Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 3 February 2005 (Bill Rodenbaugh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 3

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Tra la la, la la la la..... Joyous 02:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Arabian Knights

One of a number of animated segments from the 1968 Hanna-Barbera show The Banana Splits Adventure Hour. The segment is not notable enough for its own article, and contains no information that isn't present in the Banana Splits article (the Arabian Knight blurb appears in the Arabian Knight article). --b. Touch 00:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Daniel Poon

Non-notable. DJ Clayworth 00:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Siddha Guru Sri Alakh Puriji

Almost patent (religious?) nonsense; by reading the article I get no sense as to whether this "immortal" person is real or mythical; I suspect the author meant real. The google test yields less than 10 hits for this name. Amahabal 00:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This is probably a delete just because it's pretty obscure but I don't see any reason to dismiss it as nonsense (at least no more so than any other religious idea). The belief that there are immortal rishis living for hundreds of years in the Himalayas is not uncommon in India. --Lee Hunter 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have trouble understanding it, and it certainly needs NPOVing, but it seems like a valid religious topic. You wouldn't necessarily expect something like this to show up much on Google. Everyking 05:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is linked to Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji, the deletion of which was voted upon a few weeks ago (with a final decision to keep). The articles belong to a series of interlinked yoga-related articles mainly by User:Mansukram. In the votation on the other article, User:Utcursch wrote: "I am an Indian and I don't think this person needs a mention in Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend that other articles on swamis and yogis by User:Mansukram be deleted. Don't vote keep, simply because they are well-written or non-stub. Ask some Indians [...]; they know that these yogis are not really notable." On the other hand, in a country with a population almost the size of those of Europe and North America put together, even things notable to a small subset of the population may be regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia. However, all these articles need a clearer context and some kind of categorizing. / up land 07:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one thing, this article is a verbatim quote of a page on www.yotor.com [1], and the other articles in the series may well be also. yotor.com isn't cited in the article. That makes this a copy vio. Google turns up 1 hit on the full name of this guru, and only 19 on the phrase "Alakh Puriji", several of which are links to Wikipedia or its mirrors, and the rest to yotor.com and a couple of other bizarre sites, including another wiki. I don't think these gurus and swamis are notable, even in India, especially with the comment from User:Utcursch quoted above. Finally, the article (like the others in the series) is very poorly written, verging on being nonsense, and I doubt there is enough interest in these gurus that these articles will get cleaned up any time soon. So this just ends up being more crud in the Wikipedia. Delete this article and the others, and if these swamis and gurus are notable, someone else will come along and write a good, sourced, article eventually. But I doubt they are notable. --BM 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it is not a copyvio – that page is a Wikipedia mirror. / up land 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for copyvio and lack of sourcing. Katefan0 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test (less than 30 hits), possible copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a mirror. Megan1967 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As I already pointed out above, there is no evidence of a copyvio in this case. And what does "Wikipedia is not a mirror" mean? There may possibly be good reasons to delete this (and presumably all the other articles in the series), but votes should not be based on false or unproven assumptions. / up land 07:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You are right. yotor.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Sorry to have caused confusion. I should have noticed. Darn Wikipedia mirrors all over the place. No change of vote, though. --BM 01:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable, possible copyvio. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete. Don't allow Wikipedia to turn into a platform for popularizing non-notable swamis and sadhus. There are thousands of them in India. Google returns Wikipedia mirrors. utcursch 05:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete agree with Utcursh. This would be roughly akin to giving every minister or nun an encyclopedia entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

akin, but gurus have more to teach

  • It seems written well enough to me, so the issue is significance, notabilty. Unless anyone can come up with hard evidence that this spirit/man has impacted significantly on local customs/Hinduism/Indians/the world, I would vote to delete. HowardB 06:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bizzle

Um, well. It's a definition (although a bad one), but I don't think Wikitionary will want it. humblefool® 01:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yeesh. "Bizzle" is "double dutch jump roping talk--originated by Frankie Smith, popularized 15 years later by Snoop Dogg--for "boy", which in turn is slang for "friend". But yes, delete. --b. Touch 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find evidence of this. References in Google seem to be to proper nouns and not this usage. JoaoRicardo 03:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delizzle. -Sean Curtin 07:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Shizzle, dizzle, bizzle...when will the madnizzle end? Deletizzle. Bearcat 07:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fo shizzle. JimmyShelter 09:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Animals in captivity

A signed POV essay. -- Curps 01:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some parts of the essay appear to be copyvios; probably acceptable if attributed and quoted in a school essay but not here.-gadfium 01:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Duplicates content on animal rights. JoaoRicardo 03:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research. Rje 03:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research/essay. --Deathphoenix 05:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trinity (gamespy)

Supposedly a name that users of this message forum use to refer to three of the forum administrators. Seems like extreme trivia to me. --Lee Hunter 01:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect into ForumPlanet. The site seems notable enough, but let's improve its own article first instead of sowing stubs around. And as Lee Hunter adequately put it, simply being a fact is not enough to be in Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 03:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, as JoaoRicardo says. Rje 03:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as suggested by JoaoRicardo. While non-notable outside the community, I think the parenthetical (gamespy) in the article title makes it specific enough for a redirect. --Deathphoenix 05:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't merge or redirect, and remove reference in ForumPlanet, unless someone produces some evidence that this factoid is true. Why do we have an article on ForumPlanet by the way: that is just a section of Gamespy. Are we doing sub-websites now? --BM 17:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Factoids (I hope these will suffice)
Those links just show that the three login-names mentioned in the article have forums on ForumPlanet. The article under discussion claims they are referred to as "the Trinity". But, please don't go to any more trouble on my account to prove this. Even if it is true, my vote is still Delete, since the fact that three guys on ForumPlanet are referred to as "The Trinity" by the other people who hang out on ForumPlanet is not an encyclopedia topic, in my opinion. --BM 01:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 6 / Delete 4. Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Violet Scene

According to the article this disbanded group had one album and an EP. 171 hits on Google for Violet Scene, many of which are not for this group. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines --Lee Hunter 01:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well, this band has certainly been found worthy of an article/biography on All Music Guide, whose editors' competence is, as far as I know, not in question. Rock fan
  • Delete. This band lasted from 1995 to 2000. They recorded only two independend albums, won no major award. Only 171 Google hits. Some of the ex-members then went to form Still Doing Sky, which is not in AMG and gets 50 Google hits. I often trust AMG, but I'll disagree with them in this one. JoaoRicardo 03:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable references are given - David Gerard 10:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test. Megan1967 01:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If All Music Guide which is a comprehensive guide to music think that this group is notable enough for an article, it indicates that we should consider doing the same. I have added to the article and wikified it. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep. Yuckfoo 01:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly fails inclusion guidelines. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) Keep per Tuf-Kat. —Korath (Talk) 17:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Grue 10:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now meets WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion (through the national tour of Norway). Tuf-Kat 16:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 18:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anders Valen Mørland

Not yet notable. Delete.-gadfium 01:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 02:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 03:22, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 05:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 09:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Universe of Evil

A synopsis for an episode of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon SuperFriends. Not encyclopaedic in nature, nor is this--or any individual episode of the show--notable enough for its own seperate article. --b. Touch 01:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. I would vote a merging to Superfriends if this episode was in someway more remarkable than all the others, which I don't think it is by seeing the Superfriends sites on dmoz. And this isn't an article, it's just a synopsis. JoaoRicardo 02:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete & merge. Mikkalai.
  • Merge anything useable to Superfriends, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Derwent Center of Universe

Cannot find in Google. Possible joke page. Delete.-gadfium 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find evidence of this. JoaoRicardo 02:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, