspellings of "fluoridation." I note, however, that Googling for "floridation" on Google News yields zero hits. As I write this, early voting and controversies in Florida have already begun and I do not believe there would be zero hits if this neologism had gained any traction at all. Googling the Web, in order to get rid of false hits it is necessary to try something like: a search on "floridation -water -teeth -dental -environment -fluids -fluorine -fluoridation -fluoride -health" and this yields only 130 hits. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I repeat: KEEP. I went through the Google listings and found refereneces dating back to November 2000 (San Francisco Chronicle), May 2003 (Baltimore Sun article by Greg Palast and Martin Luther King III and a national petition drive by them using the word, and a further use in a December 2003 paper. It was used in a Guardian paper in 2004 and is taking on steam with an expanded meaning to refer to foreign elections. This is an important word whose etymology and history is far too important to relegate to the Wiktionary. 172.195.27.91 13:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)Cshea

- When it is clear that it is an important word, it can be added then. There is no rush. Wikipedia is not Wired. There is not need for us to be first in reporting a "meme on the rise." I'm not sure where your Google hits are, but they are not in Google News: Did you mean: Fluoridation Your search - Floridation - did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "floridation". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We do try avoid self-promoting puff pieces here. Remove all the references to yourself, and all the non-NPOV material, and what's left? A neologism. --jpgordon {gab} 15:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Florida mess, but about a pun. The Florida mess has been covered much better elsewhere. Delete. — Bill 17:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DELETE and REDIRECT to fluoridation, as its a common mispelling. 132.205.15.4 18:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You'll want to log in, as anonymous votes aren't counted. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect to fluoridation. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. --Improv 20:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please read the article before enering "delete - Redirect to flouridation. THis article has to do with contemporary electoral processes, not water flouridation. Merely being a homophone does not make it a synonym. 172.193.22.78 23:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)cshea
- As you've also misspelt fluoridation the other common way (flouridation), it's very likely people are looking for water enrichment issues when doing floridation. "floridation election" gets all of 60 hits on Google Groups. I'd say that politicos aren't using the term. neoligism, DELETE and Redirect to fluoridation 132.205.15.42 02:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - My high school chemistry teacher said "Just remember, it's not 'flo urine.'" I've never misspelled it since. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep --Pgreenfinch 09:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to water fluoridation. -Sean Curtin 18:57, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Definite delete. RadicalSubversiv E 22:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Preignition was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Preignition

Dictdef. Include into apprpriate articles. Transwiki to Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 03:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep until transwiki complete. We already have a way to handle dicdefs - mark with Template:move to Wiktionary. You should not list for VfD until you've performed the transwiki. -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Really? Where is this supposed rule documented? RickK`
  In the Transwiki page on meta wiki. Look at the example. -Vina 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Why hasn't this been advertised? We discuss Transwikis on VfD constantly, and nobody has bothered to mention this supposed policy? Or is it another case of Netoholic trying to create and enforce policy in one fell swoop? RickK 19:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    - A look at the history of the transwiki page shows that I've never edited it. Rick: please stop attacking others when they point out how wrong you are. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
    - RickK, wrong? No! Surely you jest! GRider 22:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - Guys, please, calm down a little and stop sniping. While the policy does exist, the reason why it's rarely used is because that many VfD candidates gets voted for transwiki and delete, in which case, at the appropriate step, there's no need to put it on VfD as VfD has already determined that delete is necessary. (The original VfD was not on an article in the Transwiki process.) This case is different, because it is already marked to Transwiki. The proper thing to do is Transwiki it and the VfD it, although I fail to see what significance this delay has. If a delete is voted for, nobody is going to delete until after the transwiki, if a keep is voted for, you're not going to delete anyways, so what is the difference between a couple of days? -Vina 21:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep I think this could be expanded beyond a dicdef. Dunc|☺ 10:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Significant topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important topic. If there's already an article that covers this material, let me know and I'll change my vote to a redirect. --Improv 20:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and KEEP. GRider 22:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good wikipedia material. Plenty of scope for expansion. Robinh 21:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, quite extensible. I'd like to see a picture of what happens if you let it go on for too long, for instance :-) Kim Bruning 19:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retain -Joseph (Talk) 02:58, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Vice Presidential Action Rangers was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Futurama (TV series - season 2)#Anthology of Interest I. 2 votes to merge and redirect, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 07:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vice Presidential Action Rangers

Another Futurama VfD. Great episode, great joke (you haven't lived 'til you hear Al Gore say "Vice Presidential Action Rangers") but non-notable. I call it a Hawking-deletion. Ian Pugh 04:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't be lazy. Merge and redirect to Futurama (TV series - season 2)#Anthology of Interest I. Already done, so now this vote gets to sit here for 5 days. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- I don't totally agree with that, but I suppose it works for the purposes of keeping episode guides on the site (which may be best for compromise on fancruft). Vote withdrawn. Ian Pugh 07:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete no redirect. Fancruft. --Improv 20:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. I agree with Netoholic. I know it isn't that note worthy but as long as it is in the Futurama article, it's fine. NeoJustin 17:47 Oct 23, 2004.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Divalent metals was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 05:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Divalent metals

Original research, nonencyclopedic, obscure. Reads like scientific paper citation and abstract. It's about hemoglobin not just divalent metals. The place and even journal cited does not have such a paper(see [10]). Created by anon user, whose only other edit is under copyviol review, and is by same lead author in same journal. -R. S. Shaw 05:59, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a citation index. Original research. jni 07:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Title doesn't fit article, original research, just an abstract. No context. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 02:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsense (if not a Turing test attempt). Robinh 21:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with MGM. NeoJustin 23:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Simplify Universal Physics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete. Postdlf 07:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simplify Universal Physics

Fourth contribution by User:Etavernetti (see "Einstein's Mistake", "Universal philosophy" and "The Unification of Quantum Theory", all in VfD above). jni 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. More Nonsense, inspite of Siroxo's advice to this user. utcursch 07:21, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Nadavspi 14:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: "when a Man's Fancy gets astride on his Reason, when Imagination is at Cuffs with the Senses, and common Understanding, as well as common Sense, is Kickt out of Doors; the first Proselyte he makes, is Himself, and when that is once compass'd, the Difficulty is not so great in bringin over others," as Swift said in the Digression on Madness. Geogre 15:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not once again! Patent nonsense, the sanity of this article is disputed. Delete - Mike Rosoft 17:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. --Improv 20:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsense. Robinh
D Wolfman 17:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. SubGenius Networks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 14 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep (anon vote was page author, so vote counted). Postdlf 07:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SubGenius Networks

A nonexistant site which is fighting over the use of the name? Rick K 05:52, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I see no potential to become encyclopedic, delete —siro χ o 06:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

KEEP: Currently: SubGenius Networks is NOT accepting public traffic; hence the no public site/index.html at SubGeniusNetworks.org. It seems the OVERPOP (and .com Bobbies) are targeting members of our organization independently (as we are currently defending ourselves from the Foundations illegal use of the trademark process). 24.254.56.98 06:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory, not even for (most) public sites, much less for private ones. This is also not the forum for you to defend your trademarks or gabble about your particular organizational POV. jni 07:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch 11:32, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, promotional. No evidence of significant notability presented. An attempt to use WIkipedia draw attention to an organization and to promote a specific point of view. No potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, and no potential to become encyclopedic, like User:Siroxo said. Nadavspi 15:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ad. Bob would be disappointed. Geogre 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete with the Stark Fist of Removal. Not a web directory. Fnord. --Improv 20:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Improv's vote terrifies me, somehow. But I'm forced to agree. 'Delete. DS 22:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. — Dan | Talk 21:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - i do understand the sentiments; however 'SUBGENIUS' currently FORWARDS TO 'Church of the SubGenius' and displays the SubGenius Foundations Trademark 'the dobbshead'. This is NOT representative of SubGenius Networks so the 'SubGenius_Networks' entry was created to settle a 'disambig' issue between organizations. CONFUSION between organizations is grounds for objection to current 'Church' trademark intentions. SubGenius Networks IS NOT the Church of the SubGenius, nor a part of the SubGenius Foundation. Our intention was to disambig the entry 'SUBGENIUS' as SubGenius Networks claims fair use and public domain rights. SUBGENIUS DOES NOT SIMPLIFY to 'Church', SUBGENIUS is a way of life. "Bob" be damned if he dosen't dig it - This entry was not created to advertise the network, only explain the fundamental difference. (NO CHURCH/NO BOB). 24.254.56.98 00:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutral: why exactly could not this Subgenius schism be covered at "Church of the SubGenius"? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Because we are NOT a 'church' related Slack institute. We're NOT faith based at all. It's NOT about "Bob" in the slightest. "Bob" is a trademark of the SubGenius Foundation, Inc. That is precisely why we also insist on a [disambig] entry for SUBGENIUS and not auto forwarding to 'Church of the' SubGenius. 'The Church of the SubGenius has a whole category. We only wish to clarify the distinction between organizations. SUBGENIUS is a Public Domain ideology based on Slack and "Bob" is a privately held and trademarked diety owned by another organization who DOES NOT REPRESENT SubGenius Networks. 24.254.56.98 03:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, suggest you work on the www.subgeniusnetworks.org website since it currently contains less useful information than this (one sentence) Wikipedia article. —Stormie 03:27, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Response: Yeah 'thank's for the suggestion. Our site is just a web server which may or may not be even online from month to month. The organization is a real life entity. 24.254.56.98 03:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete the heretics! :) Sjc 05:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DWolfman 03:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DD This is in such dire need of deletion that my vote just increased by a whole cup size. Chris 01:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete obnoxious advertising. He tried whining to wikien-l too. - David Gerard 07:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. Sillydragon 07:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment 24.254.56.98 take note: NSK ([email protected]) has stated that Wikinerds, an all-encompassing "knowledge base" rather than an encyclopedia, is interested in having all VfD-ed articles resubmitted to them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Orange sherbet smoothie was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. As of 17:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

Old discussion:

This page belongs in a cookbook, not an encyclopedia. It does not define any term, has no link whatsoever, and the only thing that links to it is dessert, which I think also shouldn't list this very specific flavor of dessert.

Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete. Kevyn 11:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. Geogre 12:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. --Elf-friend 18:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --AHM 23:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. --Ec8or 19:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. --Greaser| 12:31, 19 Sep 2004 (GMT)
Transwiki and delete. --Cje 07:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New discussion:

Note: The page [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Orange sherbet smoothie]] was created on 29 August by User:Nyh but there was no {{subst:vfd}} and no entry on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. I hope this straightens it out. --Cje Having trouble staying logged in so it will appear that this was by an anonymous user instead.

This page is currently sitting on VfD/Old awaiting transwiki, there is no reason to relist it here. - SimonP 07:01, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Kumpil was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kumpil

Dictdef of a non-English term. Rick K 06:57, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Bad dictdef. Geogre 15:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef. Nadavspi 15:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete for the same reason everyone else wants to delete it. NeoJustin 23:24 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

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

Steven Levitt

Article does not contain encycloepedic information and this guy is not notable. --Tbackstr 10:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Nonsense. utcursch 11:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a newbie test page. Nonsense. jni 13:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delorean was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT to De Lorean. 3 votes to keep as redirect. Postdlf 07:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delorean

~~The Delorian may infact have been designed in 1979, I have no idea, but this page as it stands is incomprehensible rubbish. Delete it unless someone puts in the effort to make it worthwhile.~~ Shane King 11:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent article. ~~troll/vandal vfd?~~ Kim Bruning 12:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Not a troll or vandal I suppose. I'm confused. The current page is good. Kim Bruning 12:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You're confused, indeed, but it is indeed confusing :) the vfd'd article has been redirected by a kind soul to the excellent article you're seeing now. Keep as redirect -- Ferkelparade π 13:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect to De Lorean, as it currently is. This should be de-listed from the VfD. jni 13:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ah! To whoever did it: don't do a redirect while a page is still on vfd, or at least drop a note to explain that you have. Kim Bruning 13:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's been redirected to the correct article. Not being familiar with the subject, I didn't know to search for De Lorian as two words. I withdraw the vfd. Shane King 13:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep current redirect, because Delorean is a plausible misspelling. De Lorean is an excellent article. The article that was listed for VfD has the following incomprehensible rubbish as its entire content; if not redirected I think it would have been a valid speedy-delete [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

delorean was designed in 1979 by John DeLorean, the car remains a mystery lover. --195.195.161.63 10:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)[www.orgsites.com/hi/oss]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. The Ravaged was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 9 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. 1 vote was disregarded because unsigned. Postdlf 07:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Ravaged

I have never heard of them, but if they are recording and have created a new genre, then I think it should stay. Hey, everyone has to start somewhere! And if a local is saying that they do have a following and an ER that's actually being sold places, then why not keep the entry? The definition of notable is very semantical.

Band-Vanity, maybe they become notable after releasing their debut album -- Ferkelparade π 12:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: if this article is deleted, the article for their album At last..., created by the same IP as the creator of the article for The Ravaged, should also be deleted. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:33, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

REVISED NOTE: Just about every contribution by the ip address [11] is about members of The Ravaged. I think that if the article for The Ravaged is deleted, Power Heavy Rock N' Roll, Gus Nilson, Nickie Hanson, Chris Erixon, Rob Gillard, and Pete Ellstrom should also be deleted. Also, his links to the ravaged homepage from Guitarist and Bassist should also be removed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I suspected as much and asked about them at the reference desk. Until someone has compelling arguments to the opposite either here or at the reference desk my vote is for delete. The fate of Nickie Hanson, Rob Gillard, Gus Nilson, Pete Ellstrom (and Chris Erixon which will no doubt be created any minute now) should be the same as the main article. --fvw 12:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Keep: As a fan of Ravaged and quite familiar with their work, I can tell you that the band in fact HAS released a CD, their EP. And while it is not a full-length album, the record has and is being sold in various places in several cities in Sweden. They're not a big band, but they do have their share of fans. Also, I have made quite a lot of changes to the article, I uploaded the pictures on the The Ravaged and the Rob Gillard articles, and I'm sure there will be other fans contributing as soon as they find out that there is a Wikipedia entry on the band. I vote against deletion --Bong 13:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Account has <50 contributions, all but two in the last week. Isomorphic 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete- In order for the page to not be vanity, the subject has to be substantially notable. At this point in time, I don't believe that this band qualifies any more than every other band in the world that just got a recording contract. Users who are in favor of letting every band have an entry on Wikipedia may vote to the contrary, but I am not in favor, so I must vote to delete. Skyler 13:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Any entity in the encyclopedia needs to be notable, and the information has to be verifiable. In the case of bands, that means that the group needs to be known outside of its home area. One way we measure that is with either substantial influence on notable bands (e.g. Alex Chilton has been recording on minor labels, but he has and continues to influence bands like REM and The Replacements) or by sales that are widespread. Since we're not a record guide or a band guide, we have to confine ourselves only to the high profile acts. Minor independent label releases, ep's, and local performances won't fit the criteria. Geogre 14:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable (yet?) Nadavspi 15:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- not notable yet, but maybe with their next CD? Some retentionists advocate keeping high-school bands, which sucks. This band isn't too far shy of my qualifications of notability. --Improv 20:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Well, it doesn't really matter if the page stays or not, becuase they got what they wanted. More people that know who they are and more people that will be interested in their next CD. Why am I against delete? OK, this is not a promo site, but who did this page? Themselves or a fan of the band?? I think it's a fan and that's reason enough to let the page stay.

Just FYI, your vote cannot be considered if it is anonymous. However, I will leave your comments for consideration, but please don't use CAPS. It is considered to be obnoxious or shouting. Skyler 1534 22:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Weak delete, I can't see this becoming encyclopedic yet —siro χ o 10:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. As it stands, this is simply pagerank spam. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. UK Alfa 164 Model Register was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 07:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UK Alfa 164 Model Register

Appears to be a vanity page with no potential. SamH 12:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this could become encyclopedic. Not notable. jni 13:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: An auto club. Geogre 14:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity/ad-ish. No potential. Nadavspi 15:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I put the link on the Alfa Romeo 164 page where it belongs and might be useful, though the site isn't much at the moment. --Ianb 16:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable auto club. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 22:22 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

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

TCS Victory

TCS Victory was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE into as yet uncreated article. 8 votes to delete, 4 votes to merge, 2 votes to keep or merge. As there is not a sufficiently strong consensus for deletion, the votes to merge will control. This listing will remain until a consensus is reached regarding where to merge the content, or someone familiar with the topic takes the initiative. Postdlf 07:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fictional Ship from a computer game. Let's draw the line somewhere. -- Ferkelparade π 13:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Fan-cruft. jni 13:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Fan trivia. Geogre 14:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Nadavspi 15:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but perhaps merge all Wing Commander ships into one article. - SimonP 16:52, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Subtrivial fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
MERGE all Wing Commander ships into a Wing Commander ships article, all Wing Commander ship classes into a Wing Commander ship classes article, all Wing Commander spacefighters into a Wing Commander fighters article, all Wing Commander characters into Wing Commander major characters, Wing Commander semi-major characters, Wing Commander minor characters, Wing Commander incidental characters articles. Merge any Starlancer and Freelancer articles into Wing Commander (game) as well, as they seem to list Privateer 2 as a Wing Commander game, they should also have Starlancer and Freelancer. It seems like propaganda from the Wing Commander nazis though (see http://www.wcnews.com ). The articles need to be categorized into fictional spaceships, etc ... 132.205.15.4 18:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wing Commander nazis make fan-cruft as hardcore as trekkies and wookies. 132.205.15.4 18:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. We do NOT want categories for fancrufty things. --Improv 20:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Fictional spacecraft, there's your fancrufty category for ya 132.205.15.42 03:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft, not significant. Average Earthman 08:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge into some Wing Commander ships article —siro χ o 10:01, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Wing Commander ships or similar. It's just as valid as Star Trek ships and probably of as much interest to the general public as articles are obscure U.S. Navy ships, and I have warm, fuzzy feelings about Wing Commander, but there just isn't enough information about these ships to really merit separate articles. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge into existing Wing commander video game article and let the game fans create a separate ship article later if they wish. --AlainV 02:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge into any related Wing commander article. Jayjg 16:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Fancruft. GRider 22:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have no opinion on what to do with this particular article, since it looks like it's part of a large amount of Wing Commander trivia. I would however like to register my opinion that the material has little or no encyclopedic value. Isomorphic 23:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ekatel was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. It was unclear whether User:Ferkelparade intended to vote for deletion as well. Postdlf 08:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ekatel

Was put on speedy, but anon creator of article removed speedy message. Doesn't fit speedy criteria anyway, but i cannot confirm factual accuracy of the article. -- Ferkelparade π 13:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete if it stays as a substub at the end of the VfD period. I got zero English-language Google hits (Got some czechs (sp?) ones and couple unrelated ones) and zero total hits for "Ekatel god" and "Ekatel Iceland". Apparently a non-notable god? jni 13:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The Germanic settlers of Iceland were illiterate. So.... We've got an island unvisited, and we have a people who can't leave names going there. They say there's no one there, later in their sagas. Were there to have been someone there, those folks would also have been unable to tell anyone the name of their deities, and the people they could have told couldn't have told anyone else. I'd say this is patent nonsense. Seems to me to be totally impossible. The Icelanders don't record meeting any indigenous peoples when they went to Iceland. They normally acknowledge people they killed (after the fact, in the sagas). Geogre 14:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No relevant google hits, no references, appears to be nonsense. -- Sietse 15:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'Delete unless reference provided Wolfman 02:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Chronology of the Watchmen

The page is an apparently arbitrary listing of a few of the events that occur within the Watchmen series. Since an entry already exists for the Watchmen and since this chronology is to the best of my knowledge entirely arbitrary and doesn't add anything to the main article, i've put this up for deletion rather than merge it into the main piece. Hulleye 14:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete and/or merge --Improv 20:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why didn't you just replace it with a redirect to Watchmen? Gdr 22:23, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Stripped of clothing was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Postdlf 08:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stripped of clothing

This is one of a series of contributions by this author on a decontamination / nudity / forcible stripping theme. Much of this appears to me to be idiosyncratic. Suggest incorporation of useful content into decontamination, and deletion of this article. Similarly for the other related contributions -- put useful content into decontamination, or into nudity, as appropriate, and delete the rest. -- The Anome 14:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weak keep: Idiosyncratic, but relatively NPOV. Very awkward name, though, and a merge would be best, and decontamination would be best. Geogre 14:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is someone's fantasy world. A proper, fact-based discussion on how privacy is handled in actual, documented cases of group decontamination would be well added to nudity, but this article is not headed in that direction. Sharkford 15:29, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Delete, I think the external links section says it all. NPOV, no useful content, rumour mongering. -Vina 18:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ Sharkford. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Someone's a few bits short of a byte here. --Improv 20:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Specific constructive criticism would likely be more useful than the bits byte analogy. I've written for a number of print-based encyclopedias, and the comments that come back are usually very specific. It would be nice if Wikipedia could use a similar peer review process in which specific aspects of the article are identified, rather than vague inuendo about the author. Also the nice thing about having the article online is that others can edit it directly, so it would be possible to rework the article, as part of a peer review process. Glogger 15:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect to nudity. -Sean Curtin 02:02, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. More of the bizarre stuff like Beachwear. Rick K 06:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep, if there's a better place for this, and someone's willing to work on it, it could become encyclopedic —siro χ o 10:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Somebody's personal fantasy. — Gwalla | Talk 23:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it possible to keep the factual elements, such as the "nude, naked, stripped" continuum, into naked? All three could be merged into one article, but nudity is already a long article, so ideally there's still room somewhere for a broader philosophical overview of related concepts.
Keep as a necessary counterpoint to nude i.e. for balance and NPOV. See Nude, Naked, Stripped, i.e. I believe there should either be 3 articles (one for each), or just one article naked right in the middle, with a balanced treatment of both sides. Although I will admit that I've probably made a poorly written stripped article, I believe that, having studied the work of many artists and scholars who've questioned the neutrality of the term nude (i.e. nudism as a euphimism for nakedness, and nudity as a strongly biased term), the article could be rewritten to capture the other point of view. Maybe it could be converted into an article on strip searches, legal issues, or the like, because that's a point of view that falls way beyond the scope of the positive-spin aura around nudism/nudity/nude/nudists Glogger 14:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Steve, you have your own website where you can post little essays with your musings on stuff you find interesting. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Stop treating Wikipedia as your personal blog. It's quite annoying. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP—NO CONSENSUS. 7 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep.

David A. Wheeler

Vanity page, apparently written by the subject. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move to his own user page of course (if he agrees) Kim Bruning 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this would be more appropriate on his user page. --Neschek 15:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. 9000 google hits. Article created by IP in 2002. Niteowlneils 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to his own user page or delete. Autobiography, vanity, and advertising in current form. Notability not established by article. Software Inspection: An Industry Best Practice Amazon.com Sales Rank: 258,038. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to own user page or delete. -- Nickj 00:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I have heard of this person before (mainly through his sloccount open-source utility, which gets a mention in this article), so I would like to see the content kept, but probably a user page is more suitable. It is a bit of a line-ball call though, so if it's allowed, as a comprise perhaps we could have a redirect from the old page to the user page? -- Nickj 06:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to user page and delete. Autobiography is a danger. ("Biography is one of the new terrors of death" John Arbuthnot). Geogre 01:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. He's somewhat notable among Open Source people, slightly above my notability threshold for Wikipedia. Article is informative, not vanity or ad. jni 05:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonably well known author.--Eloquence *
Abstain. Hard to decide if notable enough. --Improv 17:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Certainly has potential to become encyclopedic, a reasonably notable author. —siro χ o 22:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. As is surely evident based upon my vote record, I think that we should be spending more time ensuring factual accuracy and eliminating political bias rather than wasting it on debating whether or not something is "important" enough to be (or become) encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not paper" and "Bytes are cheap" are mantras that are being repeated here over and over again. For a reason. Radman1 18:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way... I made a small contribution to Wikimedia foundation during the last fund drive, and I do hope that those who intone those mantras did so, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep Wolfman 02:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep He's well-known enough in (esp. in free software / open source circles) to be listed -- Cabalamat 22:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you people on crack? Keep. "I've never heard of him" is not equal to "non-notable". Has done extensive and notable work in writing on open source software - David Gerard 07:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

FLQ 2 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. 1 vote by a user not signed in (and not the article's author) was discounted. Postdlf 21:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FLQ 2

The FLQ 2 is a French Canadian terrorist group seeking to follow in the footsteps of the original FLQ and that has worked at the local level to stir up separatist feelings. Quick, somebody call the FBI. I could not find a reference to FLQ 2, only to the original FLQ -- Chris 73 Talk 15:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Fiction. No references anywhere (and though I live in Quebec, I've never heard of any such group). —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
weak keep, RENAME to FLQ (2), there have been claims of a new FLQ in Quebec, and anti-English grafitti to support the existence of it. 132.205.15.4 18:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Get past that first sentence (that there is such a group) and go on, and it looks a lot worse. According to this article, the FLQ 2's goal is independence and then "a totalitarian Communist government." Sounds spurious to me. Geogre 01:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Without evidence that the group exists, delete. (Otherwise, merge to FLQ; DON'T move to a nonsense name like FLQ (2).) - Mike Rosoft 12:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Krystal leight was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 21:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Khrystal leight

Autobiography by User:Bobbkehrer, does not appear to be noteworthy (5 hits, one of which is from Wikipedia). —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ditto: delete, although with my good wishes. (User was honest, though: which is nice; and their cause seems to be from generous motives.) — Bill 18:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 20:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable at this point, and misnamed article. Nothing against the person, just not encyclopedic. Geogre 01:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. NeoJustin 04:28 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Koveo was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete. Postdlf 21:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Koveo

Fiction, by the same author as FLQ 2 (see above). Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What a pity, I enjoyed this little article, more than I can say about all the rest. Delete with a small sigh. — Bill 18:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete fictional fantasy fox. --Ianb 22:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not one of the 20th century foxes. Geogre 01:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Only one (irrelevant) google hit for 'Koveo fox'. (No relevant hits for 'Koveo', either.) Sentences like "On the very rare occassion, whales will suck them in and blow them out of their air holes onto land" and "The Koveo is known to live for a maximum of twenty years at a time" give it away as patent nonsense. Delete and move to BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 20:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 23:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This kind of stuff should be able to be handled by the Speedy Deletion... Kiand 23:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Kiand. Radman1 18:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.} Fire Hoez was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 21:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fire Hoez

More fiction from 139.142.154.129. Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fire Hoez is sure to go down in history as ... having starred on Wikipedia:Deletion Log --Ianb 22:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Have we blocked these feebs yet? Vandalism. Geogre 01:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 23:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:09 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. The Rappers Rap Group was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 2 votes to keep, 1 vote to redirect, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 21:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Rappers Rap Group

The people exist, the band look like they exist but the group or the record label doesn't seem to. At least, MusicMatch and Google have no clue about it. Non-notable? Fictitious? -Vina 18:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is, but this article is rather identical to King M.C. & D.J. Flash. Redirect to that article: which then itself might want vfding. --jpgordon {gab} 19:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

KEEP. WTF? Rappers Rap Group are/were a legitimate rap group. They are even listed on VH1.COM and AMAZON.COM on the album West Coast Rap Volume 1: The First Dynasty with their track "Rappin Partee Groove". These people are an important part of early and formative hip-hop culture. Stop using ignorance and Google as an excuse to VfD. If anything "King M.C. & D.J. Flash" should be redirected to this article and merged into it, not the other way around. --Radman1 18:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Intrigue 20:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Freetown-Lakeville Middle School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 14 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep. Postdlf 21:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Freetown-Lakeville Middle School

Too short a history (~ 2 years) to be notable. Mandel 18:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete along with other contiguous schools. Fails to meet the high bar for pre-university school notability. 17 pieces of cruft. Oy. --Improv 20:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete all 17. -- WOT 21:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep all. Why do people keep listing these high schools on VfD, they don't get deleted and it just wastes everyone's time. - SimonP 22:01, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- It is not a high school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- People keep on listing these drivel and people keep on voting delete so that eventually, Wikipedia will BE a encyclopedia, as opposed to a collection of drivel and trash. Are you pro-knowledge or pro-garbage? -Vina 23:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm pro-information. If any article is factual, informative and noteworthy then it should be kept. How is this trash? Radman1 19:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep all articles about schools or people. anthony (see warning) 23:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, also fails to meet the middle bar and the low bar for pre-university school notability. I live within twenty miles of it and never heard of it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete all 17, schools in an of themselves are not notable outside of their locality or outside of their alumni. -Vina 23:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
deleteWyllium 01:07, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete - Alren 03:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't see anything in the article denoting notability. Average Earthman 08:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain At the time I created this, it was so the List of schools in the United States would have fewer red articles. Someone removed those links anyways. Sahasrahla 20:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I believe you, and you can't be blamed. That article has caused no end of trouble. First, it had a noisy and ill-tempered VfD debate. At the conclusion of it, people there agreed, roughly, that, well, the links to high schools could stay, but not the middle and lower schools. From that, a person began saying there was a "consensus that high schools are automatically in" in article space. No one can be blamed for going to the list article and filling in a red link, but no policy ever got adopted, so we're back to the same deletion guidelines for schools as for anything else. Most of them fail because the school article fails to show notability of the particular school. At least that's what I've gotten from the repeated battles and the multiple fat lips I've gotten through the last year or so. Geogre 01:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retain - Yes, it may not be of any use to those who do not live in the area, but all schools should be kept because they are useful to parents looking for information on their local schools. Since wikipedia can hold an infinite amount of pages, there is no reason to delete perfectly useful, good NPOV information which someone will find useful or interesting. Nicholas 18:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Infinite? Infinite? Goodness, that's really a lot. Are you sure it's not finite? By the way, during the last fund drive I made a small donation to Wikimedia Foundation to help them buy some of those infinitely-large disk drives... and I hope you did, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- D Unless the school system there is entirely screwed up, children go to the school designated for their area by the local authority. As always, the good old yardstick - if you can remove the names, numbers and dates and there's nothing left that will positively identify the school, then it's not staying. Chris 02:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unless the school is notable, DELETE--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:41 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 17:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Anthony and Mark Richards. Radman1 19:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep all 17, et al. GRider 21:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Article looks nice, but this sort of information belongs on a school website, not in an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 23:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Venango Catholic High School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete (not including 3 "bootstrapped" votes), 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 21:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Venango Catholic High School

Poor write-up. Not notable. Mandel 18:16, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. P. Riis 00:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
deleteWyllium 01:08, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete. Very short article, and nothing in it to denote notability. Average Earthman 08:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think these votes count; I'm sure that certain people will say that they don't and that they will cause disagreementWikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Could Improv, WOT and Vina please add their own separate votes. Mozzerati 21:48, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Delete Not notable- no notable achievements, educators or alumni. Plus its a crap article --Cynical 20:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D See what I mean about being a generic article? Without looking at the title, name that school: [12] (and I did put it back the way it was) Chris 02:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Please everyone stop making articles about high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools unless something big happens like what happened to Columbine. NeoJustin 04:09 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. The Heights School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. 1 vote by an anon user was disregarded (not signed in, not the article's author).

The Heights School

Not enough info to merit its entry in Wikipedia. Mandel 18:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. P. Riis 00:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
deleteWyllium 01:09, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing in this article is notable. Average Earthman 08:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:04, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
D Wow, this one also doubles as a polling station. It's not like every single school in my area has done this for years ... Chris 02:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep This will probably get deleted, but I've added a reason for it's notability - its telescopes. 203.87.86.44 10:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how the telescopes make the place notable. Chris 18:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Why don't we just shift any of these quite ordinary schools into their community entries, as a minor subsection, instead of spending "personhours" (NPOV!) voting on these flimsy entries? --Wetman 10:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- We are not allowed to (not that I know of). It has been objected by (mostly) inclusionists and the creators of these articles. Mandel 13:22, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 23:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and Clean up. I'm clearly in a tiny minority here, but the (I assume Bahasai) Indonesian language program seems to make it worth mentioning. A few minor alterations could make it well worth keeping. --Quintucket 17:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Being an Indonesian-langauge school in Australia might make it definitely notable, in the same way as Spanish-medium schools in parts of the US, or Welsh-medium schools in parts of Wales (where English is the main language), but just having lessons in Indonesian probably doesn't, at least not in itself. Indonesia is geographically close, which would be a similar reason we learn French in the UK. Chris 02:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Commack middle school was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Bootstrapped votes were ignored. Postdlf 21:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Commack middle school

Not notable enough. (Keep voting guys!) Mandel 18:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. P. Riis 00:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless information to establish notability is added to it. Average Earthman 08:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Also count in 22 more keep votes from 207.189.98.44, theresa knott, Camembert, Gentgeen, Penfold, Imran, Guaka, Andres, Catherine, anthony, Ambivalenthysteria, Dpbsmith, TB, Oldak Quill, Improv, Neutrality, Jamesday, Martin, TMC1221, Johnleemk, ALargeElk, and AAAAA. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools. anthony (see warning) 23:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Merge with Generic middle school #3 Chris 02:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 23:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not an enumerated criteria, but potential to be encyclopedic is. Most encyclopedias I know only include notable things. Indrian 20:47, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Mercyhurst Preparatory School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete, 2 to keep. Bootstrapped votes were disregarded—please vote in each individual vfd if you wish it to be considered. Postdlf 21:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mercyhurst Preparatory School

What do you want me to say? The entry doesn't say much. Mandel 18:59, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, evidence of notability not presented. By the way, I am about to delete some point-of-view promotional cruft from the article. This will make the article shorter and stubbier, so I am going to present the full text here before I edit it. This is so that people in this discussion can judge the article both in its original and its present form. The struck-out material is what I've deleted. I won't revert if anyone puts it back. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mercyhurst Prep is a Catholic, coeducational secondary school located in Erie, Pennsylvania. It is an institution of learning founded by the Sisters of Mercy. The school is located up the hill from Mercyhurst College on East Grandview Boulevard. As one of the finer high schools in Erie, the students of Mercyhurst Prep excel academically, artistically, and athletically. At Mercyhurst, there are a wide variety of interests and opportunities, allowing for excellence to be found throughout the halls of the school.

In place of the struck material, I'm adding: "It describes itself as 'the premier Catholic high school in Northwestern Pennsylvania.'"

Any famous alumni? Educators of national note? If not, delete. Average Earthman 08:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:06, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete non-notable school. The school has no notable achievements, famous alumni or educators. --Cynical 20:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D I imagine that Catholic mixed schools are ten-a-penny in the US. This could be any one of them. Chris 02:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not an enumerated criteria, but potential to be encyclopedic is. Most encyclopedias I know only include notable things. Indrian 20:45, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Malvern Preparatory School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 11 votes to delete. Nominator's vote was ambiguous, but impliedly delete. Block votes were ignored. Postdlf 21:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Malvern Preparatory School

This is fairly well-written (best of the batch), but is it notable enough? What do you think? Mandel 18:28, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I'm voting keep, although I'm probably a bit biased ;). However, I can promise that I'll be expanding the article a bit more over the next few days, especially over the weekend when I have more time to write. --Goobergunch 23:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is the best of the batch, and I appreciate your honest assesment, Mandel. Has alumni and good history. The only thing that worries me about this article are the deadlinks to possibly non-notable schools. Deadlinks encourage creation, and we should be cautious about that. Good article in its own right though. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 07:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, the alumni are an actor, a baseball player, and someone married to a politician. I'm not that impressed by the list. It looks like a well-written and balanced article, though, and does include one news related fact. I'm borderline either way on this one. Average Earthman 08:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -- Necrothesp 13:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Excellent article; establishes notability. Ambi 13:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yet again we have ot put up with non-notable crap just because someone thinks the article is well-written. See below Chris 02:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The person or persons responsible for this article deserve to be given cookies as a reward for actually making an honest atempt to establish notability. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think so. If they can't be bothered to vote individually on each article's merits then I definitely don't think we should accept their votes. Stop this ludicrous campaign against school articles just because they're school articles. Some are worth keeping, some aren't. This one is. -- Necrothesp 00:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - This is not a witch-hunt. I have kept a lot of school articles that establishes notability in their write-up, but IMO, this one, though lengthier and written in better prose, still fails to establish notability. Mandel 08:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
    - Fine. You have voted individually. I have no problem with that (although I don't happen to agree with you). But those other three have not. This suggests that they could not be bothered to read the article in question and respond to it on its own merits and have indeed voted on its title only, which does make it seem like a 'witch-hunt', as you put it. If this is not the case then they should be voting on this section, not collectively in an unrelated section. I don't think that's acceptable. -- Necrothesp 11:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No, these cannot be counted. Please only vote for yourself. Rick K 23:57, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Also count in 21 more keep votes from 207.189.98.44, theresa knott, Camembert, Gentgeen, Penfold, Imran, Guaka, Andres, Catherine, Ambivalenthysteria, Dpbsmith, TB, Oldak Quill, Improv, Neutrality, Jamesday, Martin, TMC1221, Johnleemk, ALargeElk, and AAAAA. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools. anthony (see warning) 23:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No, these cannot be counted. Please only vote for yourself. RickK 23:57, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - Agree with Rick. Anthony cannot vote for other people in this way. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 18:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Do you likewise agree with Rick that Mandel can't vote for other people in this way? anthony 警告 20:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - Yes I do. Block voting for other people isn't on. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        It would be usefr ato be ablet o register that you want to vote for any school that is listed solely for being 'non-notable' without having to troll through 30 or so a day. 207.189.98.44 20:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Analysis of an article:

para. 1 - the basics. Always a good start, but not an article by themselves.
"History" TBH, this could be any school in any community. Nothing in here sets it apart from other schools around the world.
"Priest abuse" Ugh. Does this belong here? I think not - there should be many better places for this. Otherwise it's veiled attempt at saying "Don't send your kids here, they might get raped."
Notable alumni - an old bone of contention, but that list certainly isn't impressive, and definitely is not a source of notability. David's best mates and family aren't notable in themselves, so why should this school be?
School year - fairly standard. In countries with real education systems, term dates are fixed, so this is entirely moot.
Athletics - "Malvern boasts a strong athletic program, with 16 varsity sports." ... and? SFW?
ACtivities - "Malvern offers 21 extracurricular activities." Yet again, SFW?
The robotics part certainly doesn't establish anything notable - simply having a robotics club or society isn't a notable achievement. Having the first ever schools robotics club ever in the world ever might be, but nothing in what was said here is notable in the slightest.

So, in summary, what on this page establishes the school as notable? Sweet FA. Delete Chris 02:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notablility is not relevant. Mark Richards 17:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. It establishes some minor notable aspects of the school. However, the academics and activities sections should be dumped. Most schools have AP classes and extracurricular activities. Who cares? Gamaliel 05:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It establishes some minor notable aspects of the school. Name them please. Chris 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - The revolutionary war battlefield and the notable alumni. Gamaliel 18:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - The school is not notable for its alumni, unless they have contributed to their notability. Same goes for the battlefield - it might be notable, but it doesn't make things sited on it notable by association. Next! Chris 19:04, 23 Oct 2004
      - I surrender. Congratulations on your victory over the Malvern Preparatory School. Gamaliel 19:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. School. anthony (see warning) 00:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep; almost encyclopedic, appears to be notable on a local level. Appears verifiable. The abuse by a priest is notable because it happens in a school. Mozzerati 15:00, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Intrigue 21:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Cheraw Primary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep. Block votes were ignored. Postdlf 21:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cheraw Primary School

Substub. Delete in my view. Mandel 18:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Nearly a speedy delete as a substub, except that it could be expanded. Notability, however, is simply not there. BTW, if people want to talk about a "XXXX School Project," why not a list article? A list would contain all the information plastered across 100 insignificant entries. Geogre 01:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, Dizzy Gilespie is from Cheraw, SC, but he is very unlikely to have attended this school, as he went to school in the days of segregation. I don't know of any other famous people from Cheraw. Having driven through it a few times, it has been left behind by the interstates. Geogre 04:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Stub that fails to establish or even suggest notability. Average Earthman 08:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Also count in 21 more keep votes from 207.189.98.44, theresa knott, Camembert, Gentgeen, Penfold, Imran, Guaka, Andres, Catherine, Ambivalenthysteria, Dpbsmith, TB, Oldak Quill, Improv, Neutrality, Jamesday, Martin, TMC1221, Johnleemk, ALargeElk, and AAAAA. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools. anthony (see warning) 23:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? I see what you're getting at, and I see that I put "keep if created, don't encourage creation" for a number of criteria, but I don't think this school meets any of them. Which one did you have in mind? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - "Any school about which we can write a non-trivial, non-stub, NPOV article." Regardless of whether or not this is a non-trivial, non-stub, NPOV article, certainly one can be written. Anyway, if we don't count the three proxy votes made by Mandel, then we don't have to count the 22 proxy votes made by me. We should decide whether or not to allow proxy votes, because if we do I'll be setting up a proxy system whereby myself and several other inclusionists can vote for each other. anthony

(see warning) 00:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- - - Then forgo the votes by all means. Do you have to do such a childish tit-for-tat thing on a serious VfD page? How old are you? Are you taking Wikipedia for a spin as well? Do you want to count in those delete votes from your stated page? What difference is it from an edit war?

I did not vote on behalf of them, but is merely drawing attention that those three voted to delete all the subsequent 17 schools earlier. Whether the sysop who runs this page this bother to count in these votes is his or her choice. Improv has categorically stated in my talk page to put these pages together for the sake of ease of voting. Mandel 13:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

- - Do you have to do such a childish tit-for-tat thing on a serious VfD page? No, I just want to make sure that any admin who counts those delete votes will also count these keep votes. But calling this VfD page serious. I think you're stretching things. Do you really think it makes much of a difference in anyone's life whether or not this page is deleted? Do you want to count in those delete votes from your stated page? I'd rather we count no delete votes, but counting delete votes from that page would be perfectly acceptable. What difference is it from an edit war? There's no war. It's merely two people expressing their opinions in a civilized manner. I did not vote on behalf of them, but is merely drawing attention that those three voted to delete all the subsequent 17 schools earlier. And I am merely drawing attention that those 21 people voted to keep all schools of this type earlier. Whether the sysop who runs this page this bother to count in these votes is his or her choice. Improv has categorically stated in my talk page to put these pages together for the sake of ease of voting. Good. I hope he counts the 21 keep votes too, for the sake of ease of voting, of course. I hope he counts my vote right now to Keep all pages about schools or people or companies or bands, for the sake of ease of voting, of course. anthony (see warning) 14:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - There's a difference between allowing a category in Wikipedia and allowing every single article on that category to stay. Those Wikis merely voted to allow school articles. Right now Wikipedia allows biographical entries, but does it mean if the person is not notable it won't be deleted? How about adding my granddad into Wikipedia? Good luck to you anyway. Mandel 19:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  - Their vote said "Keep [articles about schools which can become more than a trivial stub] if created". That seems to me to be much more than simply allowing school artiles. It seems to me that they voted to keep those articles if they are created. anthony 警告 20:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. School. anthony (see warning) 00:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- "School", in and of itself, is not sufficient reason to keep. Bearcat 21:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Normally, I'd say "having a name and an address does not make it notable", but this one doesn't even have an address. Chris 02:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. Would not object to merge-and-redirect with Cheraw, South Carolina. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Guanaco 00:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Spot the alumnus. Chris 01:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Please stop deletion trolls. Intrigue 21:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Schools are not notable just because they exist. If that were true, we should have an entry for every building in the world. Besides, this is hardly encyclopedic, which is a criteria. Indrian 20:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- As noted, notability is not a deletion reason. Also, they are notable. If you want to write an article on a building that is factual and verifiable, then please do. Intrigue 21:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, Notability is a deletion reason, it falls under the category of "not encyclopedic". Schools are not notable. If I write an article on a house in my community and put in it's color, who lived there, and who's buying it, is it encyclopedic? According to you, yes, because it is factual and verifiable. But you would be wrong, for the sole reason that it is NOT notable. Again, as has been repeatedly mentioned, is the article so generic that it basically applies to most primary schools? Does it do something to stand out? -Vina 23:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Balgowan Primary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Block votes were ignored. Postdlf 21:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Balgowan Primary School

Maintained wholly by first contributor below (ie Iceaxejuggler). My argument is such pages are no more than vanity pages (I attended the school, so it must be notable). Prove it. Mandel 18:35, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. What is your argument for deletion? --Iceaxejuggler 10:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, his argument, apparently, is that it is vanity. I vote delete for non-notability. The bar is a whole lot higher, IMO for a primary school than an university. -Vina 23:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: What makes this school not just different from other schools, but of note to the world at large? How is this school such a remarkable school that it is known and will be sought out by the wider community? I see no evidence of such. Geogre 01:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I attended the school. I do not see how that makes it a vanity page - it's just something I happen to know about. The school had over 600 people when I was there. Over a number of years that is a very large number of people that have passed through its doors. In addition there will have been a large number of parents, relatives and locals for whom this school may have paid a powerful part in their lives. This entry might not say much, but it may be of interest to those that once attended the school to learn something of its early history and of its use as a hospital. It is also an article that other people may be able to expand - perhaps with name changes or other facts about the school - in principal, information that might be useful to people researching family history, their parents schooling, whatever. More importantly, I do not see the rationale for deleting it: why delete it? What harm is it causing anyone? Surely it's affected far more peoples lives - they've spent seven formative years of their lives there - than some long-dead English Lord whose only claim to fame is that his great-grandfather sucked up to the King? (But people seem happy for such lords to be there). Also worthy of note is that although there is not much information on this page, what little there is does not currently seem to be available anywhere else on the internet. --Iceaxejuggler 13:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that last comment points out a problem with these school articles. In principle, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure topics. I don't want to overstress this, because I don't believe we do very much verification here—we do mostly rely on the good faith of contributors. If we deleted every article that hadn't been properly verified, we... well, anyway. I think that at the very least if the information in this article is based solely on the personal testimony of one person, that person ought to be identified on the article's talk page with their real name and some way of contacting them. Scientific articles sometimes reference "personal communication," and nonfiction books may cite "author's interview with so-and-so on thus-and-such date." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It can be verified. Information that the school exists can be found on the internet. As for some of the facts not mentioned on the internet these can be verified possibly by contacting the school or certainly by research in published sources in local libraries (or by published sources - histories of Beckenham - that are available by order over the internet). Even going by the criteria listed on the page that you link to there does not seem to be a requirement that the verification information be listed on the internet (and it would seem a bizarre requirement if this was the case). --Iceaxejuggler 08:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe you and I'm don't seriously doubt the information. However, the Talk page for the article is currently empty, there is no References section, and no inline HTML comments. Take a look at Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. Do you have any objection to putting information about your sources on the Talk page? In particular, and I am quite serious about this, I think that if information in an article is based on personal knowledge, the Talk page should say so, should provide a means of contacting you, and, I believe, should provide your real identity. If you are going to provide difficult-to-verify information, then you should go the extra step to convince us that the information is verifiable in principle. I am a wishy-washy, vacillating school deletionist, whose principles are easily corrupted when the article is of high quality. You may feel that it is silly to invest further effort in this article right now, but I wish you would consider this in regard to future contributions.

You may also feel that giving yourself as the source makes the article vulnerable to a charge of "original research," but that is a) a real issue b) that must (and can be) dealt with. For example, consider the statement "The school was built in 1914, and was originally intended to be a secondary school (this explains the height of the windows, which are too high for primary school pupils." If you say: "Source: personal conversation with principal John T. Doe circa 1994" then it is no longer original research. You have now established a way of verifying the information (contacting John T. Doe) and you have given the reader the information needed to make a proper judgement of the reliability of the information. This is what scholarship is all about: give the information and give the reader whatever is needed to trace, verify, and assess the reliability of the information. I don't do very much of this in my own contributions. Like most Wikipedia contributors, I am guilty of fairly low-quality scholarship. Nevertheless it is what we should be doing, and the more obscure the information, the more important it is to do it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete unless notability is more clearly established. It's a school. It's now a primary school but it wasn't originally intended to be. It was used for something else at one time. How is this any different from dozens, probably hundreds, of other schools? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is notable because 1000s of people have spent 7 formative years of there lives there, i.e. it has touched their lives in a very significant way. What is your requirement for something to be notable? --Iceaxejuggler 08:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by formulative? Significant in what way. All schools are attended by people, so does it mean that every single street, school, hospital, swimming pool, eatery, restaurant, address should be in Wikipedia? You keep saying it is notable. Prove it.Mandel 09:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Formative, not formulative. 1000s of people have spent a critical part of their youthful development at the school for most of their waking hours. The school has played a major role in making them the person that they are. I'd say having a significant role in the lives of 1000s of people is notable. What's your definition of notable? Anyway - as yours is the vote for deletion - surely the onus is on you to show that it is not notable, rather than for me to prove it? --Iceaxejuggler 09:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Every one who writes articles here has the responsibility to prove that what they write is notable, not gibberish. Your argument is an inclusionist one: all schools are notable, not that yours is significantly so. So will it come to the point where every human being in the world merit an article in Wikipedia? After all, we touch each others' lives in more ways than one. The definition of notability has already been mentioned countless times -- there's no way to distinguish this one school from hundreds of thousands all over the world. If you can prove your school is special in certain ways that distinguishes it from others, that transferring from another school to this would make a significant difference, then that that would count as notable. Just see how many above and below has mentioned that. Mandel 07:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that all schools should be included. (Perhaps there is an argument for restricting schools below a certain size, but Balgowan is large by the standard of primary schools.) Please argue against my case, not an extension of my case that I have not made: saying that all schools should be included is not the same as saying all human beings would merit an article in wikipedia, just as saying that all universities should be included is not the same as saying all schools should be included - I have outlined why I think that this school is notable - it has touched upon many 1000s of lives in a significant, ongoing way. And I do not see why you wish it to be deleted? I can see a possible utilitarian argument for the inclusion of information about Balgowan (outlined in my earlier comments). I do not see a strong argument for deleting it. Surely the existence of articles such as this would only become a problem if it impeded searchs for other, more notable information? And I do not see how this is the case, in this instance.--Iceaxejuggler 22:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea how big the school is, and I'm tired of this argument. If you think all schools should be included, just state so. For the rest, see the voters' reasoning below and above. Mandel 13:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Count in 2 more delete votes from Improv, WOT. See above. Mandel 09:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but my vote has to be for Delete. Apart from the big windows and the Blue Peter presenter there's nothing to distinguish this school from thousands of others. Jxan3000 11:00, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Jayjg 16:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Generic primary school #4 I'm afraid. Chris 02:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I fail to see how something that is not notable in any way can be considered encyclopedic, which is one of the criteria for deletion. Indrian 21:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Heart Lake Secondary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 21:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heart Lake Secondary School

Not notable enough. Mandel 18:58, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. It is frequently alleged that articles on very obscure topics, such as schools, are rarely verified, and that the information on them is unlikely to be kept up to date. The fact that an anon actually checked the information and found that half the content of the article was wrong shows that this allegation has merit. It is frequently asserted that school stubs should be kept so that they "will grow." Stubs do not grow, absent a dedicated community of people with a serious commitment to writing encyclopedic-quality articles about the topic area. The fact that this stub has not grown since February 9th, 2004, suggests that no such community exists for school articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Probably only just missed out on being classified as a "newbie test". Chris 02:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:36 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 20:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comment NSK ([email protected]) has stated that Wikinerds, an all-encompassing "knowledge base" rather than an encyclopedia, is interested in having all VfD-ed articles resubmitted to them. I have submitted this one to them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank goodness there's a place to submit all these stubby school articles. I hear that anthony depiero wants to start something like a school database for all schools, small or big, notable or otherwise. Now that's the place to visit. Before I get slammed further, I'll keep my mouth shut. Mandel 19:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Does that make Anthony notable enough for a WP article? ;o) Chris 02:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. A. Y. Jackson Secondary School (Kanata) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 9 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Block votes were ignored. Postdlf 22:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A. Y. Jackson Secondary School (Kanata)

Not notable. Mandel 18:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it was decided in September that the Ottawa schools project could continue. Old debate. - SimonP 21:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The vote apparently was on Brookfield High School (Ottawa), not "the Ottawa schools project". A disproportionate number of inclusionists voting one day on VfD cannot establish a permanent immunity from deletion for high-school articles. -- WOT 22:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. I've certainly never heard of them. -Vina 23:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No notability, and being in Ottawa isn't enough. Geogre 01:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment Personally, if someone were to put up a single article on schools in Ottawa—and given that what we seem to have for most of them is a couple of lines and a logo there would seem to be plenty of room—I wouldn't have a problem. In fact, collecting them together on a single page would, it seems to me, make it more likely that Ottawan contributors would discover the page and expand the sections on individual schools. Wouldn't it be pleasanter and faster to scroll through a single article than click and wait for separate articles to load? What is the advantage of a few dozen logo-decorated substubs versus a single article with short summary entries about individual schools? If the section on one school grew too big to fit, then it could be broken out into a separate article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. Many schools and the history of education in an area is more likely to be notable than the schools seperately. Therefore, I would vote to merge and redirect if a "Schools of Ottawa" page was created. Otherwise delete this particular stub. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 07:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is no such policy. Rick K 06:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
delete Dunc|☺ 12:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 2 more delete votes from Improv, WOT. See above. Mandel 09:17, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Alternatively, you could move it to Template:School, since that's all it's good for. Chris 02:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 23:24 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Cairine Wilson Secondary School (Orleans) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Postdlf 22:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cairine Wilson Secondary School (Orleans)

Ditto. Mandel 18:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it was decided in September that the Ottawa schools project could continue. Old debate. - SimonP 21:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable school like any other school, except that it's in Ottawa. Geogre 01:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is no such policy. Rick K 06:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Conditional delete. As above, will favor merge and redirect if schools of ottawa page created. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 07:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:17, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D This article looks awfully familiar. Oh, of course. That's because it's almost identical to the last couple ... Chris 02:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:39 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is an encyclopedia not a database of schools. Indrian 20:52, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Bell High School (Nepean) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to List of Ottawa, Ontario schools. 7 votes to delete, 1 of which accepted merge/redirect, 2 votes to merge/redirect, 4 votes to keep. As this translates into 9 votes to 4 against keeping an independent article on this subject, but 7 votes to 6 in favor of keeping at least some of the content, the consensus is best interpreted as merge and redirect. Postdlf 22:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bell High School (Nepean)

Non-notable. Mandel 18:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it was decided in September that the Ottawa schools project could continue. Old debate. - SimonP 21:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I take 2 weeks off from VfD to write articles, and now there's a consensus or policy, even, to allow high schools with no information except where they are to get in, so long as they're in Ottawa? A school. Like other schools. No notability provided. Geogre 01:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is no policy that all schools in Ottawa can be kept. Rick K 06:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Conditional delete. Would support merge of Ottawa schools. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 07:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to a suitable location. Suggest moving List of Ottawa, Ontario schools to Ottawa, Ontario schools and then merging the information about each school into the list. Another possibility would be Ottawa#Education [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:18, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 18:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Article presents no evidence of ~~notability~~ existence. No point having an article if nobody can say anything about it. Chris 02:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Heh, I went to this high school and I can't think of anything noteworthy to say about it. All the Ottawa schools should be merged into one list. Shadoks 12:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 19:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - The fact that I voted to delete this page is verifiable, does that mean we should have an entry entitlted "Indrian's votes for deletion on wikipedia"? Indrian 19:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- No, we are not self-referential. Intrigue 21:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adult High School (Ottawa) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep. Postdlf 22:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adult High School (Ottawa)

An adult high school but ultimately still just another school. Mandel 18:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it was decided in September that the Ottawa schools project could continue. Old debate. - SimonP 21:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. But I certainly don't read that debate that way. It is a debate on a particular article (one that I voted to keep, by the way). I do not see anything resembling policy or decision on "the Ottawa schools project" in general. Where do you see this? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As an article that gives virtually no information beyond what is in the article title, it would even be a speedy deletion candidate under a criterion that was recently proposed (though not accepted). In other words, it is not a speedy deletion candidate, but it borders on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I certainly don't agree with a school project in main article space. I see a day when we take the materials that consistently violate the main deletion rules and allow them to propser in sister projects, but that day hasn't arrived, and the debate is over the article space. Things have to be notable, and, for me, just another school is interchangeable with another. Geogre 01:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: if the Adult High School (Ottawa) was actually the name of a kindergarten in Vancouver, it would be notable.
Delete. There is no policy that every school in Ottawa could be kept. Rick K 06:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Conditiona delete. Would vote to merge and redirect if schools of ottawa page created to devour these stubs. This one looks familiar though, was it nominated before? Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 07:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment I must have been punchy from looking at too many school articles—are they really being created in good faith or is someone trying to disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point?—and too angry at the idea of creating an article with no more information that this. I woke up and realized:

I've never heard of a high school specifically for adults before.

If this is a unique Ottawa institution with an interesting background it could potentially merit an article. If adult high schools are a feature of the Canadian school system then an article on Adult high schools could be in order. If the name of the high school is a euphemism for something, that is worth an explanation somewhere (but not a whole article). Anyway I still think the article should not be kept in its current form but am open to the idea that it might be notable. So... changing vote to:

Delete unless article expanded and notability established prior to expiration of VfD. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone at least tries to establish non-speculative notability. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep no need to bring this up every few months. If something isn't deleted the first time, it's not going get deleted this time. Earl Andrew 04:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ???? Are you saying this has been on VfD before and survived? I don't see any previous VfD listing in the history. What do you mean? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Well not this particular page, but similar pages. Earl Andrew 03:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:20, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
C Might be notable, but for the love of $DEITY say something useful about the place. Chris 03:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 21:15, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Sir John A. MacDonald Secondary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete (not including 3 "bootstrapped" votes), 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 05:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sir John A. Macdonald Secondary School

What can I say? This school is not even opened yet. Mandel 18:44, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. It is open now, btw. It just got postponed 2 weeks, the article says. Now, why that's important, I can't begin to say. Geogre 01:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:20, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D "Construction problems" have a nasty habit of delaying openings. Chris 03:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 21:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. TL Kennedy Secondary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Postdlf 05:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TL Kennedy Secondary School

Just another thousand and one school. Mandel 18:45, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable, no claims made. Geogre 01:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:21, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) *Also count in 21 more keep votes from 207.189.98.44, theresa knott, Camembert, Gentgeen, Penfold, Imran, Guaka, Andres, Catherine, Ambivalenthysteria, Dpbsmith, TB, Oldak Quill, Improv, Neutrality, Jamesday, Martin, TMC1221, Johnleemk, ALargeElk, and AAAAA. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools. anthony (see warning) 23:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg 16:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! Chris 03:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. School. anthony (see warning) 02:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Make a speedy delete policy to get rid of non-notable schools :) NeoJustin 04:37 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. West Credit Secondary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete (not including 3 "bootstrapped" votes), 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 05:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

West Credit Secondary School

Wow, an expensive school. And no, it's still not notable. Mandel 18:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: And watch the contributor fill in all those redlinks, too. :-( Not notable. Geogre 01:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:21, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Construction costs for high-profile projects are welcome. The new home of the National Assembly for Wales is set to cost £52m, though I don't know anyone outside this house who cares how much the extension out the back is going to set us back. Chris 03:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 16:30 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 16:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Southwood Secondary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete (not including 3 "bootstrapped" votes), 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 05:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Southwood Secondary School

My idea is that this school is not notable enough. Sounds familiar? That's all folks. Mandel 18:49, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable school. Fire Star 22:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete Wyllium 01:11, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete: Minor fuss on the local level. Not notable outside of its neighborhood. Geogre 01:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count in 3 more delete votes from Improv, WOT and Vina. See above. Mandel 09:22, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Sigh. I'm reduced to copy/paste. See what you've done!? Chris 03:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The story of my life is factual and verifiable to, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know about the story of your life - if you have had a huge influence of thousands of people maybe you should write an article and we can vote on it. 207.189.98.44 20:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ben McGarety was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 22:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ben McGarety

Delete this vanity stub about "an exciting new Australian rock sensation in the making." Need I say more? Postdlf 22:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, thy name is not notable. Fire Star 22:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
you could mention he's recorded three songs, and we've got almost the entire article. As anyone can record songs, Delete. --Ianb 22:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete for vanity, though I must point out I'm not allowed to record songs by court order. But they didn't say anything about selling the old stuff! Mwahahahahahahaha! Ian Pugh 23:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: And it's how they're making him that's the really grotesque part. (Band vanity.) Geogre 01:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Google shows a grand total of 13 pages with the name Ben McGarety: none of which appears to relate to this bloke. [13] Google asked if I meant Ben McGarry. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's wait until he's done being made. Delete. --Improv 17:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Vested was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP AND MOVE to vesting. 4 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete. Postdlf 22:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vested

Delete for dicdef. --Neschek 23:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef. Nadavspi 00:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Inaccurate dictdef (or, rather, a restricted and specialized one). Geogre 01:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, move to Vesting and expand. The practice of vesting is significant, I think, and can have more content than a dicdef. As far as I can tell, it's not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, comment on my user page and I'll change my vote. --Improv 17:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep/Move under Improv's assumptions that this is not covered elsewhere. —siro χ o 22:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Move to vesting and expand. Agree with Improv, this is an important subject. - Taxman 22:57, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Move to vesting and expand. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Arbutus Middle School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 13 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 05:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbutus Middle School

Non-notable. — Dan | Talk 23:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Unless you can say something about the school other than its location that isn't true of every other school, it's not notable. Postdlf 23:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll second that. Delete as nothing more than contact info. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete Wyllium 01:19, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing here. Geogre 01:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete all of the above Primary, Secondary and High schools. Agree with User Vina above. Alren 03:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) .
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 20:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Mandel 08:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Chris 03:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, no potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:16 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 19:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 21:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
[NOTE: page has been changed, more about school]

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

October 21

The Rockin' Bricks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 22:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Rockin' Bricks

Non-notable band. Recorded one ep "to wild weeknight acclaim." Say what? -Vina 03:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable band vanity. Ian Pugh 04:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If a band isn't on Allmusic.com, it's not notable. Wyllium 14:49, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete. One EP? Not notable. Gamaliel 20:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable band. Just because they used to play gigs with a group that actually did go on to be noteworthy (The Smithereens) doesn't make them notable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. a Google search finds 128 references [14], with quite a few to Wiki-feeds. I would suggest it's not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Diane Tebelius was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 22:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diane Tebelius

Failed political candidate's misplaced vanity page. MeltBanana 08:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about vanity, but anyway, she lost a primary, so wasn't even her party's choice to run for Congress, let alone a Congressperson. Delete. — Bill 12:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Conservative candidates for congress are notable, gets fair amount of hits as well. Wyllium 14:51, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Delete: she lost the primary. Beyond that, there's nothing to write. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 16:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
She lost the primary, and doesn't seem notable for any other reasons (e.g., I would accept previously holding office as a Secretary of State or something). Delete.. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Didn't get to be the candidate for congress, as she lost the primary. Needs more than this to establish note. Average Earthman 18:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'd vote to keep if there was anything at all remotely notable mentioned about her besides "failed primary candidate". Gamaliel 20:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Del; office-seekers are non-notable w/o something more, like major-party endoresement for their nomination or a hell of an impressive campaign organization. --Jerzy (t) 01:41, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Keep - a real candidate. Intrigue 22:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Misoponia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to The Praise of Folly. 4 votes to merge and redirect, 2 votes to merge without redirect. Postdlf 04:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misoponia

Dictdef of a word of more or less ancient Greek. When you remove the synopsis of the Praise of Folly, and the external link, which both belong on Erasmus, there's nothing left; and I can't imagine anyone looking up Misoponia: i.e., Merge, no redirect. — Bill 12:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. All this info would be much better at home at Erasmus or Praise of Folly. Wyllium 14:53, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Praise of Folly. Had another author picked up this impersonation, or had it played a more important part, it would have been worthy of a discussion as a character or topos. However, it was a coinage by Erasmus. (E.g. one could have articles on Sans Foi, Sans Joi, and Sans Loi, because they're actual characters who do things in Fairy Queen, but Praise of Folly is more of a dialogue and less of a fiction.) Geogre 21:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Sans Joi)
Merge and redirect. - Taxman 22:55, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to The Praise of Folly. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to The Praise of Folly Key45 20:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Pineapple fritter was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE with fritter. 4 votes to delete, 1 votes to merge/delete, 6 votes to merge without any preference stated as to redirect. I find the result ambiguous as to whether a redirect shall be kept, so I will go ahead and make it into a redirect, to be dealt with later on RfD if anyone feels strongly about it. Postdlf 13:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pineapple fritter

Is this encyclopedic? If not, Pea fritter and Apple fritter even less so. — Bill 12:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move all of these into Typical British food, or something like that. Wyllium 14:47, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
The concept of a fritter should probably deserve an article, and Pineapple fritter, with some of the cruft removed, could make a decent stub. I vote to move the page to fritter and delete the redirect it creates. Delete Pea fritter and Apple fritter, as they won't make good redirects. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 16:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge all into fritter. Other articles by the same user on similar subjects include: Pea fritter, Apple fritter, Fritters; all food articles by this user need checking for encyclopedi-ness. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't feel that food descriptions are encyclopedic. --Improv 17:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree, from the amount of times I remember explaining to foreigners what a 'fritter' actually is, it is entirely an encyclopedic subject. But dividing it between the (countless) types of fritter you can get (my local chip shop does mince pie fritters every Christmas...) is not encyclopedic, and I stick to my opinion above that they should all be merged. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete along with Pea fritter and Apple fritter. A Fritter article with significant history would be okay. If so, redirect Fritters to it, otherwise delete that one, too. -- WOT 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: We fritter away our time with too many of these. A simple Wiktionary definition of a fritter is plenty. We're not going to discuss each fritter, it's important role in the Battle of Waterloo, or its duty during The Anarchy (when there were no fritters to be found anywhere). Geogre 21:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge all these articles to fritter, that has very much potential to become encyclopedic —siro χ o 22:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Merge into fritter. A fritter is certainly a notable item, not just in England. Conch and alligator fritters are semi-famous in Key West Fla. Apple fritters are very famous too. They certainly do not each need their own articles though. Fritters needs to be merged and redirected to Fritter of course. - Taxman 22:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fritters are encyclopedic; varieties are not (or at least I'll need convincing, and this doesn't do it). Merge to fritter. And for an example of a good article that's analagous, Geogre, see funnel cake. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Meelar, that we can make encyclopedia articles on foodstuffs. I'm just very curmudgeonly about them. To me, it just seems a stretch, unless it's a national dish or a dish that made a revolution (the potato). Now, of course, I wish I had a funnel cake, or at least some boiled peanuts (tell me there is an article on the dish of the South). Geogre 01:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And for an example of a food article that needs a complete rewrite, if not a speedy delete for being an insult, do see boiled peanuts. Looks like it was written by someone whose only experience of the south was driving to Disney World. Very disrespectful. Geogre 01:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge the lot of them into fritter. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Writing as the person who created the "fritter" articles I've got to say all this seems a bit excessive! A lengthy discussion is quite out of proportion to the subject. A simple little note on my "talk" page would've been sufficient to get me to merge the offending articles. I mean, for goodness sake, I probably would've decided, after further consideration, that they looked better merged anyway. Still, they're merged now, as are the couple of "toast and" articles. --wayland 09:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll create a redirect fritter. Incidently, listing on VfD isn't a personal attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles

Yet another extraneous list. Important entries on this list are mentioned as part of the childlove movement and pedophilia articles. +sj + 12:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

delete. btw, Sj, don't forget to put a vfd tag on the page you're nominating for deletion. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Pedophilia has long been an important social issue, if only for the witchhunts of recent years. Similar to List_of_famous_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. Wyllium 14:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Weak Delete. No question that the underlying subject is notable, the problem is whether the list page is useful. I think not (see +sj above), but maybe someone can persuade me that there might be a reason for maintaining a list of self-identified pederasts. — Bill 16:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. Their taking responsibilty for their behaviour is a good thing!~~ Fire Star 17:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* keep, I don't like child rapists' attempts to push their pov on here, but this is okay as long as it can be verified. Dunc|☺ 17:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Change to support Dpbsmith's position below. Dunc|☺ 12:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lists are only rarely encyclopedic. This one isn't. --Improv 17:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mixed feelings about this one, but I think this will open a can of worms about how we define the terms involved. Gamaliel 20:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There are lots of lists in the Wikipedia, it seems to be an okay thing. - Lifefeed 20:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: This is bizarre, and there is no connection or analogy between pedophilia, pederasty (which is rape, after all), and homosexuality. Pretty shocking simile. Furthermore, what use is it to have a list of pedophiles? What is the context? How is this serving information? Delete for being non-encyclopedic, unsearchable, unverifiable, and unuseful. Geogre 21:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for legal purposes, In many (most?) juristictions, promotion of pedophilia is a prosecutable crime, this list does nothing more than promote pederasts and pedophiles. Frankly, some of the other associated pages are close to the borderline. This one is way over. It is verifiable, actually, as long as the criteria is either a judicial conviction or a statement admitting it. -Vina 22:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep if verifiable, and the entries have at least a small notability. Although I like no more than the next guy, I have to stick to my guns. —siro χ o 22:44, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
delete agree that lists are rarely encyclopedic and this one is not at all. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that all lists should be turned into categories instead. However, if that's not possible, keep as it's no better or worse than any other list on here. Shane King 23:59, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless: a) contributors to the article are willing to form a committee devoted to providing a specific print-media reference for each item (book or magazine with specific page reference) and the actual quotation, in which the person "self-identifies" in that person's own preferred language and terminology, and b) a second committee of neutral third parties people is willing to take on the work of verifing each one. The material should be kept out of the main namespace until this work is completed and, even outside the main namespace, should have a conspicuous banner explaining that it is work in progress and that the material in it has not been verified. In the final article, each person listed should be accompanied by that "self-identifying" quotation and the verified citation. Oh, and protect the page after the work is complete. Yep, it's a high bar, but it's what I think is appropriate. This is one case where we have to give more than lip-service to verification: we have to be sure everything in the article is actually verified. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: This list is quite useful. --Zanthalon , 00:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If it's useful, I hesitate to ask what you're using it for. --Improv 15:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find Dpbsmith's position convincing. Change my vote to delete. Fire Star 03:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This list is non-verifiable. Mandel 08:43, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-verifiable, and as with all similar lists, inevitably outdated the second the original editor loses interest. Jayjg 16:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: troll/vandal magnet, perpetually out of date, not worth the tremendous maintenance effort it would demand. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see the usefulness. JamesMLane 05:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - this is asking for trouble in that it is potentially libellous and would open up the possibility of people nominating people they dislike to the list. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete I simply do not see the point of this page, and though that in itself should not be grounds for deletion, in this case the subject matter is potentially very controversial. While I would agree with Dpbsmith's proposal, I feel it's unworkable. cevonia 12:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Toast and marmalade was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 12 votes to delete, 2 votes to merge/redirect. The content (what little there was) has been merged already into toast. Because of the clear deletion consensus, this will not even be made into a redirect, but future editors to toast should be able to decide whether the bit of added information is useful there. Postdlf 13:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Toast and marmalade

Really now. English people eat toast with marmalade. If you like this one, though, there's Toast and jam by the same author (he of the pea fritters) — Bill 12:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, well. Factual, yes. Encyclopedic, I think not. Wyllium 14:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
just merge with toast. Dunc|☺ 17:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Food descriptions arn't encyclopedic. --Improv 17:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete both, food in and of themselves are not notable or encyclopedic. -Vina 17:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like it with syrup or jelly! Delete. Gamaliel 20:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I'm English and I do not eat toast and marmalade at breakfast time. Well not that often anyway. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Toast it. (Delete for being non-encyclopedic.) Geogre 21:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps move into a list English breakfast foods —siro χ o 22:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Something like this could be part of an article on British breakfasts or British food or British cuisine, or part of the article on Toast, but there's no need for a whole article. Nor do we need one on Toast and marmite, Hot buttered toast, or Toast and honey, or Toast and treacle. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think desecrating your toast with something so vile as marmalade is a crime, but that's not why I vote delete. Lord Bob 01:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Expand into several more articles: Rye toast and orange marmalade, Pumpernickle toast and apricot marmalade, Wheat toast and kiwi marmalade, Whole wheat toast and kiwi marmalade ad nauseam. Or we could delete it, if that would be easier. -R. fiend 20:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Why not? Each of these tasty combinations must have influenced the lives of thousands, if not millions of people. Remember, Wikipedia is not pooper, I mean paper. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- "Have you got anything without toast?" "Well, there's toast marmalade butter and toast, that's not got much toast in it." "I don't want any toast!" "Why can't you have egg bacon toast and sausage?" "That's got toast in it!" "Hasn't got as much toast in it as toast marmalade butter and toast, has it?"

Please see my comment relating to this on the Pineapple fritter votes for deletion page because I think we can avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary discussions on some of these votes. The purpose could very well be accomplished with one simple note on the user:talk page of the person who created offending article (which in this case was me). I mean, it works much better (assuming the person is somebody reasonable like me) at the level of a memo. More than that is overkill unless it's some real controversy (which this obviously isn't). --wayland 09:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- You'd be surprised -- there's been a policy debate going on on how to handle food articles/recipes/etc for some time now. --Improv 15:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to toast. -Sean Curtin 01:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: subtrivial. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete because moving the contents to a combined 'toast and...' page renders this page a redundant blank --Cynical 21:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page. Williams-Sonoma was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 5 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete. Postdlf 13:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Williams-Sonoma

Now I'm not quite (yet) out of my mind, of course Williams-Sonoma is notable, and eventually this substub should be expanded, not deleted. But I couldn't figure out how else to call some potential spamming to everybody's attention. The photo is the obvious main item on this page; now notice that the photo doesn't in fact illustrate anything about the ostensible subject of the article; then that outside photos of other stores in the same mall have sprouted on other new pages this morning: Tommy Bahama, Disney Store, Pottery Barn, all by the same person.

Is this spam? What to do about it? If I had photos from other malls, or better yet, of the products sold by these firms, I'd substitute them; but I don't. — Bill 13:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. Surely, everyone agrees that chains like Pottery Barn deserve an article. Wyllium 14:58, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Abstain - perhaps Wikipedia:Images for deletion is a better place to deal with this issue. OTOH, the pictures in question are storefronts in a public place. The uploader (at least on this one) gave the photo to the public domain. They do in fact illustrate the articles in question. It could be that someone wandering through this mall chose to take pictures of the stores for Wikipedia. Even if it were done with the connivance of management, with a view to self-promotion, I doubt it's a sort of spam we can (or want to) do anything about. Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please don't use VfD for this. Try the Village Pump --Improv 17:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What's the problem here? People making stubs to go with their photos? Find a better photo or improve the article. Gamaliel 20:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a well-recognized mall store. Article should be expanded - Lifefeed 20:53, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: We are not a place to show off your photos! Photos serve the articles. So, when the author feels like doing some damned research and writing an article about Williams Sonoma, then the author can show off his or her snaps. Otherwise, this is bull, and I'm very disappointed to see people saying this isn't a VfD issue. Substubs this mind bogglingly bad are an offense. Why, with my dial up connection, should I spend :45 waiting to look at some goofy picture of a store the looks of which I know well just to read "it's a store that sells cookware?" Give me a break, guys. This is the kind of substub that should be speedy deleted. Geogre 21:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree with Geogre (sorry). The article is lacking, but the subject is deserving--and the picture isn't spam, it's useful! Good photo, and we shouldn't lose it just because we don't have any text to go with it yet. There's few reasons to delete a substub if the topic is deserving, and this photo makes it even less worthy of deletion. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:39, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep tons of potential to become encyclopedic. Are not these guys at every mall in America now? I highly doubt this is spam also, I believe it was a good natured attemptto add to wikipeida, one that was successful —siro χ o 22:56, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This is not a good photo: The name is barely visible, the corporate logo is invisible and there are no other design elements present for a store chain where design is crucial. The text is useless. Too bad, becasue just a paragraph or just a good photo could have been a good kickoff for an article on the chain as a design phenomenon. --AlainV 02:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So there is (more or less) general agreement, including from me: obviously Williams-Sonoma is notable and needs an article, but the photo is worthless (whether spam, hard to say). I'm going thru the four articles now and removing the photos. — Bill 11:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep User:JamesMLane's new stub, which meets my low bar of "sorta-kinda-half-decent." And Keep the picture until and unless we get a better one. The picture IMHO adds something. It is an amateurish snaphot (barrel distortion, bad color temperature and all), not a professional photograph, but it gives a perfectly good impression of what one of these stores looks like. I wonder whether we could approach William-Sonoma and say, politely, give us a nice, glossy color 8x10 of your storefront licensed under GFDL or we'll continue to use this one? Nope, borrowing trouble... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I photoshopped the image a bit. Hope everyone agrees it's an improvement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment Did the page ever have a VfD tag on it? I don't think I accidentally removed it. Can't find it in the history. Should someone put one there? I guess I will... If this is a mistake and it shouldn't be tagged, my apologies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I think it never had the VfD tag because Bill listed it mainly to get comments on the photo issue. When I looked at it, it was an untagged substub, so I turned it into a stub. With or without the photo, we should have an article on this company. Obviously, there's much room for expansion. JamesMLane 20:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That's correct. Someone else later removed the Vfd tag: which is fine by me, since of course I don't want to delete the (eventual) article. Still don't feel good about the photos though, and have a nagging feeling that that clump of 4 squiblets, all illustrated from the same mall, is an attempt at manipulating Wikipedia. — Bill 22:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. BiM Barn was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 13 votes to delete. Postdlf 23:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BiM Barn

IRC# of some gaming clan. Yawn. Wyllium 15:12, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Delete nonnotable vanity page for online gaming group. Here's some worthless text that I deleted from it: "So be warned when they say they will rape you, as there are a few meanings here: One raping in the gaming world on a server and then they will also have you sexually, with preferences of taking away someone's Plubus" Postdlf 15:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete Non-encyclopedic, insignificant, meant as a joke. Haakon 15:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. One wishes this could be speedied, given repeated removal of the VfD notice. JFW | T@lk 15:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obvious delete. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 16:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete non-notable group's article. Fire Star 17:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Close nits indeed. Delete --Improv 17:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Gamaliel 20:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Gamer vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 22:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Demonslave 14:31, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as this is clearly a joke page. Radman1 17:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 16:15 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but shift to Wikinerds first. They seem to like stuff like this (heck knows why!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Chase Hall was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 23:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chase Hall

Delete Funny (and true), but not really relavent. Just a little venting by a cadet(I would know!).

As a former denizen of one of the other service academies, I can pretty much vouch for the truth of this one; but alas, the building per se is not notable enough. (The author sent us their piece from the server at the USCGA, though.) — Bill 16:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The same things can be said for most of the restaurants in my locality, but you don't see me writing articles about them. Delete. Fire Star 17:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Is the building notable? Novel architecture? Controversy over its design? Make a case. --Improv 17:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 20:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: four walls, floor, ceiling, occupying 3 dimensions of space. Geogre 21:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I seem to recall Jimbo getting very annoyed the last time we started deleting university buildings. - SimonP 23:35, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, this is a joke article! Symptoms of spending too much time in Chase Hall include headaches and insanity? I don't think this is an article on a university building. I think it's a cadet slagging off on his dorm room. If you think Jimbo would get upset, that's fine, but it's not a reason to keep a joke article. Geogre 01:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note also that Jimbo doesn't always get his way. For example, he voted delete on the 3rd GNAA VfD, and (sadly) it failed to be deleted. --Improv 15:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: nonnotable. So what if Jimbo gets cheesed off about decisions made by others -- that's what he gets for hiring us to mind the store. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Nice cup of tea and a sit down was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 10 votes to keep, 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 23:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice cup of tea and a sit down

Wikipedia is not a web directory, their site has an Alexa ranking of 535,109 , though it is a good site. Dunc|☺ 17:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Concur with duncharris. --Improv 17:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Cult website that has spawned a book, I think it is within the realms of notablility, and Wikipedia is not paper. Darksun 19:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Willing to change my vote if the article establishes that this is indeed some notable cult website. Gamaliel 20:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done, see article now —siro χ o 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Change vote to keep. The article is pretty vague, but it seems the subject is indeed somewhat notable. Gamaliel 17:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: it is kind of famous, but I'm not sure there's much more to say than "it's a website; a fairly famous one; oh, and they wrote a book". Feel free to prove me wrong and come up with some genuine information, but I can't see this ever being more than a sub-stub. - IMSoP 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A famous website just seems to me to be like a really old grasshopper: it may be old for its kind, but it's still short-lived. There are exceptions, but I'd see them as extremely few, partly because we are a web site ourselves, and people seeking information about Amazon.com can go to Amazon.com more quickly than they can go to us and read an entry explaining Amazon.com. Our service in these matters would be to discuss such sites in terms of history and impact, and that's only going to be necessary or possible with sites that are more than popular. Geogre 21:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article now explains that this site was an internet phenomenon that attracted much media attention. It also places the book as the more notable item, which is currently true. —siro χ o 11:25, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. And site does not meet the high bar of notability required for websites. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, fully agree with what Geogre said. - Taxman 22:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Strong keep, note that the book has a sales rank of ~~258~~ 101 on www.amazon.co.uk Unless that amazon site differs from www.amazon.com in how it ranks sales, that is very strong. If i've somehow misinterpreted this, tell me and Ill change my vote —siro χ o 23:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Weak Keep, if expanded. Moderatly notable cult sites should have an entry. Did it spawn a catch-prase?
Keep. Seems somewhat notable, needs expansion. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, if just to teach people not to create stubs after stubs after stubs. The book is just a mild text on how to drink tea. How one can expand this without making it advertisement I do not know. Mandel 08:52, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I explained a bit about the cultural significance as an intertnet phenomenon and the media's attraction to the website. —siro χ o 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Please consider rereading the deletion policy —siro χ o 00:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Keep and expand. Radman1 17:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain per Siroxo, Delete the article has essentially no content. If someone wants to add content, go ahead. But this is not an article; it's a link to a website. Why keep that? Wolfman 01:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've expanded it. —siro χ o 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but instead of being an article about the website, which by the way spawned a book, it should be an article about the book, which by the way developed from a website. Amazon.co.uk sales rank is now up to 118. JamesMLane 04:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice: I've done some expansion to the article to explain its cultural siginificance a bit. I don't think the VfD vote applies any more to this article, as it is clearly not just about a cult website, but about a much larger phenomenon. —siro χ o 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, obviously - David Gerard 07:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep; widely followed generally UK-specific cult website, Alexa ratings inappropriate to measure this. James F. (talk) 14:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: but still needs expansion, I can't really tell what the book is about. Surely someone can give the book as much attention as Star Trek: TNG season 4 episode 8 got. Key45 21:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Final Fanasty Antics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 23:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final Fanasty Antics

Does not seem very noteworthy. Only has 20 episodes, and it's hosted on some free web hosting site. The page sounds like it may have been created by the same guy who created the comic ("it only has 20 episodes so far yet is going to continue for a long time."). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 21:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable sprite comic, ripoff of 8-Bit Theater (even steals the "personalities"—read: black mage is violent, fighter is stupid). Doesn't even have its own site. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ick. Non-notable ephemera. Geogre 01:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently webcomics like this are a dime a dozen. Everyking 01:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We are not a web directory. --Improv 15:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jayjg 16:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, terrible pun on Final Fantasy Tactics. And yes, the article's an advertisement for some hack job of a comic. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:10, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

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 - should be merged - SimonP 12:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bullshido

This page was previously listed on VfD. The prior consensus reached was Redirect without Merge to McDojo. The old discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido/Archive1. Since the original discussion, the article has been significantly rewritten and now bears little if any resemblance to the version existing when previously listed. (For convenience, here is User:Taxman's edit previously nominating the page: [15]) However, User:Fire Star has made the point that any admin would be within their rights to execute the previous consensus decision. Therefore, I am renominating this article for reconsideration by the community. My personal vote is Keep --MikeJ9919 20:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect again. The article is still an advertisement, and it still just reiterates material found elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to McDojo. Megan1967 06:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be NPOV'd, or otherwsie re-edited, in which case it may warrant a keep as a "more than a definition" --Simon Cursitor 06:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with McDojo - and MikeJ, please note that merging or unmerging an article does not require any kind of vote, as long as it's done in good faith. Radiant_* 17:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that, Radiant. However, I think a merge of the article after the previous consensus was to redirect without merge would be inappropriate and actually blatantly bad faith. --MikeJ9919 19:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, this is a notable group in Western martial arts circles. ~~That being said, this could certainly be a paragraph or two at McDojo, or vice versa. Abstain for now.~~ Fire Star 03:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to keep. I have some ideas on how to expand different viewpoints in the article to promote NPOV. The article as it stands is the result of a collaborative effort between Phrost, myself and a few others, and is less POV than many of the other martial arts articles. BTW, "bullshido" gets over 6,000 Google hits, FWIW. Fire Star 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I don't see how any other action would apply. — Xiong 熊 talk * 13:10, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
So far I've seen no solid justification for merging it with McDojo, especially considering they're completely different terms. Bullshido is a term that encompasses McDojos, fraud, questionable practices, poor standards, and other garbage in the martial arts. It sounds like sour grapes to me, go go passive-aggressive wikipedia editors! Keep --Phrost 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard the term at many different martial arts clubs and it is prevalent throughout related internet groups Jekyll 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bullshido is a valid and established (in certain circles) term that is separate in definition from 'McDojo', thus a redirect, with or without merge, would not be appropriate here. I think the mere fact that there's so much discussion around this article is an indication that the article is, in fact, relevant and interesting. Thus, removing it would be a disservice to the community. If some of you are not happy with the content of the article, then a dicussion of how these complaint can be addressed is the way to proceed, not this. --thefurman
Keep -- Bullshido is a website with 5,000+ members. The word "Bullshido" is used by many martial artists as a descriptive term for ineffective or fraudulent martial arts training and instructors ("That's Bullshido!", "He's a Bullshido artist." etc.) . It's becoming part of the martial arts vocabulary and is used even by people who don't frequent the primary website. This entry should stay. --Katanahamon 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These are terms with different meanings, it would definitely be beneficial for the online community to be able to view the seperate meanings for these two different words. - --Jso234 01:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An instructor can teach bullshido. He can't teach McDojo. You can train at a McDojo. You can't train at a bullshido. The only thing these terms have in common is that they both describe serious (but separate) problems in the martial arts community. (Added by User:Bunyip but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - The term has even slipped into the vocabular on other message boards.McDojo and Bullshido are separate terms.

Keep - The two terms are different and have fallen into common use outside of the internet - they need seperate definitions for the simple reason that they do not mean the same thing. (Added by User:Jcache but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Seperate meanings different definitions Mcdojo one on every corner. Not necessarily good or bad. Bullshido is fake and fraudulent. (Added by User:Mw234 but left unsigned --MikeJ9919 16:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - "McDojo" is a recognized term among people who haven't even heard of the Bullshido website. The two words are often used simultaneously but do not have significantly overlapping definitions. --Shuma-Gorath (Actually added by anon IP 24.42.13.51...User:Shuma-Gorath has no edits --MikeJ9919 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - The usage and meaning of "McDojo" does not pertain to the phrase "Bullshido" in manner or form. While a particular school and/or style *MAY* be both, more frequently than not, the terms are used for distinctly separate instances. (Added by anon IP 68.220.129.74 --MikeJ9919 16:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Bullshido is applied to anything that is purported to be effective when it can be refuted in demonstration. No-touch knockouts are a example of this. A McDojo is a place wherein Bullshido could be but is not necessarily taught. A McDojo is usually shown to have it's front window lined with trophies and to churn out black belts like a burger chain churns out combo meals.

Keep - Bullshido <> McDojo. Seperate terms. A McDojo can host legit fighting arts OR bullshido.

Keep - Bullshido=Ashida Kim, Frank Dux, and the multitude of no-touch knock-out fakers. Mcdojo=Martial arts schools that are simplily trying to make a living, some could be Bullshido but not all. --Skeptical Warrior

Keep - Bullshido is a valid term and has grown much bigger than its humble, internet message board, beginnings. --Ktulu

Keep -Bullshido has become common parlance in the Martial Arts world- ----Garbanzo

Redirect without Merge In light of the ridiculous sock-puppetry on this deletion vote, I am changing my vote to redirect without merge. I prefer delete over keep. I thought this article had some value, but the admin closing this vote should note that every person voting between Phrost and myself has fewer than 5 edits. Most have only one or two. User:Shuma-Gorath appears to have none. All of the unsigned votes that I could see (I didn't actually go through each one, I don't have that kind of time) were by anon IPs, and under policy should be automatically discounted. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and one more comment...while I have heard McDojo before, in my 10+ years studying the martial arts, this is the first time I've ever heard this term. --MikeJ9919 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you're changing your vote not based on your opinion, but simply because your feelings were hurt over new members voting? Do you realize that this goes against EVERYTHING that the wikipedia is supposed to be? Sad sad sad. --thefurman 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm changing it because they appear to be accounts created specifically to subvert the VfD process. When I say "one or two edits", I don't mean they appear to have edited articles and then stumbled on this one singular vote for deletion...their only edits are on this page and this page alone. That smacks of blatant sock-puppetry, and using sock puppets to subvert VfD is against policy.--MikeJ9919 15:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, but what does that have to do with the worth of the arcticle? That's what all of this is about, remember? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a venue to play out political confrontations. If you think the article has merrit and should stay, than that is how you should vote if you want to remain true to the mission of this project. Otherwise, you're acting out on emotion or some silly sense of revenge. Now, onto "sock puppets". Am I a sock puppet? I've never participated in the wikipedia process up until this point. In fact, I only made my account to vote here, since this is the first time I am faced with something I feel strongly enough about to bother. Should my vote not count? Are some members more equal than others? Why do you feel the need to insult me and others like me? It seems that you really need to sit down, forget about your emotions, and think through your position. As it is right now, it's in conflict with itself. You can't claim the moral high road and accuse others of subverting the wikipedia process while voting to delete an article that you yourself consider worthwhile over a petty grudge. Sorry. --Thefurman 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want my reasoning behind my vote, it is actually a logical extension of my sock-puppet argument. I've found that sock puppets tend to show up when there is an attempt to subvert NPOV. The NPOV problem with this article has been mentioned by previous voters, specifically Simon Cursitor. I was not persuaded at the time - I didn't believe that the article was POV. I have rethought that position and am now under the impression that (1) it is and (2) there is not sufficient content to modify that. Therefore, with regards to my vote, it stands. With regards to "some members more equal"...sockpuppets are all different faces of one member, and while that member is equal, his/her attempt to vote twice (or three times, or four times...) by using sockpuppets is actually an attempt to be "more than equal." If you aren't a sockpuppet, then I'm sorry...this is nothing personal. Nevertheless, even you must admit that it is very suspicious.--MikeJ9919 16:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm going to bow out of this discussion as I see no point in it continuing. You're not litening to me. That is ok. You don't have to. Hopefully, you will soon cool down and rethink all of this with a clearer head. --Thefurman 16:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not a sock puppet. I was an anonymous user but felt compelled to register to defend this article. The concept of "Bullshido" is different from "McDojo". A TKD Franchise where you have eight year old Black Belts running around is a McDojo. They may teach legitimate fighting techniques that could actually work if applied and trained correctly, but elect instead to sell belts and ranks to make people happy. Bullshido are those techniques that are pure garbage. One touch knockouts, Chi power, slow moving defense against attackers, no-contact sparring, etc. The words are different. I've been studing martial arts for over 20 years now and hadn't heard the term being used either until a year or so ago. However that's strictly a function of how long the term has actually been around. This article should stay. -- Katanahamon 17:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not a sockpuppet either. How about caring more about the integrity of the definitions and less about some misguided ferver to discredit actual live people who care to express their opinion. Even if you had a million edits your opinion would not be more valid than ours. Elitism has no place in this type of forum. Like many facets of the internet, this particular idea (Wikipedia) was created in part to escape/circumvent the very thing you are doing here. OH, and by the way, I tried to email you but you aren't accepting emails through your Wikipedia login. That's your right, but it is kind-of cheesy to be able to argue then retreat behind annonymity. --Chronomorte 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm an active user, and I read and respond to anything posted on my Talk page. Feel free to leave messages there.--MikeJ9919 22:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bullshido has a different meaning, it does not translate into McDojo. Bullshido as a term relates to unrealistic expectations in the martial arts, McDojo relates to questionable business practices in martial arts schools which may or may not include bullshido. Different things. - --WingChun Lawyer 16:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep - McDojo and Bullshido are two different words having two different meanings, in my opinion there is a need for two seperate entries. --ojgsxr6

Keep Hi there... even though it appears I am to be labelled a "sock puppet" I would like to vote keep... I have browsed Wikipedia a few times and never registered pretty much because I dont have much to add to many items here... The reason for keeping Bullshido is because its a valid term in its own right, it is different in meaning from Mcdojo so shouldnt be merged with it. There are many obscure terms out there that I havent heard of but I dont think they should be deleted... so why should this...??--Shadowdh 16:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't make sense to delete a word that has a unique meaning and is established. Bullshido definately deserved its own posting, as does McDojo, it's a shame this is even in question.- --Chronomorte 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, but holy sockpuppet overload, batman! Tomer ^TALK 19:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I can't see how we need this. (Not to mention the abundance of Sock puppets) - Tεx τ urε 20:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Sockpuppetry is futile. The admin who makes the final tally will, by long-established precedent, give proportionately less weight to votes from any accounts with few edits, and practically none to those with one or two, especially if they are all on this VfD. If anyone of the seeming multitude of concerned newbies has actually been an anonymous user for a while and wants to get previous edits assigned to their new account, this is the time to do so if they want their vote to "weigh" more. Fire Star 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, apparently the attribution change service has been suspended. Still, people can list their previous edits on their new user pages, if they'd like, with perhaps an appended note to that effect on their votes here. Fire Star 01:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- This is hilarious. An outpouring of support for the article gets dismissed simply because the individuals involved aren't going around cramming their views down other people's throats. The opinions of people who have been recently introduced to Wikipedia aren't as important as those who spend copious amounts of their free time interjecting themselves into subjects on which they have absolutely no expertise. I especially love how some of the votes for deletion, which are BLATANTLY biased, are being presented by people who have absolutely no connection to the martial arts and no perspective on the relevance of Bullshido within this community. It would be as asinine as me editing the NASCAR article, or voting on deletion of a related subject. This is precicely why people have legitimate gripes with how Wiki operates. It doesn't take any expertise, just an overinflated sense of self-importance, a healthy dose of passive aggression, and a dash of hubris. --Phrost 02:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even without the votes from the new accounts, it looks like the article is likely to survive.Fire Star 04:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is blatent misuse of the word sock puppet here. Sock puppetry is multiple accounts made by the same person, not an influx of newbies prepared to vote on something they consider important. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet . The majority of new posters can be found over on Bullshido under the same name as they log on with here. This agressive attitude is not encouraging them to stick round and contribute.Jekyll 11:02, 18 May 2005 (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.

DISCO movement and The Disco Studs were proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 23:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable movement and its non-notable spinoff group. Rick K 22:46, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete both: Campus lore, campus group, and people trying to revive the worst music of all time (except for the sentimental rock of Bread). Geogre 01:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Disco is dead. Not notable. --Improv 15:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Disco is dead? Why didn't you tell me? Chris 01:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Nottingham co-op was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete, 1 vote to merge. Postdlf 23:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nottingham co-op

Yet another reason we need a managed deletion policy. Article has almost no content, but not quite speedy worthy. Probably a new user's contribution made in error. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I did my bit for the cause, and I'll support the next fellow on the chopping block. As for this, there's nothing there, and it would not be encyclopedic if it were. Geogre 01:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I might have had a go at expanding it if it had been about the Greater Nottingham Co-Operative Society. Average Earthman 10:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nicholas 15:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Certainly not speedy worthy. Ideally, merge into an overview article on Buildings in Madison covering the city/region. Buildings and other permanent structures are of lasting interest and article-worthy; we shouldn't turn away NPOV contributions; etc. +sj + 15:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 16:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D This article title should be reserved for the Co-op in Nottingham. For a start it would be a damn sight more notable than this place. Chris 01:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Kikz

Delete nonnotable "mastermind" behind some nonnotable online communities. I was tempted to speedy delete it, and will if there are no objections—borderline-coherent, chock-full of nonsense. Postdlf 22:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this can be safely speedied as nonsense. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it can be safely speedied as a vandal attack, too, as it amounts to "he's a fag who likes Taco Bell" article. Adolescence is a horrible thing. Geogre 00:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, indeed. Speedy. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted. Shoulda just followed my first instinct. ; ) Postdlf 01:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bogdan Golik was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Though only 1 vote for deletion was registered after the article was moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, no objections to deletion were raised. Postdlf 23:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bogdan Golik

moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Something Slavic. RickK 19:55, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect not encyclopedic. Can someone at least identify language and say whether this is liable to be appropriate material? -- Jmabel|Talk 21:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Polish. Seems not to be encyclopedic. Andres 22:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Polish indeed, and absolutely not encyclopedic, little value in the article. 195.244.128.16 20:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved content

From what little I can follow, random slander in Polish. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Aeris Garner was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 22:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aeris Garner

No context given for this fictional character who receives no google hits. Delete unless context is given. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:58, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Postdlf 23:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as is the nature of our kind. Fiction that is patent nonsense when not located in its universe and fancruft when it is. Geogre 00:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - mindless sugary teenage fantasy rernst 17:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Just more cruft. GRider 22:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Gravity, Molecular Reaction Rates, Relativistic Fields and the Hulk: a Beginners Guide was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 10 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 22:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gravity, Molecular Reaction Rates, Relativistic Fields and the Hulk: a Beginners Guide

I'd enjoy this very much, maybe, if I read it on a comics website. But it's totally unsuited for Wikipedia: totally unwikified, written in-character about the Marvel Universe -- someone, I'm afraid, does not know what Wikipedia is. I don't know of any other Wikimedia project it could be transwiki'ed to; does Wikisource accept this sort of thing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it original or confirmed as a copyvio? -- Netoholic @ 02:21, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

I have no idea what evidence Lucky 6.9 had that it was a copyvio. The OP denied the charge on my talk page (apparently thinking I was the one who put the copyvio tag on) saying it was original. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, no evidence of it being a copyright violation has been provided. -- Old Right 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, it was not nominated for VfD because it was a copyvio, or by the person who believed it was a copyvio. It was nominated for VfD because it appears to be original research about the Incredible Hulk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of its copyright status, it's a fanfiction essay, or something of the like. It's not an article, and can hardly be turned into one. Delete. --Slowking Man 03:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Fiction outside of its context. Geogre 03:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Del. Fan-fic, and not notable if turned into an article abt this fan-fic. --Jerzy (t) 14:27, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Del. Fan fiction, nonsense, nonencyclopedic. Paulr 14:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yet more fan fiction utterly inappropriate to Wikipedia. Average Earthman 14:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - Just reword the article and put something in it that mentions that it is fictional. -- Crevaner 14:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE Publish your fanfiction on your own blogs. Not here. -R. fiend 15:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Del, encourage author to move to fiction wikibook. +sj +
Delete. Fancruft, possibly original research. --Improv 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non encyclopedic. Jayjg 16:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

October 22

Chazz Thompson-King was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chazz Thompson-King

I fail to see how this person is in any way notable. Indrian 01:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

delete. jericho4.0 02:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity/joke of a very predictable sort. Geogre 03:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Hoax by someone who doesn't know Turkish. — Bill 11:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rumors on a royal descendence could be notable... no vote...[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Zero Google hits. Delete vanity. Bearcat 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Inky 00:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Heartbreak City

I created this page by accident. I moved the contents to Heartbeat City. Please delete. DCEdwards1966 03:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) Gorka Morka was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep. Postdlf 14:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gorka Morka

There is not a single Google reference to "Angelis Prime" which might have anything to do with this article. Rick K 05:20, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

You'll get a number of relevant google hits if you just search for "gorka morka", but still...it's a minor boardgame set in the Warhammer 40k universe, and there's dozens of those. Delete -- Ferkelparade π 13:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Another Warhammer spin-off. Fiction without context, fantasy presented as reality. Geogre 14:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 16:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete, i see no potential to become encyclopedic right now, although someone could prove me wrong possibly. —siro χ o 22:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep The name of the game was actually Gorkamorka There are almost 20,000 google hits for it and it was as popular as Necromunda while printed. However i do suggest wikifying, cleaning up and removing the information presented in character to make it clear it is a game --Asmodai 23:52, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep if the article is revised to be a description of the game like the other boardgame/wargame articles, not a (possible copyvio) reprint of the fiction behind it. Inky 01:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless context and a description of the game itself are added; if they are added, keep. -Sean Curtin 00:29, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Doug erwin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 9 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doug erwin

Delete possibly the most unremarkable bio-stub ever. Can it be this banal and still be vanity? Apparently so. Postdlf 08:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Someone comes along, types there name into Wikipedia, finds no article, so creates it - ignoring the big Do not write articles about yourself statement. Average Earthman 10:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Doug, you do have the makings of a novelist: this page, brief as it is, exudes an air of wistfulness and nostalgia. As a 50+year-old, I can tell you there's stuff ahead of you, though. (Delete.) — Bill 12:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keeping that page for other people to gain an insight on what a boring life he leads would be more of a punishment for creating it than deleting it ... never-the-less, delete. Shane King 13:19, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: "The exciting world of chartered accountancy awaits you!" This reminds me a lot of that accountant in Monty Python who thinks he wants to be a lion tamer. Seems like a decent fellow, but he hasn't yet gotten to the level of encyclopedic. He also apparently has a miniscule for his surname. Geogre 14:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Notable for being "the most unremarkable bio-stub ever", or just delete it. Wolfman 01:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Puh-lease ... Chris 03:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, clearly, and there's no reason why pages like this should have to stick around for a week or more. -R. fiend 01:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete vanity. If he wants his own entry, he should set up a user page. Inky 01:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Lucinia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 5 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lucinia

Either copyvio (though I couldn't locate key phrases online) or someone's fiction. SWAdair | Talk 08:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that the same author also created Sherashlin Manor and Klysindel Lake, neither of which is known to Google. SWAdair | Talk 08:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Siflige reference suggests this is a Neverwinter Nights setting of some sort, but unclear if it's standard or part of a mod. Stan 12:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: It's some kind of D&D thing. (Why do the Neverwinter Nights campaigns always have to do with some special item? Tolkein did the ring, yes, but that was because he was adapting the stuff from Volsungsaga and Gotterdamerung.) Geogre 14:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article is fan fiction from the server of Siflige, used to describe the history of the city to newbies.--PiousHeretic 02:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in concurrence with PiosHeretic. This in no way infringes upon copyrights of any sort, merely a fan-fic for the popular Neverwinter Nights server.--Moonblade 13:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Indrian 17:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Key45 21:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Either way, fanfic doesn't need to be here. If it's a major genre-impacting work, I could see an article about it. Inky 01:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete this and the two related articles noted above. Does fanfic qualify as "original research"...? -Sean Curtin 00:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Also delete related NWN module-related articles Siflige and Kessor. -Sean Curtin 00:33, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

Y-chromosomal Aaron

This is pseudoscientific nonsense on the basis that some radical Jews think our last shared patrilineal ancestor was Aaron not Adam (see Y-chromosomal Adam). This is POV, and unnecessary. Dunc|☺ 10:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) oh I see now, withdraw. Dunc|☺ 10:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) Clairvoyance (album) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 6 votes to keep, 4 votes to delete.

Clairvoyance (album)

This was originally deleted by an admin without first listing on VfD. I am listing it here to get community consensus before we remove it. It is only just a list of tracks at the moment. Should this be removed? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd delete all such pages as ephemera. It's remarkable that these pages occur only with relatively current music, I can't remember seeing pages with listings of tracks of Horowitz piano albums, or Sinatra. But I've just been leaving them alone, it's obviously what Wikipedians want to do. (If it isn't, though, I'll start listing the others here as I find them: there are lots of pages just like this one, just tell me what to do.) — Bill 12:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Most albums are not notable. Maybe none are. --Improv 15:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be expanded to say why this album is notable. Mere track listings are no more encyclopedic than my listing what I had for dinner. Average Earthman 16:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've expanded it to say why it is notable —siro χ o 23:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not an article, nonnotable album. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Now info has been posted so that we actually know whose album it was, and Screaming Trees is a notable group. So now we're just stuck with a substub and a vfd debate. This is why I speedy deleted it in the first place—a list of tracks with NO OTHER information is worthless, and we would have lost nothing to start from scratch. Is it too much to ask that an article at least have one complete sentence when it is first posted? Postdlf 18:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've made it into an article, and its just as notable as most bands initial full length release albums —siro χ o 23:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep; I don't believe a precedent to delete albums should be set on a vfd that, thus far, hasn't attracted the attention of anyone who actually feels such articles should be kept. If this gets deleted, everyone who creates album articles--and who doesn't watch vfd--will feel put out, and rightly so. Plus, this article could be expanded. Could someone explain to me how having this article harms Wikipedia, because I've never seen a fully laid-out argument. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:21, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep albums by notable bands. Everyking 19:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep! Its the first full lenght release by a very influential band. I've expanded it. —siro χ o 23:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Stray comment moved to correct location (Chris 02:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) *Keep, all this article needs is more info. I went ahead and added whose album it is. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep now that it actually has content and we know what it is. Postdlf 02:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Album by notable band. Gamaliel 05:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Radman1 15:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. The World has been divided into the camps of believers and disbelievers was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 10 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The World has been divided into the camps of believers and disbelievers

Non-notable slogan, not encyclopedic. — Bill 11:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. Deb 11:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete --Demonslave 14:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Yet another reason Lists are wicked. They set up redlinks that people feel they have to fill in. Geogre 14:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Geogre. Delete. --Improv 15:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that I'll vote to delete for the reasons above. Fire Star 15:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Count me as a disbeliever; this isn't encyclopedic. Delete Plutor 16:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There are probably a few articles that this can be mentioned in, but it doesn't warrant its own page. Nor even a redirect, as I doubt anyone will type all this in. -R. fiend 17:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete, because I don't think this slogan itself has potential to yeild an encyclopedic article. I may be wrong —siro χ o
Delete separate article, at best it could be included in a list of slogans. Inky 00:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. 21 Singles was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 7 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

21 Singles

Useless out of context. Deb 11:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oho, it's our day for track-listing pages. Delete, then. — Bill 12:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, all it needs is more info. I added whose album it is. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 15:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, its a singles collection by a very influential band. It is most certianly notable, and has very much potential to become encyclopedic. I've given it a bit of an expansion. —siro χ o 23:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Gamaliel 05:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Radman1 00:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, esp after Siroxo's expansion. Key45 21:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Intrigue 00:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep I am becoming somewhat disturbed at the level of deletionism occurring for what I think are worthy articles. There little, if any, harm in keeping interesting and esoteric material on Wikipedia. If you do not want to know about this topic then you do not search for it. However, if it is kept it will be here for people who do want to know about it. Also be careful you do not suffer from Academic Standards Disease :o) --ShaunMacPherson 18:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Combino was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 7 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete.

Combino

Not encyclopedic, no potential to become so. — Bill 11:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: A model of a brand of a train car (and just a car). Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 14:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a train car, it's a tram. And there are only about five different types of tram you can get these days due to the amalgamations in the industry, so this makes this a major thing in an important and expanding area of public transport. So these are in use in Augsburg, Basel, Erfurt, Freiburg, Düsseldorf, Nordhausen, Potsdam, Hiroshima, Amsterdam, Ulm and Berne. (And no, I didn't know this five minutes ago, I did a Google search). I'd say this does have the potential to become encyclopedic, in the same way as, say, the Airbus A340 is. Average Earthman 15:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Earthman. Looks encyclopedic to me. Keep. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:19, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known tram model. Article needs improvement, especially with respect to the recent technical problems of the model.Martg76 01:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I expanded the article, using the information from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 02:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 17:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The article in its current state falls in line with the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains; many other articles like this already exist in Category:Locomotives and others are requested as listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Todo. slambo 15:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I see absolutly no reason for deletion of this article. —siro χ o 00:24, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. With the additional material, this is a good article. Inky 01:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Echo the opinions of Siroxo. -- Radman1 15:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Daniel Booth was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. Postdlf 14:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Booth (subtitled: Poncho in Winter)

Article does nothing to establish notability. — Bill 12:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, although I'd like to find out how he comes by without glasses in winter... -- Ferkelparade π 13:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's the clear air. He wrote for Melody Maker. Good. Fine. Non-notable. Geogre 14:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. List him on the staff of Melody Maker, but no more than that. Inky 01:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Slashbot Rhyme was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 16 votes to delete, only 3 of which accepted merge. 1 vote by "AC" was disregarded—not signed in, not article author. Postdlf 14:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slashbot Rhyme

Delete posting of some song or something some slashdot user posted on a thread once. It's amazing how self-important those people get, thinking everything they do is worthy of documentation. Postdlf 12:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FIRST POST!.... I mean DELETE! -R. fiend 15:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh...delete. What's next, an individual article for every "+5, funny" post? -- Ferkelparade π 13:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously not every post should be included, but this is now an established (if minor) part of modern Slashdot trolling, and is therefore worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. BTW I created the page, I am not Eberlin (although I cannot proffer any proof), neither am I one who trolls his posts on /. - I just find the phenomenon interesting. -- AC

Delete --Demonslave 14:23, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect or delete: to Slashdot. It's funny, but it's a rap, and it's unimportant and non-notable. Wikipedia's readers, I pray, are not all Slashdotters. This is not an item that makes sense outside a discussion of Slashdot, so let's putting it inside that discussion. Geogre 15:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This wiki is an encyclopedia not a wiki about some nerdy news website. We have enough of their articles already. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 15:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cruft. If anyone mentions that Wikipedia is not paper, remember that Wikipedia is also not a junkyard. --Improv 15:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. At least the last line of the poem is fairly accurate vis-a-vis /. Terrapin 16:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yet again, someone with the delusion that rubbish on Slashdot is more than just rubbish. Average Earthman 16:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: rubbish. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Or, user can move to own page if desired. Do not redirect. Vanity. Original research. No potential ever to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf, et al, please try not to reduce yourself to generalizations about the Slashdot community (or any other community for that matter). Its unconstructive and not necessary in the voting process. Thanks. --Radman1 20:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, this does not seem to have any potential to become an encyclopedic article. —siro χ o 23:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Radman, et al, please do not preach, pontificate, or otherwise condescend to other Wikipedia editors. It is unconstructive and annoying. Thanks. Wolfman 01:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about moving it to a new article on Slashdot (or even more general Geek) Humor (which isn't quite the same as Slashdot Trolling)? -- AC (Note:comment posted by User:195.92.67.78)
Delete or Merge into Slashdot trolling phenomena. It's good, but doesn't deserve its own article. --Desplesda 03:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Though, yes, isn't it interesting how people in online communities get self-important? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Keysport was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 5 votes to keep. Postdlf 14:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keysport

I can't find any mention of this sport on the web. Suspect it's vanity. --LeeHunter 13:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can, under "deporte de la llave", and at least one more under "deporte" "de la llave" This looks like an Asturian thing being played in Argentina, I remember that our Googling standards should be lower for less-computerized places. Keep. — Bill 13:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep --Pgreenfinch 14:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. This is in dire need of a rewrite. Radman1 17:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly valid article. Refer to Cleanup. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and clean it up (; —siro χ o 00:26, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Too much time is being spent here instead of writing articles. I think VFD should occur once a week/month. --ShaunMacPherson 18:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Palestinians killed by Israelis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. The final tally was 14 clear delete votes and 8 keep votes. I would also have voted to delete under the argument that casualty lists are not inherently encyclopedic. However, even with my opinion, this would not reach a clear consensus. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.

Having reviewed the article and the discussion, however, I consider this article to be an unmaintained orphan and exercise my right as an ordinary editor to redirect it to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unverifiable, forgotten and old, list page. In case you're wondering, there isn't an "Israelis killed by ...." version of this article (it'll redirect to one of the Israel conflict pages), so it's not unbalancing anything. Terrapin 14:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Being an old and forgotten list is a reason not for deletion, but for fixing. Furthermore this list is not unverifiable as it gives names and sources. I therefore contend that this VfD listing is invalid. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good for you. Terrapin 05:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Forgotten, difficulty in verifying, inherent incompleteness, danger of POV... Average Earthman 16:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same issue as all these death lists. Inherently POV, impossible to verify, and inevitably becomes obsolete when the original motivated editor loses interest or moves on. Jayjg 16:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and fix as long as we're keeping the other IPC casualty lists. I invite those who voted to keep the other lists to explain why they're voting to delete this one. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I generally vote to delete these kinds of lists; I believe this has been my consistent policy, for the reasons I listed earlier. Jayjg 20:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Except in the debate linked above. Why that one and none of the others? BTW I quite agree that all these casualty lists ought to be deleted, but I don't agree with this kind of cherry-picking. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Because, as I said, it was part of a larger problem. There were a whole series of related articles that needed to be fixed up, merged, NPOVd etc. Jayjg 03:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Yet that listing applied to the whole series. If there was a time to deal with them together, that was it. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - I didn't understand it as applying to the whole series; I don't think VfDs can do that, can they? If I had understood it that way, I would have voted differently. Jayjg 05:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - The whole list of pages was in the initial listing, but your explanation makes sense: it's not clear whether one can VFD a whole series at the same time. I retract and apologize for my accusations of hypocrisy. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Thank you. I've generally seen sets of related articles each individually listed on VfD; I know I've voted on a number that were listed that way, which is actually quite tedious. My initial comment there could have explained my position better; I do have a tendency to write brief comments (if any at all) on VfD. Jayjg 22:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to an appropriate page. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
'Keep. - Xed 19:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 19:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
If you're going to keep the Violence against the Israelis page, keep this one with a possible name change. Or merge with a more NPoV Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Darksun 20:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Inherent POV. --Improv 21:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 23:29, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for roll calls of the dead in any conflict. Gamaliel 05:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Why ever not? I would be more than happy to have a List of soldiers killed in Gallipoli. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; generally concur, although, for example, would it be irrelavant to have a list of incidents in which ETA has conducted fatal attacks? or Al Qaeda? or (in the 1940s) Lehi? Which is to say, the list of the death toll of one side is not encyclopedic, but the list of attacks carried out by an organization might be. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nobody's ever going to turn this into a anything resembling an inclusive list. The title doesn't even describe the actual content: "Palestinians killed by Israeli troops on October 31, 2001.". --jpgordon{gab} 04:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but I am willing to reconsider my vote if the following conditions are met: 1) A distinction is made between militants and non-combatants. 2) A distinction is made between innocents targeted on purpose (e.g. bombing a civilian bus) vs. human shields vs. bystanders harmed by mistake in a police action aimed to prevent further terrorist attacks. In a court of law, a lot of difference is made between intentional victims of violence and those who died unintentionally. So should be in an encyclopedia. 3) The information found in other WP articles is not duplicated. 4) Hate-speech links are removed. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, circumstances of death do not establish notability. Gazpacho 13:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I disagree. Circumstances of death can establish notability. I also recommend expansion and the creation of the opposite article Israelis killed by Palestinians, as these are just as notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Kill both lists, and sanction the edit warriors that made them. Ambi 10:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and bear in mind that some users saying "delete both lists", have not in fact voted to delete the other list (Violence against Israelis). --style 11:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
- Because they all get redirected to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004, which lists BOTH sides. If you want to delete any redirects, post them and I'll vote to delete those too. Terrapin 15:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep most definitely, as the bullets and bombs are flying in both directions in this (civil) war. IZAK 15:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete I would say the same for a page claiming to list all Israelis killed by Palestinians.--Josiah 05:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep There should be a list of people killed from X year to Y year in this conflict. Pretending people are not being blown up, on either side, is simply not factual. --ShaunMacPherson 18:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oh come on now! Since when has not listing every single casualty in a conflict been tantamount to denial? Is Wikipedia denying the Holocaust because it does not have a list of the 11 million (give or take) people killed in that horrific event? There is a difference between denial and the removal of information that in no meaningful way adds to our understanding of the conflict or the issues behind it. Indrian 22:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

Proliferate

Dictionary definition. Deb 16:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
delete. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 17:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep how it is now, the template confirms for the reader that WIktionary has a definition. And discourages replacement of a dicdef —siro χ o 00:27, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

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

Karl Ossietz was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete as unverifiable. While User:Pitchka acted in good faith and carefully cited his sources, other users found references which contradicted the findings of the "Eye-Witness Accounts" book. (Based on the evidence available, I believe the content of the 1994 book cited by Pitchka to be derivative of the 1979 book cited by func's anon user below.) The weight of contradicting references makes the factual accuracy of the original source and thus of this article suspect. Should future scholarly studies support the evidence for an individual by this name and in the role of Hitler's top astrologer, this article can be nominated for undeletion. Rossami (talk) 00:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a joke entry. This guy gets only 5 google hits: 4 are Wikipedia-mirrors, and the 5th is in another language. A google for ( "Chambers of the Stars" +Hitler ) turns up nothing. func (talk) 17:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formatting, &/or classifying in bold, of multiple entries done by Jerzy (t) 00:46, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC).

KEEP: I started the article on Karl Ossietz because it was an interesting fact. The internet is not the source of all facts in the world. The book I found out about this person is The Permanent Book of The 20th Century: Eye-Witness Accounts of the Moments that Shaped Our Century, edited by Jon E. Lewis, published by Carroll and Graf Publishers, Inc. in 1994. The ISNB 0-7867-0161-7. It was listed under the chapter Part III: Jazz, Slump and Fascism 1919-38 from pages 234-237 under the heading "The Private Life of Adolf Hitler, Berchtesgaden, 1938." Quote: "The author of this account of the German dictator at home was of the maids at his mountain retreat." I still think it's a valid entry. Pitchka 18:09, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. OK, I just did a search at amazon and got The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness History 2000, written by the exact same author, Jon E. Lewis. This all seems pretty suspicious to me. There are few men who have been studied as in depth as Hitler. Why is this Mr. Lewis the only guy who knows about Karl Ossietz? Does anyone have an independent source for this? Might Ossietz have an alternate spelling for his name? I just find it hard to believe that there is anything connected with Hitler that would turn up so few google hits. func (talk) 18:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nomination is implicitly a vote for deletion, unless explicitly stated otherwise, so this editor has already voted. --Jerzy (t) 00:46, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Comment: The web is not the be-all, end-all source of information, but in this case there seem to be a whole bunch of sites claiming that Karl Ernst Krafft was Hitler's astrologer, and only one (a forum post) naming Karl Ossietz for that role. SWAdair | Talk 04:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Quoting from above: Quote: "The author of this account of the German dictator at home was of the maids at his mountain retreat. — nuff said: Pitch(ka) this. — Bill 14:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The above entry marked as a comment by me. If i call the vote on this one, i will not count it as a vote bcz it is too aggressively subversive to the purpose of this page and the need for clarity about the distinction between Votes for deletion on one hand, and fun and cleverness on the other. IMO, any other admin should respond similarly. --Jerzy(t) 00:46, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  - Actually, Jerzy, you are the one who is being "too aggressively subversive". To ignore a vote for deletion because you don't find it funny (is/would be/will be) an abuse of your adminship, (and marking all obvious commentary as Comments is nothing less than trolling, IMHO).
Comment: I placed a note at the talk page for Hitler, hoping for some knowledgable commentary, but no one has responded. I'm not comfortable about this. If he really was an astrologer for Hitler, then I think it should qualify as being notable, but the word of a single author seems problematic, (not everything printed in a book is true). func (talk) 00:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Already voted. --Jerzy (t) 00:46, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Comment: We shold probably wait, and mark the article as factually disputed, until we get a better idea of whether its real or not. —siro χ o 00:33, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: User:Jerzy has a talent for stating the blatently obvious. Isn't the merely obvious enough for him?
- No, and i'll paraphrase two heroes of info provision at once: "That's 'Mr. Harmless Drudge' to you!" --Jerzy(t) 02:08, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  - Comment: The above is a Comment, and not a Vote.
Delete. I checked multiple books on Hitler and none mention a Karl Ossietz, so I have to agree with SWAdair. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, No one jones' seems to have confirmed it —siro χ o 00:21, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Here's something interesting, from http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.bdcmadeira.org/bdc/pt/Dmes/0303/02.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Carl%2Bvon%2BOssietz%2522%2BHitler%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D
The honored ones have the right to refuse the prémios. However, facts had thus only occurred for pressures politics, as in 1937, when Hitler forbade the Germans to receive the Prémio Nobel, therefore he is furious when the Prémio of the Peace of 1935 is granted to a antiNazi journalist, Carl Von Ossietz, who had disclosed the plans private of rearmament of Germany.
- At Nobel Peace Prize#1930s we have as the laureate
1935 Carl von Ossietzky (Germany) pacifist journalist.

and at Carl von Ossietzky a bio (on WP over 2 years) that has him imprisoned from the first 2 month's of Hitler's chancellorship. A coincidence of names would be far-fetched, so the nominated article must overcome a presumption of being a joke at best and calculated disinfo at worst. Info confirming at least the Portuguese site's variant version of his name would be a plus in Carl von Ossietzky, and a pretty good final nail in the coffin of the nominated article.

--Jerzy (t) 18:11, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Comment: An anon responded to my query at Hitler's talk page:

I found him mentioned in an Allen Churchill book from 1979 called Eyewitness Adolf Hitler. I believe it was from a letter that this Karl Ossietz was mentioned as Hitler's personal astrologer. Eyewitness

func (talk) 03:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Tollis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Tollis

Someone's genealogical research. --jpgordon{gab} 17:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Delete. Postdlf 19:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. Geogre 19:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There's no serious scholarship here and no real examination of the surname. Inky 01:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Baby Boom

This page has been split into the following: baby boom, baby boomer, year 2000 baby boom and post-WW2 baby boom.
The original article refers to baby boom as if it were a single instance, and has now been made redundant by the better categorisation above. Nicholas

Redirect ~~Delete~~. Not well written in the first place, and is now no longer needed. Nicholas 17:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Of course, I meant redirect :)
Redirect to baby boom. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Merge non-duplicate info into other articles, then redirect to baby boom. -Sean Curtin 01:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as merged redirect. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 17:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

POST SNAFU NOTICE: Baby Boom is an ICONIC TERM widely used in literature, reportage, .... the list goes on and on and on; but is apparently unknown to our childrens generation. The upshot of this vote was the redirect went to Baby Boom (movie) leaving about 35 links using baby boom as an iconic discriptor pointing the wrong places. This was a very poor chain of decisions starting with the cultural ignorance that lead to this Vfd. I'm herewith fixing the redirect to at least point to the Baby boomer article which is on point. Another spin off, is the creation of Baby boom as a seperate article with some merit. What a F%#%&*#$ Mess!!!

Notified all voters above as follows:

Please see Me... and do pennanceFrankB 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "iconic" you are talking about the post-WW II baby boom rather than other baby booms in history. There is nothing keeping you or anyone else from altering the current Baby Boom article (a redirect page) to better fit into WP. This forum was simply a vote on whether to delete Baby Boom from WP - that proposition failed. I think we all agree an article by that name should exist here. If you do not like the current content of that page, I suggest you be bold and change it, rather than complaining about the folks who voted to keep it around to be changed by future editors. When you do this, you also may want to include a link to a generic Baby Boom (disambiguation) page to assist readers who are trying to find info on the film, the TV series and the various books that went by that name, since they all are proper nouns with the second "B" capitalized. - Davodd 10:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Esata

A constructed language. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:52, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Brand new, a simplification, not spoken. Geogre 19:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your latest auxlang proposal. — Gwalla | Talk 23:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 23:48, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep The new page does not infringe any rules according to the deletion policy. This is a valid proposal for an auxilliary language, an area for which there is growing interest. The proposal outlines one of the easiest to learn personal languages with many interesting features. There are numerous other auxlang proposals mentioned already in wikipedia. Why not wait and see if the page gets any traffic? Pafu 11:48, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Notability is not a rule, it's the Prime Directive. I believe interest is increasing, since both world population and literacy are increasing. I also believe that their visibility has increased, due to being freed of the disadvantages that non-Internet publishing imposes on impractical ideas. None of these indicates increase in notability, let alone achievement of encyclopedic notability. --Jerzy (t) 02:14, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Delete. May be notable someday, not yet. --Improv 17:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It needs to be more notable. NeoJustin 05:26 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Del. Not notable. --Jerzy (t) 02:14, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is a place to document existing phenomena, not original research; there are other, more suitable, places to take proposals for new languages: see Constructed language#Communities for example. --Phil | Talk 15:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete V-v-v-vanity Ashibaka ✎ 21:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Internet nation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Internet nation

Original research, apparently. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete for extreme early 1990s starry-eyed goofiness. --Neschek 18:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not verifiable. Geogre 19:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
advanced by blogging...ohmigawd, you mean like my livejournal makes me leader of my own micronation? woohoo! Delete this utter absurdity. Bearcat, who actually does have a Livejournal 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsense. Indrian 23:47, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
D I've run more than one in my time. If people don't stop posting this crap, especially the schools stuff, I'm going to start writing about my various non-notable exploits in non-notable locations. Ooooh, blinkenlights ... Chris 03:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this idea is slightly ahead of its time, but I think we can seriously consider having an entry in WikiPedia about concepts which can loosly be defined as relating to the internet nation. For example the interplay of international and national law that the use of the internet forces us to consider. The new non geographic boundaries of political thought and ideology that the internet permits. Much of the content of this article stems directly from contempory political philosophy and economic thinking. It is unsurprising that the content isn't immediatly understood by all the readers (calling it goofie, absurdity and nonsense...). Perhaps those with a degree in politics, philosophy or economics would care to comment? For example the new political landscapes shaped by information flow and information communication channels are well known and studied in fields of economics and futurology. I think this could easily become a very well written article, and should strive to the quality of a featured article, not be deleted. --Dan 20:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a degree in philosophy. "Internet nation" sounds like an oxymoron to me. It is conceivable that the formation of transnational communities resulting from technological development may have a novel effect on the development of the conventional nation-state. However, the author here presumes this without elaborating either a causal mechanism or pertinent structural elements, or, heaven forbid, citing some research here. This is a manifesto, not an article. Mashford 20:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Wow. Irretrievably speculative. Sounds like street corner handbill material. Mashford 20:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsense. Very funny. --Improv 17:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an important topic, but the article itself doesn't make much sense. Statist criticisms should always have a place in wikipedia, but this article is not a good example of an accurate one. As for multi-state systems, we already live in them because they are a neccesity of stable bureaucratic systems. I could argue that my neighborhood association was a nation-state, but that would be rediculous. I vote for deletion or extreme makeover. Flying Hamster 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Pardon my silliness, but it'd be cool if we could vote to give people extreme makeovers too. We could have a wiki-hairdresser, a wiki-stylist, etc etc. --Improv 02:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps some of the content has a place merged into Virtual Community. Key45 21:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete It's funny that someone put so much time into this article, but not funny enough for BJAODN, so sadly it must go. Ashibaka ✎ 21:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

Advertisement. jengod 18:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

delete Arrrg. Jengod yanked my speedy delete out from under me :-) Does this really need a vote? It's spam. For the KKK. And it's somewhat POV, as you might guess.jericho4.0 18:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind a speedy delete, FWIW. :) jengod 18:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Material is already covered elsewhere. Geogre 19:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: racist spam. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirected to Ku Klux Klan--apparently it's one faction of the Klan, at least according to that article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:36, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Not a valid vote. Er... its a redirect... there's no material in this article, try Ku Klux Klan (legitimate article even if it does need a little NPOV fixing)--Cynical 20:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retain as redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. —siro χ o 03:43, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. International caps lock day was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

International caps lock day

Obscure "holiday". Gets only about 55 Google hits [16]. --Diberri | Talk 18:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

DELETE: was going to go for save, but read teh website. Too stupid to be worth it, and people who talk in caps are just ANNOYING.
DELETE: NON-NOTABLE, PROBABLE JOKE. Geogre 18:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
SAVE: FAILURE TO CELEBRATE HOLIDAY INVALIDATES THIS VFD, SILLY DIBERRI -SYCOCOWZ
delete. nothing worth saving or mentioning here. postdlf 19:04, 22 oct 2004 (utc)
Neutral: WHAT'S WRONG? YOU DELETE PEOPLE ARE ALL SPOILSPORTS. On a more serious note, I have to agree with Darksun, R. Fiend and Cynical. -Neronix
THE ONLY HOLIDAY OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED BY AOL INSTANT MESSENGER. BUT DELETE. Darksun 20:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A meagre 55 google hits makes me think this isn't widespread enough to be encyclopediac, particularly for an online phenomena, which usually garner 10x the google hits a comparable offline phenomena would. By tomorrow everyone will have forgotten this. Delete. -R. fiend 20:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Google is not the allmighty god. Google does _not_ know everything. Just ask Radman about this way of importance-o-metre. ;) A neutral MadenMann...
SAVE: THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL HOLIDAYS TO EXIST IS THAT PEOPLE CELEBRATE THEM. Dekaritae 20:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What is your evidence that any significant number of people do observe it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KEEP Whether its a serious article or not, its a valid criticism of 'capslock shouting'. And just because Google doesn't have it (is this the same Google that lets you pay for a high ranking? I think so) doesn't make it incorrect. Most of the people who are obssessive enough to come up with an event like this don't bother making their pages 'google-friendly' anyway.--Cynical 20:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, but anyone can start a holiday like this. There are hundreds of them, celebrated by a small group of people, sometimes just a dozen or less. Some of these recently invented holidays like International Talk Like a Pirate Day and Wintereenmas are notable, but this isn't. Darksun 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless and annoying, not wikipedia material. - Tezkah | Talk
DELETE -- AMUSING BUT NOT NOTABLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE "BIG BOOK OF JOKES". -- The Anome 20:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
SAVE - It may not be worthy of an encyclopedia article yet, but these things need to gain popularity somehow. - Irrelevant
- An encyclopedia is not the place to promote something that wants to become notable. It's a repository for things that are already notable. Bearcat 23:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. Although this is clearly a joke, and is even categorized as such in the article, there are vague and not-so-vague references to this "CAPS LOCK DAY" dating back to 1996 on Usenet. --Radman1 21:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. THIS IS A VERY VALID HOLIDAY, THIS HOLIDAY CERTAINLY EXISTS. --G3pro 22:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I HEREBY PROCLAIM INTERNATIONAL DELETE DAY. I have to say, I'm really annoyed by this recent trend of proclaiming insignificant holidays devoted to whatever stupid thing some goof with too much time on their hands thinks would be m4d k00l to devote a holiday to. (And yes, I do mean International Talk Like a Pirate Day.) Oh, and the website is bloody terrible, too. Bearcat 23:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And how, exactly, would that differ from any other day on Wikipedia? ;-) Radman1 23:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 23:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity (article acknowledges it is the personal creation of a person who does not appear to be notable). Advertising. (Most obvious purpose is to publicize a website). Unless someone provides evidence that the day is actually observed by an official body the size of a city or larger, or evidence of genuine widespread use, this article should be deleted. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete Wolfman 01:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME
Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:44, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
D sOMETHING SEEMS VERY *very* WRONG HERE, PERHAPS i JUST NEED SOME MORE pEACEFUL sLEEP. Chris 02:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
dELETE. sOMEHOW, SLEEP SOUNDS GOOD RIGHT ABOUT NOW. aLL THIS SHOUTING IS GIVING ME A HEADACHE. - lUCKY 6.9 02:53, 23 oCT 2004 (UTC)
Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I waited until after midnight (here in the eastern U.S.) so that I could cast my vote in normal casing with a clear conscience. JamesMLane 04:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 07:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concur with Aranel, merge with Caps lock. Gamaliel 19:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

KEEP jtackmanThere's no real reason to delete this, people do celebrate this :)
KEEP, ditto. — Bill 14:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE -- BUT MOVE TO WP:BJAODN. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:30, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
dELETE. aLL HOLIDAYS ARE MADE UP, BUT THIS ONE IS TOO OBSCURE TO BE ENCYCLOPEDIC. aS A SIDE NOTE, i AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT WE ALL HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR. hURRAH! --Improv 16:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. UNLIKE INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY, MOLE DAY, AND PI DAY, THIS ONE HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO CATCH ON. FISHAL
Delete. A brief mention in Caps lock would preserve the information that is worth keeping. Also all this shouting is giving me a headache. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Aranel/Sarah. —msh210]] 18:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Your headache will be worse on October 23rd, which is International Animated GIFS Day!
Delete. Isn't there some sort of page for obscure recently invented holidays? And if not, why not? - Lifefeed 19:17, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
KEEP, i SEE SOME POTENTIAL OF ACTUALLY BECOMING ENCYCLOPEDIC, AND THEREFORE DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE DELETING THIS. —siro χ o 22:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
kEEP. wE SHOULD EXPAND THIS ARTICLE, TOO. --Lst27 22:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. IT IS WAY TOO OBSCURE. NeoJustin 23:36 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - since when were Google hit tallies and obscurity bellweathers for deleting Wikipedia pages? Neuropedia 00:10, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Probably since "neologism" and "not notable" were, if not before. Chris 01:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- WOT 21:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Joke/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
kEEP. GRider 22:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete trivia. Isomorphic 16:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep because I say so...[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
Delete not notable Ziggurat 21:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge to obscure holidays Key45 21:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep I am becoming somewhat disturbed at the level of deletionism occurring for what I think are worthy articles. There little, if any, harm in keeping interesting and esoteric material on Wikipedia. If you do not want to know about this topic then you do not search for it. However, if it is kept it will be here for people who do want to know about it. Also be careful you do not suffer from Academic Standards Disease :o) --ShaunMacPherson 18:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep but merge and redirect to obscure holidays, which I agree with Key45 should be created anyway to eliminate clutter. Interesting in an odd way, and it may grow. Suntiger 20:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm changing my vote to keep but only if we do Key45 idea of putting it into an obscure holidays page. I would cross out my other vote up above but I don't know how to. NeoJustin 03:00 Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- One alternative is to keep a separate article on this holiday; a different alternative is to make this title a redirect to obscure holidays. I'm not clear which one you prefer. To strike out a prior comment, precede it with <s> and follow it with </s>. JamesMLane 03:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Hoatan

According to Google, this is a proper name, a Vietnamese hamlet, and an era of sand dune formation in New Zealand, but not a small Native American subgroup of lower Ontario. Searches elsewhere turn up similar results, making me believe very strongly that this is a hoax. Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Joke/prank/hoax. Geogre 18:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then blank, and write the article about what it is. Keep. The Recycling Troll 21:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. ("Lower Ontario"? I live in Ontario and I don't know what that means!) I'm speedying. If someone wants to create a legitimate article about the legitimate meanings of hoatan, they can do it just as easily from a redlink as from an existing article. Bearcat 23:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anton Solomoukha

Most Google hits are to mirrors of Wikipedia.

See the same vote for deletion on fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer#Anton Solomoukha. This vote for deletion has no sense (and no explanation on fr:). Ma'ame Michu 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the first Google hit for Anton Solomoukha is a copy of this article. More than half of the Google hits are to this article, and the information in the article ranges from hard to verify to unverifiable. G-u-a-k-@ 12:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Ma'ame Michu 17:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Solo exhibit at Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art[17] among others[18]. Niteowlneils 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Is that enough for a Wikipedia article? How many Institutes of Modern Art are there in the world? And how many people exhibited in them? Is it okay to have Wikipedia articles about all of them? G-u-a-k-@ 13:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS Just noticed this seems to have been nominated by an anon[19]. Niteowlneils 03:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS Does that matter? The article was mostly written by an anon...

I'm not certain. Anon votes don't count, so anon nominations probably shouldn't, either. Niteowlneils 17:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weak keep if verfied —siro χ o 00:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A few exhibits, the artist seems real if not critically important. Ploum's 10:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was — keep.

Agitation

Disamb page that disambs between to dic defs and an article. Not really needed. Links to this page should be redirected and the page deleted. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:09, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, redirect this, don't delete. The Recycling Troll 21:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. These "dicdefs" have wider meanings and eventually deserve their own articles. For example, Agitation (whatever) in the sense of mixing. I created this disambig for the sole purpose to separate out the Communist political usage of the term. To redirect Agitation to Agitprop is bad idea. Backlinks cleary show there are at least two more meanigs that I listed. I am not in a position neither write stubs for these articles, nor select which meaning is primary. Also, my redirect to Agitprop is faulty as well. there should probably be Agitation (political) or smth. instead.Mikkalai 21:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Check out "What links here;" reveals several articles link to "agitation" in the physical sense. Fishal 06:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep —siro χ o 00:39, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Annnnnnnnnnnnd Keep. -- Radman1 15:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
K/R One of these senses is certainly notable. I might remove the emotional state, since that's better placed in Wiktionary. If there are uses of the term "agitation" in science which do not share the common-sense meaning (to shake or disturb considerably) then K. Otherwise R to agitprop. Chris 04:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'd really like to see an encyclopedic article on emotional agitation. How do you like an article in a medical journal: Treatment of agitation in dementia? It clearly shows that the term is way more than dicdef. Mikkalai 04:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ÝÄ? Cheffer was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 4 votes to delete. 1 unsigned vote (though later attributed by another contributor) was disregarded. Postdlf 00:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheffer

Vanity Page and/or Neologism. Didn't make me laugh, either. Naturenet 21:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on. "The standard uniform for a cheffer is a white hat." That's at least grin-worthy. Delete

Vote by User:Fishal it seems.

Delete: I didn't find it amusing, either. I know of a professor who banned "hats and imitations of hats" from his classroom so that he could ban baseball caps. Just a joke, and one not worth repeating verbally, much less preserving electronically. Geogre 04:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless evidence is presented that this is a real term in actual use. We do not have articles on Allessandro Purpura. If we assume as Google does that Allessandro is a misspelling for Allesandro Purpura we will don't have articles on him, and he doesn't seem to be notable. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, this article is a joke. Radman1 15:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Army Public School

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Army Public School

Non-notable. --jpgordon{gab} 22:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Not encyclopedic, not information that will be sought, and advertising for students. Geogre 04:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: I tried to tidy this up, and while it certainly was previously an advertisment, i think that i have managed to get rid of the bias, and have added quite a bit more info. The bellman 08:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep, seems to be encyclopedic —siroχo 00:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- As rewritten, a very very weak keep; I still have trouble detecting the notability. --jpgordon{gab} 01:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep If you do not like this article do not search for it. Keep it for the people who want to know. --ShaunMacPherson 18:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
K A school originally founded specifically for military families, funded by the military for that purpose. This certainly sets it apart from J. Random High Scool. Chris 04:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Florescentbulb 23:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep it's a relatively unique school based on it's founding. PPGMD 23:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Smart/browse/Personoids was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 7 votes to delete. Postdlf 03:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Smart/browse/Personoids

Incoherant -- I don't think there's any actual content here. --jpgordon{gab} 22:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Incoherent. Even if there is something encyclopedic to say about a coinage by Lem, this would not be the title to write it under and the contents cannot contribute to a useful article. — Gwalla | Talk 23:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense name. Not encyclopedic in its current form. (I even fail to see what it's about.) Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 01:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- All right. I was giving it too much benefit of doubt. - Mike Rosoft 09:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Unpatented nonsense. Geogre 04:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. No potential to become encyclopedic. IMHO probably does fall under "patent nonsense." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Probably bad enough nonsense to be speedy. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 22:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it's a neologism, it needs to be treated as such. If it's a serious/usable concept, we need a useful article explaining it. This is neither serious nor usable. Inky 01:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Anti-humor

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Anti-humor

Sounds like a neologism. The term is used online in some discussion forums and Wikipedia clones. Every reference to the term in the Wikipedia is the work of User:Andrevan. Fishal 22:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't come up with the term, nor is it recent - it's existed at least since the heyday of Andy Kaufman, a pioneer of it. (I still intend to expand the article if it gets through VfD.) You can see reference to it in a few places: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Frankly, I think it's notable and well-established, so I vote to Keep. Andre (talk) 23:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Andrevan, the term has existed for a long time. I know I've heard it before. But what I want to know is, what happens when humor and anti-humor come into contact with each other? Bearcat 00:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I assume that's a keep vote? Andre (talk) 00:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
I vote keep. It seems pretty legit or whatever. Ow. --SMWhat 00:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also vote keep. This is definately legit. MarkPNeyer 02:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep —siro χ o 00:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Too much time is being spend in here instead of making articles. VFD should occure once a week/month. --ShaunMacPherson 19:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep for me as well. This is informative, and seems rather accurate.--Kaleb.G 19:50, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

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

Alturas and its redirects were proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 10 votes to delete. All other votes were ignored because anonymous, sock puppets, or outright fraud (multiple votes posted by same IP...as if we couldn't tell). Postdlf 03:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alturas

Entirely non-notable online community. Also AlturasForums and Alty, redirects. — Dan | Talk 23:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Postdlf 23:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 23:27, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. Rickk 23:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Keep. 84.129.120.107 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
Struck down due to presence of impostor account and anonymous vote. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 23:54, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
~~Keep. 68.237.132.109 01:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
Anonymous vote.
~~Keep. ~TSQ~~~
see [27] -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Either~~ delete ~~or trim drastically.~~ - Mike Rosoft 01:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Changed my vote to a clear delete because of the bogus votes. Had the article any merit, there would be no need for them. - Mike Rosoft 10:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete all: Wikipedia is not a web guide or advertising medium. Delete as advertising. Geogre 03:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 06:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 22:15 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. JohnEZ 23:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
Another bogus vote. (Stop sabotaging the voting process!) - Mike Rosoft 22:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. hmorgan 15:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
Okay, I'm a member of Alturas. I rely on Wikipedia for info not found elsewhere. However, I wold have thought such a site would be run by intelligent people. All you guys want to do is sabotage us. What have we done? Nothing. Not a damn thing. IF the Frontier, a sister site, has a post, we should too. Now, I doubt this will be heard, but sobeit. I have said what I wanted to. Now delete me like you have everyone else.
Votes from anonymous contributors are generally disregarded. So are votes from accounts created just in order to vote. Pretending that you have a Wikipedia account will not help. - Mike Rosoft 14:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. 203.43.164.13 00:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Memee- Alturas Rocks ^_^~~ I see nothing wrong with it...it's excellent, and full of happy people, who are actually willing to help others, and be very nice to you. They help you through problems, and even give current world situation information. I say keep it.
Anonymous vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. TehSchoom~~ What is the problem here? Everyone with a positive opinion is being struck down, including some of the more respected members of our foruming community. If other similar sites keep their spots on Wikipedia, we should too. I second hmorgan's comment, and I think that people with legitimate comments are being ignored and disrespected, as is AlturasForums itself. If I must, I will walk away from this site with a heavy heart and a bitter taste in my mouth, becase I thought this site was better than that. And I will do my part to save this entry.
Once again, not a user account. (Votes from TehSchoom, ~~hmorgan,~~ and ~TSQ~, as well as one anonymous vote have originated from the single IP address.) - Mike Rosoft 14:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment I must say, the actions of certain members of this "community" here do not speak well for them. Indrian 00:17, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete how scummy can you get? [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice, considering this vote spam their forum is generating. Not encyclopedic. Ashibaka ✎ 21:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopaedic, and with all the bogus votes going on, its clear that someone has an agenda over the page Kiand 00:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep- Elfy Alturas is great...stop dissing it people. Why dont you just take a look at it? If you bothered to, maybe you should see!

- This is this user's first edit. Rick K 06:44, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

Instedalen Skule

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

Instedalen Skule

Delete. Another completely unremarkable school, this time in Norway. Indrian 23:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

D Wow, this one's even up a valley. Chris 02:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete And it was shut down because there were no students? That definitely makes it notable. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:23, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's furthest up the valley. Which valley? The one with no children in it. Were any pied pipers seen nearby? Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 03:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Not especially notable, but an example of a Norwegian school closed down due to urbanization. I don't really see why it should be deleted as it is now. contrapuncti 21:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- It's an example of a Norwegian school closed down due to lack of students. Why does this make it any different from any other school that closed down due to the supply of inmates drying up? 62.252.32.11 02:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - - Curse my inability to notice my cokkie expired >_< Chris 02:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Why does it have do be different from other schools to be mentioned at Wikipedia? The information in the article is correct and quite encyclopedic. Should it be impossible to look up Norwegian schools just because some find it an uninteresting subject? contrapuncti 07:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    - Why must you automatocally assume that people want to delete this page because it is uninteresting to them? I find math to be absolutely ghastly, but I would never condone the deletion of the many pages on wikipedia dealing with various theorems. The fact of the matter is that this is not a directory of schools, it is an encyclopedia. This means that the goal, at least in my opinion, should be to record those pieces of knowledge that contribute to a greater understaning of the world around us and of the human response to that world. When a school does something daring and new, or is the site of a historic event, or is a prestigious center of learning, or perhaps even has several distinguished alumni (not entirely sure about that one myself) then it should be included. Every school in this world that is or ever has been is not worthy of remembrance in this medium. This is not wikipedia policy, just one member's opinion on how to interpret the goals of the project. You are free to disagree with me and lend your voice to discussion, just don't assume the motives of others; it is not condusive to good debate. Indrian 16:20, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
      - I fully respect your opinions. Still, I can't see why this one should be deleted when small Norwegian municipalities like Tysvær and Ølen are included. Wikipedia isn't a directory of municipalities either. I fully understand that you and others wanted this article deleted as it used to be -- but as it is now I think it is worthy of inclusion. contrapuncti 18:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
        Because schools are not all-encompassing as municipalities are. If this school is identical to another school except for the name, why do we need two articles for the same thing? Hence why schools need to be notable, just like everything else. The reason we don't include mundane, ordinary schools is the same reason we don't include every member of the human race - there are lots of them, and only a few stand out from the crowd. If you can cover up the names and dates and not be able to identify the school, it has to go. OTOH, if you cover up the names and dates and the place is still recognisable (e.g. "????" is a well-established private school in ?????, England, famous for its Wall Game. The answer is obviously Eton College) then it has to stay. Chris 00:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, because I like the picture. I'm sorry Chris, I'm sorry Geogre, and, Indrian, you're absolutely right. And, yes, I've never been so aware before of the meaning of the phrase "slippery slope," and never before have been in so much sympathy with fathead administrators who say "We can't do it for you because if we did it for you we'd have to do it for everyone." But I like the picture, though. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Key45 21:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia resources are not infinite. Why would we hold donation drives to extend infinite resources? More importantly, "wiki is not paper" is a fallacy. It's easily possible that at some point, we could be issuing paper copies of WP at low cost to the third world. At least, so I'm led to believe. Also, I don't care if people can choose the way they like, but "I like the picture" should NOT be a valid reason to keep. After all, the same goes for the picture as for the article - it could be a picture of anything. Chris 00:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Great. Then the third world is going to get a metric ton of printed pages about Pokemon characters, loads of "fancruft" and other complete and patent nonsense. I'm sure this will help developing countries much more than learning about an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. -- Radman1 16:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - My stance on fancruft has already been made clear. But small pages like this about educational institutions which are no different from the one that those teachers in the third world may be teaching at themselves are no better. For all intents and purposes, they are educational fancruft. If I were in charge, I'd excise all these dumb articles about ordinary schools that could be anywhere AND Pokemon articles beyond the basics. Chris 03:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - It isn't a valid reason to keep. Yup, I'm voting "keep" without a valid reason. The acting sysop will just have to deal with that, and my acknowledgement of same, when it comes time to judge consensus. I really don't know how to deal with it myself. I'm sure there's nothing notable about Instedalen Skule among Norwegian schools but it has a different "look" to it than the U. S. schools I'm familiar with. And the kid is cute. It would probably be better in some kind of article about Norway or Norwegian schools... It's a totally irrational vote, and I'm not going to sprain my brain trying to invent some logical defense of it. Nevertheless, it's my vote. "What? Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." —Whitman. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. Radman1 16:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Victoria Snelgrove

I CALL TO HAVE THIS REMOVED FROM VFD consensus shows overwelmingly keep/merge. Most content has already been added to the 2004 ALCS and the Non-lethal force article. Alkivar 06:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's been more than 5 days - I'm removing the VfD notice from the article itself.... Krupo 06:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- That is all fine and good, but aren't there more votes for a merge and redirect than for a keep? Indrian 06:13, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've tallied the votes:

2 for delete
8 for keep (including one anon vote; also, Zerby’s vote is a merge, not a keep)
16 for merge and redirect (including one anon vote)

The consensus is for merge and redirect, and I am doing so. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:07, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Tragic sure, encyclopedic, far less sure. Indrian 23:36, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Is anybody outside her immediate circle going to remember this name in a few years? Delete. Lord Bob 23:48, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Wolfman 01:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - again, just because someone dies does not make them noteworthy. Adam Bishop 02:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep An unusual event that made national headlines is certainly encylopedic, but it should maybe be merged to the main Boston Red Sox article. Zerbey 02:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep "killed ... by a pepper spray projectile" - that's a pretty interesting thing to remember in discussions about pepper spray --Deleteme42 02:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it did make the news. Redirect and merge to 2004 American League Championship Series (an article which already makes mention of her, just not by name). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Lowellian's suggestion. Geogre 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Lowellian. Merge and redirect. Rick K 05:22, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known occurrence. Has potential to be ongoing controversy as the Boston Police has accepted responsibility and the police officer/s placed on leave. The police are holding a probe. [28] Currently Google News has 931 articles indexed for her so it has made news around the world. [29]Capitalistroadster 06:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and redirect; I agree with Lowellian. Fishal 06:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect; I agree with Lowellian, Geogre, RickK and Fishal. Aecis 13:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep; This is worthy of having an article.
- You should probably sign your vote. Lord Bob 17:50, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - An anon, 65.35.128.23, added this vote. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:02, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Non-lethal force. The reason why Victoria Snelgrove was in yesterday's Globe is because of the circumstances of her death. The event was conspicuous recent example of someone—so far nobody's suggested that she was anything but an innocent bystander—killed by police use of a "nonlethal" weapon. The headline in yesterday's Globe does not even mention her name: "Postgame police projectile kills Emerson student." Her name does not appear until the second paragraph, and only as identification: "Victoria Snelgrove, a 21-year-old journalism student from East Bridgewater, was struck..." 1/3 of page B4 is devoted to a story about her, "Student remembered as a bright, budding journalist," but there's really not much that can be said. In other words, the incident is worthy of mention, but in the context of nonlethal weapons, not in the context of biography. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) P. S. In this context I'm haunted by the opening line of Erich Segal's tearjerker novel, Love Story, which opens with the sentence "What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died?"
- Merge & redirect to non-lethal force as suggested; that makes a lot more sense than redirecting to a baseball article. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) PS. You're haunted by the opening line of Love Story ?? Good heavens.
Merge and redirect with the ALCS article. CryptoDerk 00:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
M/R to the ALCS article. —siro χ o 03:40, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Radman1 06:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Sjc 06:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge information into another article. The information should be retained but not as its own article. Ben James Ben 02:00, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Agree with idea to merge with other existing entries. Many come to mind like the 2004 ALCS, pepper spray, police force, lethal force, Boston Red Sox. --192.147.222.2 13:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 22:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge. Suggest moving content to both the ALCS article and the Non Lethal Force article. Its relevant to both. Alkivar 01:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have added the content to the 2004 American League Championship Series article. Alkivar 01:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. I'm gonna also say add the stuff to 2004 ALCS as well as Non-lethal force, and redirect it to non-lethal force.
- Whoops, sorry. I forgot to sign this earlier. Jonpin 04:15, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper If you do not want to know about this person in the news, then do not search for her :). --ShaunMacPherson 19:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. The Wikipedia may not be paper, but it's integrity is compromised when we allow entires of irrelevance to be included. May she rest in peace, but Ms. Snelgrove is not in-and-of herself a person of importance. The incident in question is, for various reasons cited above. Her death should be cited in the non-lethal force entry, for sure. Pacian 20:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge or otherwise preserve Sahasrahla 22:35, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Krupo 05:33, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

October 23

Chenonceau

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result is that this is fixed. This was done by Catherine. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be deleted in order to allow the #REDIRECTChenonceaux and recreated with #REDIRECTChenonceaux As a matter of fact, the city Chenonceaux takes an x where the Château de Chenonceau does not. I have added some info to the page if you need more explanation. [[User:Notafish|notafish }<';>]] 16:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe the page you want deleted has the "x", so you can move the page that doesn't have it to the location which does. PS Please read the instructions before listing things. Chris 02:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect deleted, page moved, links fixed. Let me know if I missed anything, Notafish. (I don't suppose you're fowl, either?) Good work -- next time, for this sort of thing, ask on Help desk or Village pump. Cheers! Catherine | talk 06:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- He can't be a fish, because I am not a fish! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you Catherine for the help for this "problem". Ma'ame Michu 17:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Egil Tynaes

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

Delete—tragic but nonnotable casualty in Afghanistan. Postdlf 00:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete.Indrian 00:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Doctors Without Borders or Attacks on humanitarian workers Wolfman 00:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Egil Tynaes could find a mention in Attacks on humanitarian workers. utcursch 07:24, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep—give the article time to grow. Tynaes work and death are significant Kingturtle 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
Delete unless individual notability is established. Gazpacho 13:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Kingturtle. Radman1 00:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with kingturtle as well. —siro χ o 00:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Kingturtle, give an article time to grow. --ShaunMacPherson 19:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Significant figure of MSF. Definitely notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Agree with Kingturtle — Florescentbulb 01:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So...is anyone who voted to keep going to expand it? Postdlf 02:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thats not the point, at all. Many more than those of us who voted keep contribute to Wikipedia. This persons death was significant, and and encyclopedic count of his life and death can be given. I won't expand it myself unless I get a chance to do more research, because I don't know very much about him. —siro χ o 09:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Better than nothing. anthony 警告 17:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Star Trek versus Star Wars

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

I am probably opening a big, ugly can of worms by bringing this up, but is this kind of self-indulgent nerdiness really necessary in an encyclopedia? (Note: I am myself a "nerd" and a fan of both series) Indrian 23:54, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. OMG U SUK ENTERPRIZE CULD OWN ALL TEH JEDIZ AND UR JUST HATIN. Also, this is a relatively major Internet/Usenet/BBS debate spanning almost the entire history of online life. Article needs some cleanup, but it should exist. Lord Bob 23:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and seriously clean it up; perhaps even stubbify it. It's an odd, notable phenomenon indeed, but nerdy fancruft abounds (describing canon and individual flame wars gets to be a little much). On the other hand of this issue, a Kirk versus Picard article would probably do well to hit the chopping block. Ian Pugh 00:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Stubbify? This is a Wiki. Any attempt to shorten the article would last about 12 seconds. I vote to keep. We have a plethora of articles on every single character and event in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes (not to mention all the Simpsons and Tolkien articles). Frivolous as it is, this one deserves to live just as much as those. Fishal 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Hey, I'm all for that. But there's a lot of junk in that article. Maybe stubbify is too strong a word, but cleanup is imperative. Ian Pugh 17:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment—this has already survived one VfD debate (see article talk page). Postdlf 00:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To answer your question, Indrian, no, it is not necessary. "The Value of this debate had often been doubted by non-participants." Had it? I am flabbergasted! Anyway, perhaps this is deserves some mention as an "internet phenomenon", but I really don't see this article being encyclopedia-caliber material. Opens itself up to becoming part of the debate rather than reporting it. Could it be mentioned on a page about this sort of thing? There must be one that more generally covers this sort of geekiness that has permeated the internet. Also, too many external links. -R. fiend 00:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you write about it? Ick. At no time in my life would I have found such a debate anything other than a confirmation that some people really need a hobby. I've always heard of this as a joke told about science fiction fans. I think it could be a paragraph in some other article, frankly. I'm abstaining, closing my eyes, covering my ears, humming loudly, and wishing (like Charlie) that it would go away. Geogre 03:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Damn. I guess that I don't have to bother finishing my Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter article then... Fire Star 04:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I HOPE you ain't suggestin' that Ron Weasley could last a freakin' nanosecond against Glorfindel or Radagast the Brown. Them's fightin' words! -R. fiend 04:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thing about Harry is that he's a damn superball. Nobody can kill him, but he doesn't do anything on his own. He seems to work best when thrown at someone. Then again, does Gandalf ever actually do any magic? And besides, what are Hogswart's students except hobbits with socks? -- Anonymous Coward.

If everybody jumped off a cliff? Well...then it would be notable... Lord Bob 04:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, Bob, but then who would write about it? Ian Pugh 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would, because I'd have gotten the word late. Geogre 17:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep and clean up a bit to get a more neutral point of view. Like I said in late March when this article came up on vfd before (as Postdlf notes) this is a 21st century version of the European literary wars of the 19th century. In addition to the formal academic battles there was a tremendous amount of juvenile debate back then, which brought strong emotions in a very interesting ways. Unless of course you happened to be an innocent caught in the middle of their screaming nonsense sessions, in the middle of a public square or in a theatre. This time I am going to try to put in a little bit of NPOV in the article myself, along to a referecne to the 19th century lit battles. --AlainV 04:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"The debate sheds light on the profound social emotions underlying popular literary activities in the 21st century." Is this a fancy way of saying that fans enjoy fanwanking? A lot of text to say nothing more profound than "Fans furiously debate this issue" and "Hey, they fought about other stuff in the 19th century too". Delete. Gamaliel 05:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 06:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutral: I started trying to read this to make a judgment, but didn't have the fortitude. So dull, on such a trivial subject, but apparently someone cares. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I'm leaning toward suggesting articles like this be Transwikied to Wikibooks as modules in a book entitled, The Sociology of Popular Culture Fandom. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 09:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep with some cleanup. This debate is basically continuous, and a very notable part of fandom. This topic can yeild an encyclopedic article, as is quite evident from the current near-encyclopedic attempt. —siro χ o 11:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep for two reasons. First, keep on principle because it's a relisting and the relister has not given any good reason to expect a different outcome. And it's not just any relisting, but one which Angela un-VfDed with a comment "(unvfd: many votes to keep)". And looking at the discussion I see 8 clear "keeps" and one probable "keep" and, at most, 3 deletes (counting RickK's "nonsense" comment as a delete, and counting one unsigned "delete"). This wasn't even close. This was a rough consensus to keep. Second, what we have here is an encyclopedic-quality article on a trivial, silly topic. My current flaky personal behavior, for which I am not sure I can articulate a rationale, is that I am a qualitarian. If there is a cadre of people who are willing to write a fairly good article, exercise a fairly responsible degree of scholarship, and generally keep an article up to encyclopedic standards, I'll accept it. I like thoughtful, thorough documentation of pop-cultural phenomena and fads, e.g. Frederick Lewis Allen's Only Yesterday. If I have two different reasons to keep can I cast two votes? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Just say the word and I'll chime in! You're my idol! Dpbsmith002 14:46, 1 Apr 2006 (UTC)
NPOV/Undecided There are sections that are neutral, but there are others that are biased, one way or the other. And I've noticed a shift between a more neutral view and more heavily "pro-wars" view recently that might have shifted every day. It could have even shifted hourly, for all I know. From what I've read of the latest "version" of this quickly edited page, the section on the "debate declining" and the text of the two external links for "st-v-sw.net" and "StarDestroyer.Net" is biased to the "pro-wars". The text of the section "value of the debate" mentions "StarDestroyer.Net", which I just mentioned has biased text in its description, and continues with a biased view for those of the site's board members. I don't think this belongs either. This page IS becoming part of the debate, it seems. Perhaps a third party from the wikipedia staff could come in and remove any and all biased text and leave it with the "bare bones". There could be a warning at the top about refraining from adding bias to the page, to make it clear to those that want to edit the page. And that if the adding of biased text continues, the page will be deleted. This would be fair, to give those that are changing it constantly a chance to "clean up their act" and start being mature. The wikipedia is for everyone, not to be dragged into the debate as propaganda.
Keep, but maybe a session on cleanup would be appropriate. It is a major debate on the Internet (though it seems that for most fans who have been around for a while, this is approximately equivalent to the discussion of the Balrog's wings—i.e. we really don't want to go down that road again). However, it should discuss the debate itself from a more historically-aware perspective: I was involved in these discussions before we had even heard of the prequels, so the implication that anything related to Attack of the Clo'nes is of primary importance is highly misleading. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Star Trek v. Star Wars is a debate that just never seems to die. It's really something quite spectacular/sad, it's attracted some of the most passionate/embarrassing fans in existence, and it's probably going to outlive us all. That's worthy of a wikipedia article. - Lifefeed 19:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep personally I think the ST v SW debate is extremely sad, but its article-worthy for sure (although it would be nice if the article was less... well... crap than it is now --Cynical 21:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It has significant point-and-laugh value, if nothing else. —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, maybe with some Clean Up. Well known Usenet/Internet debate. The article is written from in relatively NPOV, just a little work needed. Besides, eveyone knows how much Star Trek rocks while Star Wars blows. ;-) func (talk) 22:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. NeoJustin 23:58, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
If it's to be kept (and I guess it is), I think it should be moved to Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, to make it clear its about the debate itself, and not an article on which is better, which is what the titles makes it seem like it is. Anyone object? -R. fiend 00:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, with appropriate redirects, of course. func (talk) 00:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. This page would be deleted then, right?
  - The title itself would likely be kept as a (my vote) redirect with most if not all of the content cleaned up a bit. Fire Star 04:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, sounds clear this way. --AlainV 06:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

redirect with some clean up if someone knows how --Blkshrt 01:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep It's a noteable debate/fight/yelling match thingy. As such it does deserve an entry in Wikipedia... just like Star Wars and Star Trek. However i recommend this is watched for POV things and kept realistic and objective. --Asmodai 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Actually interesting, and a noted issue too. If you're going to keep the "creator of phrases like "asshat" by a 95% "keep" vote (Something Awful Forums), then this can keep. Terrapin 14:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is an intresting aspect of internet fandoms and cultures. ScottM 22:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and incorporate Egg Troll's post [30]. That is all. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not too happy about the quality of the article, but it's certainly a valid topic with a long history. Keep. Psychonaut 14:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep--Josiah 05:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but for God's sake, why this, and not schools?! Intrigue 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but clean up and delete some of the fancruft. I suppose it serves a purpose of some sort. Suntiger 20:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to JnanaBase. Npc 12:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Soon

This is silly Blizzard-fan's joke. There's no place for this here. Delete. Pembertond 01:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What the hell? Nonsense. Delete. -R. fiend 02:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Made it easy on us and reverted back to its original redirect. The retard who vandalized this VfD discussion should be banned though. -R. fiend 03:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - We don't ban without giving warnings. Please also refrain from making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. Good work. -Pembertond 06:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just FYI, "Soon" and "Soon^TM" has become a very commonly used joke in gamer's circles. But the redirect is fine. —siro χ o 00:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly Blizzard specific. Compare Real Soon Now.

Keep: Looking at the page history, this was originally a redirect. It's back to being a redirect. This is now fine. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Audra Lynn

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

Not notable. Last year's Playboy "Miss October" whose entire TV filmography is one appearace on "Family Feud" (related to her Playboy appearance), and one Frasier episode as an unnamed character. 6,000 hits isn't very impressive for someone who's had nude pictures available for at least a year--compare to "Yamila Diaz-Rahi"'s 40,000 hits, with no nudes (at least that I'm aware of), although she has been in a couple Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions. Niteowlneils 02:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Not a speedy delete candidate, but not at all a person who has done enough to discuss, and discussion is what articles are. Then there was the bit that she's a Republican. If only she were the only one, it would be something to talk about. Geogre 03:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable nude model. — Gwalla | Talk 03:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Playboy Playmates are notable enough and completely verifiable - David Gerard 07:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable and verifiable. The article could use expansion, though, so I've marked it as a stub. Factitious 08:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 17:28, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Very much potential to become enyclopedic —siro χ o 00:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
keep, notable. Posiduck 03:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think the Wikimedia servers are running out of disk space. --Tmh 10:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not, but there's also the issue of bandwidth. I, for one, am tired of it taking, at times, 2 to 5 minutes to load a Wikipedia page. Also FWIW, I am a Playboy subscriber, so hardly anti-porn, but I don't find these women encyclopedic--any woman with lucky genes, and/or a good plastic surgeon, being willing to be photographed nekkid can qualify--no skill, knowledge, or ability required. Niteowlneils 17:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is one of the more specious arguements I've seen in a while. Bandwidth is not a problem unless all the people are trying to view this article. If they are trying to view it then that simply argues against you since the article would be then be very much notible / in demand. --ShaunMacPherson 19:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It should be further noted that a deleted article takes up as much space as a kept one. anthony 警告 01:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Playboy's Miss October. anthony 警告 13:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mmmmmm, October. Radman1 16:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, obviously notable. Sam [Spade] 18:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep Give the article time to grow. It is a significant topic. --ShaunMacPherson 19:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A Playboy Playmate of the Month is relatively notable, though certainly one would have to stop short of including every Playboy model ever. Also, I'd say that the reason that her Google hits are lower than those of Ms. Diaz-Rahi are because Ms. Lynn's had less time to get her pictures uploaded, downloaded and redistributed by pr0n pirates. -Sean Curtin 00:44, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
What a great idea! I started a List of every Playboy model ever. To slow the deluge of ~~pictures~~ articles, I only linked the ones who already have an entry, so the less famous ones won't suddenly become an article in need of creation. Oh, and keep The Steve 14:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Playmate of the Month equals notability. (Yeah, whatever, inclusionists, I said the dreaded 'n' word. So sue me.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We have an article on Playboy, and Playboy magazine would be nothing without the centerfold models. I think we can afford the space for one new article each month. If we can keep Bajoran wormhole I think we can keep an article on a real person.Pedant 17:43, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Keep. Model of the month is notable enough. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
KEEP Playmates are notable. --The_stuart 22:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW

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

The result of the debate was clear keep.

Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW

Was created in response to Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW but serves no cohesive purpose. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 02:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Unless projects in the WP namespace are actively harming the site, what is the use in deleting them? Rhobite 04:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:41, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
keep--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Serves the purpose of helping get articles not about the South. Rmhermen 16:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Outside our jurisdiction? --Improv 16:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
keep. NeoJustin 16:44 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. That said, Northerners and other interested parties are encouraged to visit the general U.S. notice board, until there is a larger group of interested contributors there and that COTW takes off. +sj + 16:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Of course, it seems to be more or less defunct, and I like the U.S.-wide version better, but the Northern states of the U.S. are precisely as notable as the Southern states (although I think it's fair to say that being Northern is not a vital part of most Northerners' identities, whereas it is a really big deal to be Southern). [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mistakenly nominated? Keep —siro χ o 22:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
You know it was the darn Irish that started this mess.... ;-) func (talk) 22:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep! What is this doing on VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see how this is fundamentally different than any other CotW. Tuf-Kat 01:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What is this doing here? — Gwalla | Talk 03:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment - I find it cruel irony that either of these US boards exist, since one of the purposes of the other regional boards is to encourage the creation and expansion of less US-centralised articles! -- Chuq 00:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, we know where you're coming from, Chuq, with your "US" missing the proper good old U.S. of A. periods, (or "full stops", as you people dare to call them), and your funny spelling of "centralised"... we're on to you, mister!!! ;-) (sigh... that was fun). func (talk) 00:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - stop deletion trolling. The Recycling Troll 18:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Yankee wikipedians' notice board :) -- Cyrius|✎ 21:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Pastry case

A POV recipe?!? Niteowlneils 02:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

D And Cornish pasties are crimped on top, silly. Chris 04:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource if useful. --Slowking Man 07:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. utcursch 07:27, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to the cookbook on Wikibooks.
Transwiki to WikiCookbook. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Remember to NPOV it first. Chris
Transwiki to WikiCookBook. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keech

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

non-notable. substub listed on cleanup since July. --Jia ng 03:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Not his real name, not a biography, not an explanation. Geogre 03:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. utcursch 07:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
D Wolfman 15:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find anything on skunk rock on google (not saying it doesn't exist) and I certainly can't find anything about "Keech" either. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Mystery fiction was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Mystery fiction

This page is a duplicate, in essence, of Whodunit (or at least it is in the view of one user, who had requested previously for a speedy deletion, but I felt that VfD was more appropriate for this article). ugen64 03:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Redundant page, no explanation why this is not just another name for Detective Fiction, should be merged there or removed completely. (Note there is a distinction at the page Detective fiction but the distinction is very trifling.) Note: I don't agree should be merged with Whodunnit, which is a subgenre of detective fiction, but with Detective fiction. 68.1.181.54 03:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep and list both/all on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles - so they can be merged properly. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 04:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with DAVODD. utcursch 07:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with above —siro χ o 00:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and disagree with merging. Whodunnit is about murder mystery, mystery fiction incorporates books like Hardy Boys. They aren't necessarily the same. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The distinction you make isn't at all clear to me. Whodunnits aren't necessarily about murders. Besides, I said this page should be merged with detective fiction not whodunnit. There is no appreciable disctinction between mystery and detective fiction -- they are synonymous.68.1.174.46 22:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep - --Cyprus2k1 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep: reasonably distinct from Whodunnit or Detective fiction Florescentbulb 00:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Xin Wang

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

This page is obvious vanity but is not deletable under current Speedy Deletion guidelines. Delete. ugen64 03:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, obviously. Andre (talk) 04:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it already got deleted. :) Krupo 04:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It was deleted by User:Chuq with the reason given as "vanity." Since that isn't one of the reasons given in Wikipedia:Candidates for Speedy Deletion, I've restored it. Now everyone will be able to see why Chuq deleted it. It was almost a speedy under points 2, Test pages and 4, Very short articles with little or no context, but... not really. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - You can delete it again now. :) Chris 01:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - It's a shame that proposed criteria #3 for speedy delete isn't an accepted reason yet. Delete. Krupo 17:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey. Could be one of the kid's who used to hang around the Chatswood station bus terminal. I saw them there all the time. Non-notable Australian school student. Delete! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Juega con las matemáticas

This was speedy deleted by Ta bu shi da yu, because it's nothing more than an ad for the product.

Non-notable CD rom game to teach math to kids. Only gets 472 Google hits. I did some spot-checking and every one I saw was an advertisement. SWAdair | Talk 04:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Donde esta la delete? Aqui. Advert. Ian Pugh 05:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Advertisment. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch 07:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ad. Geogre 14:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Non-notable. That's enough, so I don't even need to get into the delicate question of whether this article is appropriate for the English-language Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Guan aco 00:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Yo quiero Deleto Bell. Chris 02:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Spam. Delete - Mike Rosoft 12:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ad? Poor quality. Article? Possibly worse. - Andygoodell 04:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an ad. I'm going to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Shindig was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, but article sensibly redirected. Cool Hand Luke 20:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable club, fanboy gushing. Rick K 05:13, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Party. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 06:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Common American (not sure about other English-speaking countries) slang for "party." Redirect to Party. --Slowking Man 07:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary. WordNet defines Shindig as a large and noisy party of people. I don't think there is any good reason to redirect. Create disambiguation page with links to party and Shindig! created by Mike H. - utcursch 07:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
This word had more currency circa 1960, and I believe it was even used as the title of a TV show at that time, which would merit an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect until someone wants to write an article for the TV show, which I remember watching every week. Before MTV played music, and long before MTV stopped playing music, the only way people saw music was live (or "live") performances on TV shows. I think "Shindig" was a lip synch one, which is bad, but there were some great shows. (I remember seeing Tommy James and the Shondells and Tommy Roe on there.) Geogre 14:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Party. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Throw out existing content, supply definition, and Move to Wikipedia. The word is interesting etymologically, if I remember well — although not that interesting, else I'da remembered more than that! — Bill 22:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and let someone else recreate. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep, clean and edit for NPOV. I did some rewriting to clean it. --L33tminion 01:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, or very possibly redirect to Shindig!, as soon as someone writes an article on the very popular '60s music show. Mike H 03:27, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the article for Shindig! now so it's much more wise to redirect this. Mike H 03:38, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Create disambiguation page with links to party and Shindig!. ElBenevolente 03:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ruzwana Bashir was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus

Please Note While no wording of running text has been changed, i have reformatted several votes to facilitate accurate counting of votes, without adding signed explanatory notes to each of them. --Jerzy (t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

The subject of this article does not wish to have her name in various online encylopaedias and dictionaries, which are clones of Wikipedia. The history of posts attributed to her name includes some highly offensive and hurtful content, and major factual inaccuracies which unfairly portray her in a negative light. These posts have been maliciously edited by those who are jealous and spiteful of her, also responsible for factually incorrect and misleading content in the media. I urge voters to respect the wishes of the subject, and prevent a history of offensive posts from being permenantly available online. Instead, she could be briefly referred to in the main Oxford Union page. 163.1.141.7 00:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note anon. nomination does not count as an automatic del vote. --Jerzy (t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
Delete You know, whether this is slander or not, I don't care. This is an article about the internal politics of a campus organization. Granted, it's a famous campus organization, but I don't think that an article about the battle for editorship of The Crimson would be worth a tinker's damn, either. This is non-notable at this point, so delete. Geogre 01:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: wrong side of the line. Merits a 1-liner in the main Oxford Union page. Ruzwana Bashir was added by the same anonymous editor who added the Matthew Richardson vanity article (which survived vfd last May, see the page history), presumably since Bashir is/was a minor player in Richardson's world. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Petty frivolous student politics. 129.67.16.88 03:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous votes don't count.Alberuni 03:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- & struck thru by Jerzy (t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Merge into Oxford Union; does not deserve its own article. Note that the "libel" and "wishes of the subject" issues are frivolous and invalid reasons to delete. See Talk:Ruzwana Bashir and User talk:163.1.141.7. • Benc • 03:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment 1: we have 43 articles in Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union. Some of these should probably be merged into Oxford Union, too. • Benc • 04:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment 2: if the consensus is to merge, it should contain everything that's already been written, not just a one-liner. Why would we ever want to lose information when merging? Encyclopedic == comprehensive. • Benc • 04:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment 3: Disagree with the above. The only content worthy of inclusion is the first line. The rest is campus-based student politics, irrelevant outside the campus, and indeed irrelevant to most within the university. 129.67.16.83 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Question: Do all these presidents of the Oxford Union get articles because they were presidents of the Oxford Union, or because of the various notable things they did after graduating. Taking my Crimson example, above, I'll bet that most of its chief editors of the past 100 years went on to be important folks. That's not the question. The question is whether a political struggle within a campus organization is something of sufficient international import to be a separate article. Does it serve our users to have these breakouts? If the information is present at Oxford Union, then separate articles are duplication. If the information isn't at Oxford Union, then it is isolated and starved for people who search these people solely due to their Oxford Union context. It is only when they are notable as separate entities that they should be treated as separate articles. Geogre 04:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Answer: most, but not all, of those 43 people have done other notable things. I fully agree with you that simply being the president of a campus organization does not make you notable, which is why I voted merge, not keep. Some of their personal info can be removed, but the whole Bashir controversy seems like a big thing within the context of Oxford Union, so I think it deserves a section. • Benc • 04:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. I don't know if she's famous or not, but wish to comment that it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be mentioned in here or not. If she's notable, and a good article could be written, then one should be created. If not, then not. Her thoughts don't matter on this issue. --Improv 03:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep I've changed my mind based on info provided by User:Benc above. If 43 other presidents of Oxford Union get wikipages then so should Ruzwana Bashir. Alberuni 04:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please base your decision on whether this president is notable. If there are other non-notable Union presidents on Wikipedia, then the correct solution is to remove them, rather than using them as an excuse to add more non-notable content. Pnot 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 43 other former Presidents of The Oxford Union are listed because they have done something notable afterwards - for example Tariq Ali and Benazir Bhutto. This subject has not done anything notable. When she does she can be included. 129.67.16.83 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Oxford Union, or failing that delete. Nobody becomes notable by being president of the Oxford Union. Even within Oxford University, very few people care about the political machinations of the Oxford Union. If any other Union presidents are on Wikipedia solely for having been Union presidents, they should also be VfD'd. In short, I agree with User:Geogre's comments above. Pnot 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a well-known organization, so I don't see why we shouldn't have its presidents here solely by virtue of being its presidents. --Delirium 13:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
- The Union was founded in 1823 and elections are held termly, giving us potentially around 540 presidents. Please let's not have articles on all of them. If you're saying that Bashir needs an article solely because she's a Union president, what's the argument against an article on, say, whoever was president in Michaelmas Term, 1834? If Bashir's notable within the context of the Union, she goes on the Union page. Were she notable in her own right, she'd deserve her own article. I agree that in many cases the presidents of well-known organizations are well-known, but that's because, generally, you have to be prominent in your field to become president of a prominent organization -- they're presidents because they're notable, rather than being notable because they're presidents. The Oxford Union is an exception: as young students, its presidents are generally not notable at the time when they are presidents; many of them achieve notability later in life, but many others do not. Pnot 21:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. First asian woman to hold the post, therefore notable. Article seems NPOV. I don't think all Oxford Union presidents are necessarily notable, but she seems to be. — Gwalla | Talk 03:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No, she's the first British-born asian woman to hold the post -- Benazir Bhutto was (I believe) the first asian woman to hold it back in 1977 (but that's not why she's in Wikipedia; the article doesn't even mention the fact). I think this is a little too specialized to count as a notable first. Well, maybe it's notable solely within the context of the Oxford Union, but in that case it belongs in the Oxford Union article. Pnot 05:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(half-hearted) Keep President of the Oxford Union is an important post -- several British prime ministers have held it. Cabalamat 21:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Untrue. Several people who held it have (much) later gone on to become British prime ministers, which is a very different thing. I fail to see how this confers notability everyone else who has ever held the post. Are you really saying you want articles on (potentially) 540 former Union presidents? Pnot 04:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - Note that the people saying Keep are uninformed. Delirium and Cabalamat: 3 Presidents are elected every year, should all 500+ of them have a page? No, only if they do something notable after being president. Gwalla: First Asian woman to be President was Benazir Bhutto, first Asian to be President was Tariq Ali, and first British-born Asian to be President was IndraNeil Mahapatra. But is first (a) British-born (b) Asian (c) female (d) to be President notable? No.
- Invalid vote: unsigned & cast by anon IP who nominated the article.
Del. With that in mind, delete. Ambi 07:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Del. Many people who have held the position of Student at Oxford University have gone on to greater things. We should therefore have articles on all of Oxford students. Maybe not. Delete Dsmdgold 14:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Del. No compelling evidence of notability is offered. Probably others among the 43 should be deleted, but that is not a prerequisite for deleting her; we should handle them one by one, and neither side's advocates are under special obligation to hunt them down. --Jerzy(t) 00:10, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I first mentioned the other 42 because it's a relevant fact. I never meant to imply that we should let that get in the way of deciding what to do about Ruzwana Bashir. (My vote to merge stands, by the way.) • Benc • 00:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Since the Oxford Union is quite notable, the fact that it has had a protracted period of disputed leadership is notable as well -- especially since 1) the problem has persisted for two election cycles, 2) this is an interesting facet of any notable organization that is run by students, and 3) this is an interesting facet of the maturation and increasing openness of organizations affliated with ancient, formerly non-coed universities. Would support moving it into a section of leadership disputes on the Oxford Union page. Chrisvls 22:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and create a redirect. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, and I don't see a need for a redirect. Holding a post which some other famous people have also held does not constitute notability. RadicalSubversiv E 02:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with the arguments above that simply holding the post does not make a person sufficently notable. However, apparently the controversy surrounding this particular election has garnered a bit of media coverage. I think that the media coverage makes this person notable, just like Laci Peterson is more notable than random murder victim 734, so I'm going to vote keep on that basis alone. Gamaliel 06:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - all the articles on Oxford Union Presidents are articles on people who did notable things (like become Prime Minister) after they were at Oxford. There are no other articles I can find on individuals whose only notable accomplishment is being Oxford Union President. A number of notable people went to my university and have wikipedia articles on them, that doesn't mean anyone who attended my school merits an article. Further, the article is almost entirely about a rather petty incident in a campus political campaign. If she had done anything else of merit in her life it might be an interesting footnote (like the way Conrad Black sold copies of stolen upcoming exams when he was at Upper Canada College) but it does not merit an article in and of itself and doesn't merit having an article because she might end up becoming a notable person. Right now most former Oxford Union Presidents do not have articles and probably will not have articles so there' s no reason to have one on herAndyL 20:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:10, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:Bob|Bob (Talk)]] 02:28, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
- The above contrib by User:163.1.141.7 (User talk:163.1.141.7, contribs), the nominator or someone sharing that IP, is forged to appear to belong to a registered user; that user either has no contribs, or is in fact nonexistent by virtue of never having registered. Struck thru. (Amusingly, the contribution was made after the passage of the day-of-nomination and the 5 additional calendar days normally allowed, 1 minute before i removed the nomination from VfD to VfD/Old!) --Jerzy (t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Valid votes

- Del: 8
- Kp: 7 (2 of them weak)
- Abst: 1
- Other: 1 Merge, 1 Merge-&-Redir,-or-Del

Possible special circumstances

The behavior of the nominator has been horrible: on this page, their IP was used

for casting an anon vote after it had been pointed out that anon votes could not be counted, and the fact that that vote was the only unsigned contrib in the debate suggests intentional concealment, and
on a separate occasion, for forging a sig that created the appearance of a registered user's vote.

However, the arguments put forward by horribly behaving people are not necessarily horrible but may even be sound; the circumstance stated below may deserve some consideration.

The nominator claimed that some Keep votes were based on misinformation, and presented plausible and testable information about firsts, and about the number of presidents, that strengthened at least my pro-Del opinion. IMO the arguments are nowhere near so compelling as to be ~~prima-facie~~ res-ipsa-loquitur evidence for discounting even one keep vote, but i am taking the liberty of inviting each of the three editors specifically named to explicitly confirm, or to reconsider, their Keep votes. If any one of them should state they now felt Del was the better action,

we'd be one more reversed opinion from a 10-5 straw-poll for deletion, and
therefore perhaps someone (not i) should then consider re-polling those who cast the other 4 Keeps.

--Jerzy (t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

While i was preparing the above (already belated) edit, the process reached a normal conclusion. (And i have not followed up with the messages to 3 editors that i had intended.) While i hope that edit and this one will be tolerated in the permanent record, my interest is not so great as to engage in the troublesome practice of reviving the VfD in question.--Jerzy (t) 18:42, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

- I do not consider my behaviour to have been "horrible" - I was protecting the interests of my friend, and other voters have been utterly horrid and spiteful. This is not Martha Stewart, Jeffery Archer or someone from Enron, this is a 20 year old student who does not want frivolous student politics stuck to her name for the rest of her life. Secondly, the second edit had something disgustingly offensive and slanderous, which should not remain online, and if this is not deleted I will consider taking legal action against Wikipedia. Thirdly I was outraged to see that the "deletes" were being counterbalanced by "keeps" from misinformed idiots, who seemed to think that being Union President warranted an entry, not realising another 540 people (3 a year) have been Union president. Being the first Asian president is notable. Being the first female president is notable. Being the first British-born Asian president isn't really. And being the first British-born Asian female president certainly is not! If the entry is not deleted, legal action will be taken. 163.1.141.7 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Hmoleman00

An errant User page, but created by an anon. Rick K 06:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen this user name before. Can the content be moved and this page deleted? - Lucky 6.9 06:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arq. Jorge Omar García Escamilla

Arq. Jorge Omar García Escamilla was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was was a consensus to delete the article.

Non-notable architect, badly formatted title. Rick K 06:44, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vanity, thy name is Arq. Adios. - Lucky 6.9 06:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Geogre 14:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Harnosand.nu

Non-notable online community. Alexa ranking of 3,529,596. Rick K 06:55, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

35 Google hits. Vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity, Wikipedia is not a web guide, and a non-notable entity (that last for people who say that "notability" is only a reason people give and that the guidelines don't mandate deletion because of a specific criterion named notability, even though the guidelines say that we must delete things based on the majority of votes on VfD, and appeals to Harvey the Rabbit who is invisible and doesn't vote but must disagree don't count). Geogre 14:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. To be encyclopedic, both topic and article must be encyclopedic. --Improv 17:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've got a message board that's been defunct for a couple of years that gets almost as many Google hits. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete, I cannot see this article becoming encyclopedic, but I may be wrong. —siro χ o 22:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Porfirio Barba Jacob

Delete. Spanish-language (I'd translate if it were worth it but...), mostly poetry, probably a copyvio (although Google doesn't find it on line so I'm going the VfD route instead as a quicker way to be rid of this). Utterly non-encyclopedic. If someone can find a grounds for speedy deletion, fine with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I've copyvio'd it. The link was right in the article --jpgordon{gab} 23:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - But the link doesn't have this text, or I would have copyvio'd -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I had to drill down a bit to find it among the poets. --jpgordon{gab} 20:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lorraine lam

A 31-year-old lab technician; article doesn't establish notability. — Bill 13:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. I've worked up a boilerplate message to send to users who appear to be creating autobiographical articles. I encourage everyone to use it in cases like this. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Is there a Wiki-ography? We could move all the questionable bio's that show up on VfD there if there was... (Like Bush and Kerry family members, or insignificant minor royalty who die before they are born)132.205.15.4 19:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A nobody. --Farside 14:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity, and we didn't need to know her boyfriend's name or the pet name he uses for her. Geogre 14:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've speed deleted it. The sole author (User:65.93.206.37) blanked it after this vfd listing; this is an unambiguous expression of the desire to have it removed. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. anthony 警告 13:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - unverifiable, blanked by author. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just listed this on VfD, and this disscussion showed up. Apparently, someone recreated the page. I'll remove this listing from VfD and add a speedy notice. -- Scott Burley 08:44, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) Stass Allie was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, but strong support for merge, which I did. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fancruft. — Bill 13:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: She did all this? Was it perchance a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away? I would say it's unverifiable, if I were in a joking mood. Fancruft. Geogre 14:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge. She only deserves a small mention on an article about Adi Gallia which she has or I guess we could just merge her into the Minor characters in Star Wars article. NeoJustin 17:09 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, although I suppose a merge would be okay. Even if this were a Star Wars wiki, this article would at best deserve to be merged and redirectedt to an article on Adi Gallia. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 20:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge, redirect agree w/ NeoJustin —siro χ o 22:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect This one at least sounds more or less important. --Asmodai 00:00, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Ack. Extended universe stuff. Must be from recent books; I've never heard of her, and I was a hardcore fan for a while. Pretty trivial if you ask me; no real reason to preserve the content anywhere. Do people realize how many minor characters there are in the Star Wars universe? Minor characters in Star Wars is going to get huge if we just keep dumping material there. Isomorphic 00:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So? People going to that page know what to expect... GWO
Delete. Fancruft. Indrian 01:02, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and redirect Mark Richards 18:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Ringside Recording Studios was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP—no consensus to delete. 4 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete. 1 vote was disregarded because it was unsigned. Postdlf 02:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ringside Recording Studios

I'm a bit unsure about this one. It could be notable, but recording studios are a dime a dozen. Every sizeable city has several, and nothing really establishes this as notable. Seems it was created by a fan of a minor band that recorded there. It got some google hits, but the first one was our little stub. Seems its not too much different than a local independent record store or other small business in any given city. Certainly some studios are worthy of inclusion (eg Abbey Road and Sun), but I'm thinking this one isn't. -R. fiend 15:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I think this is part of the Tooth Fuzz suite of articles. Tooth Fuzz lost VfD and has been deleted. Even if, however, it is not, the article does not really establish notability or a reason why this studio stands out from all others. Was/is there a particular sound found there (as there was in the Muscle Shoals studios, that famous one in Berlin, etc.), or not? Is it supposed to be notable because of the people who've used it, when those people have not demonstrated success? Geogre 17:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. To be encyclopedic, both the topic and the article must be notable. --Improv 17:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erm? No. That's just not true. The Recycling Troll 18:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - no evidence that notability is important. The Recycling Troll 18:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A real recording studio. Mark Richards 18:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep this - it's a real place. Trollminator 23:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, Its recorded Blueprint 76, seems enough evidence of notability to guarantee the possibility of becoming encyclopdic. —siro χ

o 13:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Royce Nunley who owns, produces at and runs "Ringside Recording Studio" spent 9 years in the Hollywood Records band "The Suicide Machines" and is now having great sucess with his new band "Blueprint 76". Recording studios ARE a dime a dozen but not one engineered and owned by "Royce Nunley" of "The Suicide Machines" / "Blueprint 76" both on wikki ALSO "The Insyderz" latest album was recorded and produced there, and they are also on wikki. Do a google for "Royce Nunley" and you'll come up with more then enough hits, he's featured on MTV.com, Rollingstone.com as well as in countless magazines.

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

Aarsmania

This is a hoax. Aarsmania means 'ass mania' in Dutch, Aarsheuvel means 'ass hill'. Sietse 20:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It could have been funny, but didn't even succeed at that. Delete. — Bill 21:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: dull hoax from a dull wit. Geogre 01:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ds Any objections to speedy? Patent nonsense surely. Chris 01:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't have any objections, but a speedy delete is not in accordance with the deletion policy (see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, especially the section 'Not to be confused with... ', hoax). That's the reason I put it on VFD. Sietse 06:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Actually, that's not quite right. Patent nonsense is a valid criteria for speedy deletion, see below.

If an article contains nothing but patent nonsense, use your good judgment to decide whether to:

list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
replace it with a link to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
delete it straightaway (only if you are a sysop)

Consider it gone. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sherrice Iverson was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP due to lack of consensus to delete. 5 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Only 1 vote to delete was posted after the article was rewritten. Postdlf 02:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sherrice Iverson

I SEE SOME OF YOU WANTED HER TO BE DELETED, WHY BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK? WHY NOT DELETE SAMANTHA RUNNION, JONBENET, DANIELLE VAN DAM?? ARE THEY MORE IMPORTANT??

Poor little girl, age 7, murdered in a bathroom. Very sad, but not notable: it happens far too often. — Bill 21:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment: This isn't a vote, but she seems to have inspired some legislation in Nevada, so she might be notable enough. Lord Bob 21:25, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- The legislation may be notable. Include this information in a footnote there and all is good. Having it here is not encyclopedic. Delete. --Improv 22:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Good point. Delete. Lord Bob 23:17, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- If she inspired legislation, she should be included in the article about the legislation for sure. Is there an article on it? If not create one and ~~merge/redirect~~ —siro χ o 02:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: As with other victims of crime and accident who inspire reforms, their accounts need to be told in the story of the thing done in reaction, and not as a memorial. Geogre 01:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Delete. This is a new low from our old pal, the B-Movie Bandit. Merge/redirect is OK. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've expanded the article based on the info provided on the weblink. That story made big headlines here in California and deserves more than what the Bandit left. - Lucky 6.9 23:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The Bandit got it wrong. The crime happened in Primm Valley. That's 40 miles southwest of Las Vegas on the California state line, for those unfamiliar with the area. - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 17:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Strong Keep after Lucky's good work. —siro χ o 13:34, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Guan aco 22:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If she inspired legislation that's clearly notable. DG 05:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Paul Pinson

Vanity page, complete with scary picture. Name gets some hits, but for an artistic director, not this 12 or 13 year old. "Much youth has said that Paul should one day run for president due too his exelent..."--"...and some say he is a reancarnation of J.R.R. Tolkien." Um, someone thinks Tolkien couldn't spell his way out of a wet paper bag? FWIW, contrib from user of the same name, that has been nicely welcomed by User:Sj, but tone of article suggests it wasn't simply 'misplaced'. Niteowlneils 21:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Someday, these will be speedy candidates, and VfD will be smaller for it. Lord Bob 21:22, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Move to User:Paulpinson and delete. Someday, the inclusionists will get VfD stricken from Wikipedia and these articles will be kept. Sigh. RickK 21:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It was already handled outside of the VfD process, so apparently not. anthony (see warning) 01:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Vanity. Move to User:Paulpinson and delete. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Probably the most terrifying vanity page I've ever seen. Delete and/or move to User:Paulpinson --Neschek 22:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've moved it to User:Paulpinson and deleted the redirect. Let me know if you think I've done this out of process. Rick K 23:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, redirects created from articles moved to the user space are candidates for speedy deletion. I think what you've done is perfectly fine, and the kind of thing we should be doing more often. anthony (see warning) 01:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Workopolis

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Workopolis

Blatant advertising, written at least in part in the first person. — Bill 21:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, seems pretty obvious what this is doing here. Mo0 21:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Alexa Traffic Rank for workopolis.com: 1,563. It does, of course, need cleansing. Dang it, just found[31]. Sigh Niteowlneils 23:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The current article is unquestionably crap, but the site is a notable Canadian web venture that would merit a keep if the article were improved. I'll stub it. Bearcat 23:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The current version of the article does a much better job of demonstrating notability and avoiding advertisement. Factitious 09:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Deletionism is killing articles before they have a chance to grow. Give it time, it is an important topic. --ShaunMacPherson 19:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please attempt some research into the topic before nominating for deletion. Nominator has valid points about the article, ~~yet they do not merit nomination for deletion via the deletion policy. This Vfd should be defaulted to keep, but~~ i'll vote keep anywys. —siroχo 13:37, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only saw Bearcat's revision, this was a valid nomination. But as a general rule, try mopping things up before immediately nominating them for deletion. Without a small amount of eventualism, Wikipedia would have very few articles. —siro χ o
Keep. Guan aco 22:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Penguin language

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

"There is of course no recognized penguin language"—indeed, so why do we have an article about it? The answer, from the creator: "for consistency of links in Simpsons article [i.e. Homer Simpson, the only article that links to it]." Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Penguincruft? 1. Peck. 2. Collect fish. 3. Delete. Ian Pugh 22:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1. Peck 2. ... 3. Profit The bellman 12:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see any potential for this to become a real article. Shane King 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
"So, do you think they'll do a new edition of Mrs. Gaskill this year? I'm not sure, but I understand they're looking for translators who can render The Satyricon into Edwardian prose so that it's more in keeping with the language favored by Penguin." Delete an article about a negative and probably designed to keep Pengu from being an orphan. Geogre 01:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There, now nothing links to it. No reason to keep (as if there were before). Delete. -R. fiend 01:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but I think this qualifies for BJAODN as an excellent example of ODN. It may even be serious, and it's been around since January. Andrewa 13:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not funny enough for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Penguins can't talk and there doesn't appear to be any serious pop culture notability. Everyking 01:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless Tux starts talking Passw0rd 16:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In all fairness, I reckon it should probably be deleted - and I wrote the thing! I still think it's quite amusing, but it's a gag, not an article. To be honest, I'm amazed it lasted this long... --HappyDog
Just a note, 'written in Pengiun' means a fresh literal almost word for word translation into English, source 'The Last Samurai'.--Jondel 06:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and move to BJAODN, which I think it honestly deserves. I mean come on, it's funny! Suntiger 21:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonsense - --Cyprus2k1 10:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Stalling was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 75% vote for delete, but article now a harmless redirect. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Listed on cleanup since 2 Aug. Dic def/substub. --Jia ng 22:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia, being listed on Clean Up." "In the NFL, a linebacker." Delete: dictdef. Geogre 01:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D "In hacker sub-culture, losing one's sanity in a way similar to RMS." Chris 02:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
delete I just moved it to Wiktionary. There may be enough to make this encyclopedic, but someone can recreate the page when they do. Till then, Wiktionary is the right place. JesseW 04:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, redirect to the aviation sense. Mark Richards 18:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Hot Soup was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was although 66% support vote for delete, article is now redirect to List of characters in the Ender's Game series. Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nickname of non-notable fictional character. Rick K 23:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: No need to merge and redirect, as there is nothing there. Delete for there being nothing there. Geogre 01:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: non-article. I'd suggest redirecting to soup or Ender's Game, but either one would be misleading. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 01:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
D We just don't need this pseudo-factoid. Chris 02:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've set up a redirect to List of characters in the Ender's Game series, which seems like the best option. —siro χ o 03:35, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)~
Comment: so why was this listed for deletion at all? why wasnt it boldly merged and redirected in the first place? The bellman 12:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

October 24

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Nation of Islam anti-semitism.

This page is kept as an historic record.

Consensus was not reached, so the article was kept.

Nation of Islam anti-semitism

Note: the page is now at Nation of Islam and anti-semitism, apparently in an attempt to be a slightly more POV title. The redirect at the old title has now been deleted as POV.

Nation of Islam anti-semitism was redirected to Louis Farrakhan. The page was then added to Wikipedia:redirects for deletion. According to Rossami, the content has been fully merged into the "Louis Farrakhan" article. Nation of Islam anti-semitism was the subject of a deletion debate where credible arguments were raised that the title reflected an unfixable POV that was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The edit history of the article has already been cut-and-pasted into the Farrakhan discussion page in order to satisfy GFDL.

I do not believe that we should be just deleting this via redirects for deletion. I have reverted the redirect, as this in itself is POV, and now ask the community whether they believe we should delete this article due to the fact that its name is POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell -- does the title, in your opinion, necessarily connotate that NoI *is* anti-semetic, or does it suggest the possibility of their anti-semitism as the topic for the article? Would it matter if NoI openly said it was anti-semitic? Not sure about any of these questions for now. --Improv 17:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If some think the title is not neutral, an alternative title could be Nation of Islam and anti-semitism. As for the contents, given their history and the quotations (BTW, not only Farrakhan's), I can fully understand if it makes someone uncomfortable. By simply removing the article the problem will not go away. Of course, we need to report it from NPOV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I took the liberty and moved it to Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism, consistent with other articles on the topic. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Looks good to me. That title looks a lot better, and as we've moved it I'll put the redirect Nation of Islam anti-semitism to WP:RFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and/or Redirect, this hate should NOT be covered-up. IZAK 04:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect and cleanup. Still very POV, but salvageable--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and Merge with Nation of Islam, also needs a lot of cleanup and NPOV - --Cyprus2k1 10:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, it could use some cleanup, and some balance (if there is any, I'm not 'au courant' on the details of this issue), but to the extent that these are accurate quotations of what was really said, it would be really wrong to delete them because they are offensive. We aren't in the business of protecting people from themselves. If they said these things, that is important and worth noting. Noel (talk) 18:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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 {{{1}}}. delete, but it was speedy deleted anyway by Cyrius. bainer (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America Adventure

For a prior VFD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/America Adventure/2004 Oct 24.

Delete article was voted for deletion before, but it was never deleted. Revolución 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Xcali 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, advertising. Megan1967 05:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's both advertising and not notable. Tobycat 05:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising/promo. Kaibabsquirrel 20:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"America Adventure is a cd-rom in Engrish." - there, fixed. Delete. --FCYTravis 20:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. It was deleted, but was recreated. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, that article "consist to be" so bad it made my eyes water. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 28 May 2005 (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.

Jill Valentine was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect. Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Belongs (if at all) in the article they note. — Bill 00:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Already in the fancruft article, so this exponential fancruft needs to be deleted as empty article with no information in it. Geogre 01:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D+R No new information. Redirecting to Resident Evil in the absence of any notable RL people by that name. Chris 02:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - interestingly, Jill appeared as a character in Marvel vs. Capcom 2. But that's about the extent of her pertinence beyond Resident Evil. Ian Pugh 02:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It looks like it's already been made a redirect. Looks good to me. Making it a redirect discourages re-creation of an unnecessary article. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. —siro χ o 13:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

Gavin Foley

I suggest merging with Zach Foley, however as this was listed as a speedy deletion I'm putting this to vote on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I'd have made it speedy, only because it has all the hallmarks of a joke. The article tells us highly improbable things and then says that his only impact on society was the creation of a group that got disbanded. Yet we're assured that he's a legend. Again, it looks very much like a joke. I'm assuming that you've checked it and it's not. I don't know about Zach Foley, but the article on Gavin is a goner. Geogre 01:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a joke page, and has no other criteria for it being a speedy deletion. I don't mind it being deleted, this just needs to go through VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D "brother of ... an obscure music star" Notability by association again. Chris 02:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I have references identifying a "Zach Foley" in EMF, ~~though I doubt it's~~ but it's not the same person - the "real" one was born in 1970 ~~and is still alive~~ and died in 2002. Google for "Zach Foley" -EMF returns exactly 24 hits, of which not a single one refers ot this guy's brother. Chris 02:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS - the article author removed the VfD tag, which I have duly replaced.

Delete. The brother of an obscure musical star definitely doesn't deserve an article. I don't think an obscure musical star deserves an article either. NeoJustin 4:03 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable brother of "an obscure musical star". Yeah. Nadavspi 00:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thames High School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 16 delete 11 keep (+1 believed to be sock puppet). No consensus, so article kept. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

School and non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Just a school like any other, only with less to say about it than most, it seems. Now I'm assured that a silent, non-voting majority wants all schools kept, but votes count. This is a substub that says nothing about its subject and a subject that we have no reason to believe is of interest. If it is of interest, then a phone book tells as much as this does. Geogre 01:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Nothing out of the ordinary here. Chris 02:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It is just a school. I wish people would stop making articles about high schools. NeoJustin 03:32 Oct. 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. --Improv 17:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yet another non-notable school page. Nadavspi 00:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A school. Intrigue 22:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Non-notable. Delete. Rick K 22:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Rick still won't read deletion policy - there is no mention of notability. Mark Richards 01:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy IME is not an exhaustive list. Chris 12:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Once again, this is certainly open to interpretation, but as I (and apparently many other users considering the amount of times this is used as justification) read the policy, no potential to become encyclopedic is a category that includes notability. I have not yet read an encyclopedia, whether general knowledge or on a specific topic, that includes everything on a subject. Notability is an important part of being encyclopedic as encyclopedias by their very nature are supposed to distill what is essential about a field, casting off those things that are not worth mentioning. One person's minutae is another person's key element, which is why we vote on these things rather than speedy them, but notability is a criteria. Indrian 02:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- You have not read an encyclopedia that has this information because Wikipedia is among the first of its kind. It is logical fallacy to say something is false/wrong because it was never done before (since by extention nothing would ever get done as there is always a first time for everything). --ShaunMacPherson 19:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I do not take kindly to being interrupted. Wikipedia is not among the first of its kind: it is among the first of its kind in a new medium. This does mean that more information and more entries can be included, but that does not mean that standards should be relaxed to the point that wikipedia no longer resembles an encyclopedia. There is no logical fallacy here. You are more than welcome to disagree about what is notable or not, but limitless (or nearly so at least) capacity does not mean throwing out all standards, or even reducing them to a harmful degree. In my personal opinion, allowing in articles that fail a basic (and yes, inherently subjective) standard of notability is not condusive to constructing a good encyclopedia, and therefore, the entires in question are not encyclopedic and out of line with policy. You are free to disagree with that opinion, just make sure you have the arguements of those who respectfully disagree with your view straight. You can rest assured that I will abide by the will of the group at large. Indrian 19:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    - But the only reason articles of this sort do not "resemble an encyclopedia" is that deletionists kill them before they have time to develop. Wikipedia should have a much broader scope than any paper encyclopedia, because it can have a broader scope than any paper encyclopedia. --L33tminion 16:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
      - Why do they need time to develop? If the person creating the article thinks this one school is so all-fired important, why don't they tell us what's so important about it to begin with? Is five days such a hardship? Rick K 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep It is a stub, famous people likely graduated from this school. Give it time to grow, it is worthy. --ShaunMacPherson 19:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This is a specious statement. Do you really believe that a famous person or people graduated from every single school in the world? Rick K 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
keep: it's a stub of a school. Posiduck 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ........ and your point is? Chris 03:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia is not Britanica. If they could, they would likely put in articles about schools too - they can't, that's why people come here for them, which is why WP is becomming more popular. The Recycling Troll 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment I would certainly not trust the judgement of someone who makes edit comments like this, and I'm not even American. Chris 03:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kill Gene Ward Smith 03:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not to be lame, but please be a bit more tasteful in your VfD comments. This is a school we're talking about, and not everybody has such a sense of humour D: —siro χ o 13:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not enough info to merge into [[Thames, New Zealand}} - Skysmith 08:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DELETE I hate articles about non-notable schools.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What Posiduck said. -- WOT
Delete. Mikkalai 23:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Florescentbulb 23:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sock puppet. Rick K 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - it's a real place. Trollminator 00:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So is my bathroom. Rick K`
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, et cetera, et cetera. -- [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. —siro χ o 13:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep I have no objection to merging it into the place article and redirecting, but I see no goog reason to delete school stubs simply because they are school stubs. older≠wiser 15:03, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Deletion of this article does not improve Wikipedia. People looking for information on this subject can only be inconvenienced by this delete, without making things better for the larger group who is looking for other information (as it is unlikely they would enter "Thames High School" into the search box if looking for other information that resides on Wikipedia). Merely being about a school is a poor reason to delete a valid stub. --L33tminion 16:19, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- People looking for information on this subject can only be inconvenienced by this delete. People looking for information on this subject are better off looking on Google for the school's official site and contact details. Chris 04:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Josiah 06:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Nought 22:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ugen64 01:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I find this debate about schools rather amusing... what I think is that if it does no harm on Wikipedia, it should be left alone. Other than that, someone seriously needs to come up with a coherent policy regarding schools so we don't waste time arguing over every single school that comes up.Enochlau 04:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I see no harm in keeping it. -- JamesTeterenko 06:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment. I thought that non-notability was really supposed to be the deletion criterion for schools below high school, and that high schools were sort of notable-until-proven-non-notable. That having been said, if every school that now has random drug-testing is notable, way too many schools are becoming notable. The only thing this school has going for it seems to be that it is a) really, really old by North American standards and b) not in North America

Rlquall 04:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Lorrainius difficile

If the seventh word doesn't reveal that this is a hoax, a Google search should. Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's not patent about this nonsense? In any case, delete. --jpgordon{gab} 01:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Original, but not funny, frightening, or anything that makes hoaxing it seem worthwhile. delete, and perhaps put in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --Quintucket 02:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Stupid joke. NeoJustin 03:46 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
The lolrajoionism phalitosis of the article makes me want to viajulazigate my inner shperlledoid. Delete. --Slowking Man 03:52, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, Hoaxes and jokes like these really should be speedied (really, is there any possibility that this would survive VfD?) Alas, our inclusionist wikipedians waste more of our time. -Vina 05:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Stupid joke about his buddies and listening to Beatles records. Ought to be speedies, I agree, but the rules are out of date. Geogre 16:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The radition has failed to cure my hyper-paranoia. Nonsense. --Improv 17:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as patent nonsense. This is a companion article for the Lorraine Iam vanity page. Her boyfriend's name is Clarence Chai, hence the reference "clarencechaicortosone". "Lorrainius difficile" ? Maybe they're not getting along so well. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Calculus of Angels was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I own this book, and read it several years ago, it is not a particularly notable book, and I did not find it all that memorable. The article is merely a substub, and I can not imagine that it has the fan base out there to expand it beyond a stub, if even that.

--Quintucket 02:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The instructions for VfD exist for a reason. Please observe and follow them ;-) Chris 02:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contains no information not already in Age of Unreason. Delete (instead of redirecting) to avoid a circular link and make room for a real article. I suppose the category should be merged, but this does have problems since the parent is not a novel but a series of novels. anthony (see warning) 03:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Expanded. Now keep. anthony 警告 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Substub that serves no point besides turning blue an injudicious redlink in the parent article. It's the kind of thing we see with "Bob plays drums with Vanityband#4010." If you type in the term, you already know what the article tells you. Geogre 16:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Article has been significantly expanded since this comment was made. anthony 警告 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless it can be expanded to more than a substub. Right now, it's useless. Nadavspi 00:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Article has been significantly expanded since this comment was made. anthony 警告 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - a real book that will not expand if it is deleted. Mark Richards 01:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with Mark Richards - give it time to grow. Stubs are being destroyed before they have a chance. --ShaunMacPherson 19:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This though, is a rather useless substub which I doubt will ever be expanded, hence I proposed it for deletion. Even stubs are generally somewhat interesting in my opinion. However single sentence substubs about individual non-notable science fiction books in a non-exceptional series are not. --Quintucket 20:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - It has now been expanded. Shall we remove this VFD? anthony 警告 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Yes, my problem was with it being a useless substub. Normal stubs I have no problem with. --Quintucket 23:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - --Cyprus2k1 10:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Intrigue 16:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, with plenty of room to become encyclopedic. I cannot imagine that this fits with the deletion policy in the slightest. An unfortunate abuse of VfD —siro χ o 13:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Agree with previous speaker Gkhan 14:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep A book more notable than others that have survived VfD. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:46, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
I'd personally merge and redirect to Age of Unreason until such time as it was big enough to separate out again. But whatever. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect: the Age of Unreason article (which is also a stub!) should be expanded: I don't believe a series of books should be split into separate articles until there is a substantial amount on each book to warrant. I also can't believe a stub with such a long history is still so short: if all this effort had been expended upon the series article it wouldn't still be a stub itself. --Phil | Talk 14:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

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

Zach Foley

Poorly written. Not notable. Nobody seems to know who this guy is. There was a guy called Zac Foley (no H) in EMF, but this isn't our man (for one, Zac (no H) was born in 1970 and ~~is still alive~~ died in 2002). Google for "Zach Foley" -EMF throws up 24 results, of which a whopping zero are about the subject of this entry. I'm not certain that Zac (no H) has even done anything outside of EMF that would merit an article to which to redirect this page. Chris 02:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete unless someone adds a link to an external source verifying that this information is true. anthony (see warning) 03:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:46 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I'm still persuaded this is a complete joke. "Obscure" but a "star." He was a star french horn player. He lived in a condo so close to a highway that jumping off the balcony caused a 7 car pile up. No one noticed except his brother (but he was a star who was obscure) except his brother (who, btw, took an overdose of asprin) and the author of the article (1st person). I think we should demand 4-5 external references to make this anything but a speedy delete as patent nonsense. Geogre 16:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hearing (law) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictdef. Was listed for speedy deletion but wasn't a candidate AIUI. — Gwalla | Talk 02:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

D Nothing hew here that isn't common sense. It's like the technical definition of a keyboard is "an input device containing buttons, or keys, for input of data." -- the common-sense meaning is no different. Chris 02:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are 13 links to this article. ~~I'm going to vote delete unless expanded, but I hope to be able to expand it by the end of the VFD period, in which case I will change my vote to keep.~~ Now it's three sentences long. I think it's a barebones stub which can be kept. anthony 警告
- I can't help thinking that it would be embarassing for you to vote delete on an article I (generally a deletionist) am voting to keep ;) --Improv 17:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, I did fully intend to change my delete to a keep before the VfD ended. But the fact that you voted keep pushed me to do it that much faster :). anthony 警告 17:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This topic is too notable not to have an article. Mark this as something needing some TLC. --Improv 07:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an obvious keep. If this can't become encyclopedic, I don't know why we're trying to make an encyclopedia. —siro χ o 10:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep in present form because of Anthony's observation that there are links to it. Perfectly good topic, substub is likely to grow, but 134.29.33.38 should have requested the article rather than creating a substub. Certainly keep if expanded. Would be helpful if someone familiar with our legal coverage would do some searching and poking around, as I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is half-decent coverage of this topic in some other article or under some other name. I find searching Wikipedia for content quite difficult; just yesterday I accidentally created an article on Nonlethal weapons because I didn't discover the article Non-lethal force until I had already written five paragraphs. Is this Hearing (law) the right title, by the way? Or Hearing (legal)? Or something else? Any naming-convention mavens here? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P. S. Here's a REAL dictdef, which suggests some avenues for expansion of the article: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4. Law a. A preliminary examination of an accused person. b. The trial of an equity case. 5. A session, as of an investigatory committee or a grand jury, at which testimony is taken from witnesses.

Weak keep, only because it's an encyclopedic topic with links to it. A great candidate for wp:cotw, though. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some cleanup, but is definately encyclopedic. Indrian 17:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Besides being an encyclopedic topic, it also provides a much-needed conduit to get from the disamb hearing to the specific types of hearings in the see also list. Of course, it needs work, but so do many articles--wp:cotw is certainly one option. Given the number of articles that link here, I seriously doubt the general topic is covered elsewhere. Niteowlneils 18:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this is abuse of VfD. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 18:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with that. —siroχo 22:20, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  - Oh, stop it. Just stop it. This was listed for speedy deletion and Gwalla | Talk moved it here so we could all talk about it. And the result is... it's not going to be deleted. It seems to me that you should be giving him an attaboy for that. Maybe we should all introduce ourselves to the person on our right and shake hands and say "hello," or have a group hug, or something like that. I don't insist you join in a big round of applause for the righteous working of Wikiprocess. Just be kind, that's all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Agreed. Gwalla in fact prevented abuse by listing it here. I'm in favor of pointing out VfD abuses myself, but it's rather misplaced in this case. Factitious 08:48, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep It's a gneral topic and should be in a encylopedia... However additional info would be quite a boon --Asmodai 00:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep shortness is not a reason to delete; only no reasonable future expansion is. Gadykozma 00:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, expandable, linked. The title feels a bit awkward to me, but that's another matter entirely. Factitious 08:48, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've added a graf about administrative hearings in U.S. law. JamesMLane 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with this article, just needs expansion. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. same reasoning as above keep votes. Posiduck 03:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Please remember, we aren't all from english speaking countries! Pages like this can help us. --Tmh 10:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep it might be useful to some to know that Hearing law doesn't have anything to do with legislation on audial faculties. Expand. cross reference. cite cases. categorise.Pedant 18:22, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Keep. There is more info in here than is reasonable to state that it's a candidate for moving to Wiktionary. Incidently, should this be something like Legal hearing? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Incorporate a company dot com

Speedily deleted—from VfU. No vote. Guan aco 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

D Spam for a not-well-known ... er, ... thing. Chris 02:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I speedied it the first time, and I still think it's delete-worthy spam. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've removed the part which was advertising. anthony (see warning) 03:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with you, but this is now little more than a spam listing serving as a placeholder for the website. Even the title doesn't appear to meet conventions. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. Andrewa 05:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Advertising. Delete. Rick K 06:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Why this was ever undeleted escapes me. A sysop can provide the contents to any requestor, and I regularly do. I hope this will set some kind of precedent if we delete it now. No change of vote. Andrewa 06:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Since it was undeleted in order to allow Anthony to see the history, it has served its purpose, and the article has now been redeleted. Rick K 06:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The International Surrealist Movement

I can well believe that there's an international surrealist movement, but is there an International Surrealist Movement? An organization by that name appears to have organized an exhibition in 1978. [32] Then, as this article notes, somebody used that name as the alleged sponsor of a denunciation of Bush in 2003. My only hesitation about listing this article is that, seeing how everybody (including me) went to town with International Caps Lock Day, I dread all the comments trying to be surrealistic. I vote a down-to-earth Delete. JamesMLane 03:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fish swims through my veins, screaming delete. Tuf-Kat 14:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

What the heck? This was previously VfD'd and previously debated and voted upon. That wasn't listed here, and there is no VfD debate in its talk page, and there is no sign of deletion in its history, and this nomination didn't bring up the previous delete. What the hell is going on? Delete the article. Had a previous deletion shown up in the history, I'd have speedy deleted for recreation of deleted material, but, since the history of the last VfD debate seems to be missing for some ODD reason, I can't be sure of the vote count. By the way, in a case like this, I don't have to offer up reasons for deleting the article. Geogre 16:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had no idea of any previous history. This article was created October 19. If it's a re-creation of one already voted on, and can therefore be speedied, so much the better. JamesMLane 16:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon species pages (Mouse Pokémon, Flame Pokémon, Shellfish Pokémon, etc) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. All extant species articles have been combined at List of Pokémon by species. Cool Hand Luke 05:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) NO There is no point in having pages of Pokémon species. Some evolutions of Pokémon are different species. For example, Charmander is a Lizard Pokémon, while Charmeleon and Charizard are Flame Pokémon. Andros 1337 04:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I briefly considered the idea of these as categories..that might be feasible, but the current pages shouldn't be kept. I'm saying this as both a Wikipedian and a Pokémon fan. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably should be categories. Flame Pokémon even says it's to be expanded as articles are written. In either case, delete these. Cool Hand Luke 05:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment: These seem harmless. Trivial perhaps, maybe rename to list of mouse Pokémon and so on? The information is encyclopedic, it's just a question of organisation and indexing. Categories seem to be getting a bit out of hand, not convinced that's a good way to organise things but it may be. Also, if they are to be deleted I'd like to vote on a complete list, not just these as prototypes. Someone will need to do the list someday! No vote as yet. Andrewa 06:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I remember being a Pokemon fan years ago, and no one I knew bothered to refer to Pokemon by their "species type". It was always their "element". (So you'd say, "I caught Charmander, that fire-type Pokemon." rather than, "That lizard pokemon." And so on.) So on the basis of unnotability, even within the fandom, delete. PMC

Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 07:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Should probably be merged into some larger article, as alone they don't yeild encyclopedic articles. —siro χ o 10:25, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Delete. I'm the one who originally suggested these be deleted, as a Wikipedian and as a Pokémon fan (Pokémaniac, even). See, each Pokémon has a name, like Pikachu, but also has a "species" thing in its Pokédex description. The only thing with this "species" is... they're often unique to the Pokémon, unique to its evolutionary family (if even that, as the Charmander example shows) or connects rather unrelated Pokémon. (Like Pikachu, a forest- and plain-dwelling Electric-type, and Sandshew, a cave- and desert-dwelling Ground type.) Besides that, like PMC said, it's not all that notable within the fandom – off the top of my head, I can probably recall five: my two favorite Pokémons', one that taught me a new word, and a couple very, very obvious ones. Just the same, it is kind of interesting to have it pointed out that both Pikachu and Sandshew are Mouse Pokémon... I say the lists should be deleted, but maybe the info kept on the Pokémons' pages – for instance, on the Pikachu article, have a section labelled "Other Mouse Pokémon" and list the others there. That or have one large page, something like List of Pokémon by species, and put stuff there. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I like the idea of sections like "Other (blank) Pokemon". It keeps the info, but keeps it from being placed into individual articles for lack of other places to go. So in that case, I'll vote merge and delete. (NOT merge and redirect, because where would we redirect them?) PMC 21:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and delete according to the above suggestions. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all. Leaving red links only encourages these kids to recreate these articles. -Sean Curtin 00:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Where would we redirect them to? Would mouse Pokémon go to Pikachu or Sandshrew? Both are mouse Pokémon. Therefore redirects are pointless. Just nuke 'em all. PMC 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Merge them all into one page. -Sean Curtin 00:40, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    - But is List of Pokémon species (or Pokémon species) really notable enough to give it its own article? I don't think it is. I mean, I was a hardcore fan for years, and I couldn't have named even my favorite Pokémon's species if you paid me. It isn't even important within the fandom. I like Sparky's idea - put it in each Pokémon's page, then have some kind of template linking to "Other (blank) Pokémon". PMC 05:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I say we just delink all the species names in the "Pokémon taxoboxes". --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 01:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  - Agreed. Strongly. PMC 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge. Please, for the love of God.Suntiger 03:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge all the Pokécruft into one article. —tregoweth 05:22, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'd like to say merge and delete, but there's really not enough to the species categorization that warrants it going on its own page, or being made another section of List of Pokémon. Also, in agreement with Sparky, remove the links from the taxoboxes. Oh, and as much as I respect Tregoweth's dislike of Pokemon -- that's a lot of cruft to merge. Azure Haights 05:57, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
There are so many Pokemon species articles! MERGE THEM ALL into one article, or just delete them all! Forgotmytea 13:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Che-Lives was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:66.71.55.79 blanked the page and put the vfd header on, but did not go further and put this page up. I am not taking a position on the article, but am just cleaning up after the anon who seems to have a problem with this page. Rick K 05:48, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The article was designed for the purpose of advertising for the site. On another note, a minor internet forum does not deserve its own article on an encyclopedia. [Note: Comment from User:NewAccount, whose three contribs to date[33] are all VfD-related. Niteowlneils 18:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

Keep (tho' a bit weak). Alexa traffic Rank for che-lives.com: 129,846--a bit too low if it was a general interest site, but seems fairly respectable for such a narrowly focused site. Niteowlneils 18:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. It might be interesting to note that the same day this article was repeatedly blanked by an Anon, the site itself was the victim of a coordinated hack.--Che y Marijuana 03:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I imagine it's hard to find much written from a relatively neutral POV on this, and I think it would be useful to more than a few people. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 07:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If it's growing as fast as the article claims, it's getting more and more notable.Fishal 05:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. In the month or so since I last updated the member count on the article, the site grew to 7847 members.--Che y Marijuana 20:47, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Intrigue 22:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Appears notable. -- Radman1 16:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Todd McCormick was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article does not establish notability. Rick K 06:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Todd McCormick was the first person to be arrested for medicinal marijuana related charges after the passage of California Proposition 215. Noteworthy under these conditions. Radman1 06:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, merge and redirect. Radman1 19:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- But if he's only notable in the context of California Proposition 215 then he only deserved a mention in that article, not his own article. Merge and redirect. Gdr 06:40, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Delete or at least stub and define why this apparent non-entity is in point of fact notable. There are plenty of (i.e. 99% probably if they thought they could get away with it) marijuana users who would no doubt argue this in mitigation. Sjc 06:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
!!!!!! First of all... you worship hitler if you think this should be deleted. While we're at it why don't we delete the article on Buddha? What's so notable about it? Expansion will come... it was just placed as a starting point. -- Unsigned by User:65.97.17.149
- I'm baffled beyond belief. And it seems that I worship Hitler. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 07:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ZEIG HEIL! VE MUST MERGE AND REDEERECT ZE MEDEECINAL MARIJUANA MAN! OOTEN EETEN HAUTEN GLOBEN! Lord Bob 08:03, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Anonymous votes don't count, even from the author of the page. One-liner about some poor guy who can't get dope. There are lots of them. Delete. — Bill 11:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge into California Proposition 215 (1996) and redirect. —Stormie 08:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, unless he's written a book or something. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect: When he's famous for something other than getting busted, he can get an article. Right now, the law is notable, and the first dude to go the can over it isn't. Geogre 16:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When there's a notable event that involves an otherwise nonnotable person, the content should probably be put with the event, with the person mentioned only in the entry on the event. Whether to redirect at that point is an open question. Delete or Redirect --Improv 17:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete or merge. The article, as it's currently written, is a borderline speedy candidate ("Jimmy Spligbertt is a guy who has the fuzz all up in his face for playing his stereo too loud..."). -R. fiend, Schutzstaffel Kommandant 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not certain that this even deserves a merge, but it should definately be removed as an independent article one way or the other. Indrian 17:57, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Merge redirect is the sensible thing to do (to California Proposition 215) —siro χ o 22:19, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. McCormick isn't notable for getting busted; just unlucky. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I worship Hitler errr... I mean Delete. :) NeoJustin 05:56 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
According to BJAODN, Hitler likes people with funny faces. That must mean Mr. McCormick is a clown. To make matters worse, I agree with Schutzstaffel Kommandant Fiend as well. Merge and redirect. The title certainly is legit if the article as it stands is not. Love, Field Marshall Schickelgruber, aka Lucky 6.9 05:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to California Proposition 215 (1996), or keep. —siro χ o 14:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. — Dan | Talk 00:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge with California Proposition 215 (1996) and then Delete. --Nought 00:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Techmonix

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

Appears to be some tiny ISP run by a college student. Google gives 63 hits, most of which appear to be the LiveJournals of this guy's friends. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:17, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Expand Tiny ISP doesn't mean it's worthless. Besides, a humorous read. --Hmib
- Comment is by anon 24.7.163.161. --Slowking Man 07:33, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. —Stormie 08:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete,I know the author. It's more of a personal attack than an encyclopeic entry. Delete without hesistation.--Akajune 15:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Tiny ISP's are not encyclopedic. Geogre 16:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 05:54 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Insignificant. Interesting read tho :P Frankchn 01:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. - Vague Rant 07:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

Invision_warez

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

Information about a warez site that doesn't exist anymore, poorly written, and is most definitely not NPOV. Mo0 09:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Former warez site is not notable, was not. Geogre 16:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indrian 17:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, clearly. Non-notable ad-like article for a site that doesn't exist. Nadavspi | talk 17:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. In its current state this article is non-informative at best. Radman1 18:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Michael D. Perry

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

Non-notable. CEO of small company. Wrote this article himself. --Jia ng 09:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Michael D. Perry" InterCommerce" googles at 2 hits, one of which is Wikipedia, the other the guy's homepage. Cute baby picture, though. Delete. — Bill 11:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity page. Geogre 16:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Would be ok as a user page, but do not redirect. --Improv 17:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Probably should be deleted. I cleaned it up, but had serious doubts about notability. Now that those doubts have been largely substantiated I think it should go. -R. fiend 18:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Weak keep, seems to have small amounts of nobiliy that can yeild an encyclopedic article~~ Delete, I looked around a bit, there isn't any potential to become encyclopedic. —siro χ o 22:18, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. You'd think if this guy was at all worthy of recognition, that his own company's (bargain basement) webpage would at least mention him. Postdlf 22:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 05:53 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - --Cyprus2k1 10:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Sahaj marg was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On cleanup since early September. Does not make sense and smells of advertising --Jia ng 09:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Delete. — Bill 11:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No yogi, no method, no mantra. Advertising. Geogre 16:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Sounds like something you'd order at a balti house. More information available on www.guru-maharishi.yogi.om Chris 02:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Spam. (Bloody Vikings!) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Flesh fetish

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

non-notable garage band on cleanup since august --Jia ng 09:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Band vanity. Geogre 16:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. What a lousy article! --Improv 17:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 16:10 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Why has this been deleted without the vfd top and vfd bottom tags added? I'm restoring until this is done!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Travellers' Pocket Medical Guide was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable. Reads like sales brochure. Few mentions online are mostly from wikipedia. --Jia ng 09:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, potential historical value. Noah Peters 11:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)NP
- user has fewer than 50 edits. has never been notable enough to have significant historical value --Jia ng 02:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: This is an entry from a book sales site. Advertising. Geogre 16:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Sounds like someone trying to promote the sale of their copy. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Fast bowlers was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 19:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dicdef. No notable content. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep and expand into an article. Certainly this ought to be a useful article pertinent to cricket. Sjc 11:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly has potential to become a real article. Shane King 12:22, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'll go with keep on this one. Needs some cricket fans' attention, but it appears to be a commonly-used term: Google gives over 80,000 hits, and they relate to the term, as far as I can tell. --Slowking Man 06:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, totally common cricket term, and relates to a very important evolution in the history of the sport. Should end up with a good article once someone knowledgable takes it on. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
We should look at having something on this topic - however, should it be fast bowlers or fast bowling - ie. technique. Keep for the moment. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Has potential. Keep and expand. Average Earthman 09:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Have redirected to extant fast bowling, which is better than this. Which is what the original lister should've done. You are aware that there are alternatives to VfD'ing everything, right? Sheesh-- GWO 09:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I moved it to VfD. Sheesh yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - You mean there's more than one person running round trying to get stuff deleted without doing any research first? I feel better already. Sheesh. -- GWO 09:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep current redirect. Nice catches Ta bu shi da yu, GWO —siro χ o 14:07, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Consul.cc was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Advert. Wikipedia isn't a Web directory. — Bill 11:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Advertising, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 16:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 16:11 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Useless substub. Delete unless expanded and shown notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to beome encyclopedic —siro χ o 14:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Bosom pad was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT with Falsies

This page seems to purely exist to show pictures of bra parts. Not really encyclopedia material I wouldn't think. Shane King 12:17, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect with Brassiere. Darksun 13:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: This is the second spurious article to use those pictures. My suspicion is that someone is very attached to the pictures and wants to use them, hell or high water. I supsect that if the images were deleted, the articles would stop. Geogre 16:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Bosom pad but keep pictures, which are informative, maybe squeeze one into Brassiere. — Bill 22:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Woman have all time problem by the dimensions of the bosom to BJAODN. I love the pictures though -- somehow quaintly Pythonesque. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect, maybe add the pictures to brassiere. -Sean Curtin 00:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Falsies. The pictures can be used there. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Redirect and merge into Falsies. Bosom pads aren't notable enough for an article of their own (mainly, I think, because of the proliferation of terms for this kind of padding), but their historical distinctness from 'falsies' needs to be recognised. - Katherine Shaw 08:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect and merge into Falsies or Brassiere, whichever is more appropriate. Jayjg 21:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems a prime M/R candidate, someone who knows choose where, its ugly in its current "merged" form.... —siro χ o 14:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

VfD footer

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

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

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

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

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.

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

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.

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

VfD history is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion history archive 2004-09-20. Jamesday 00:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)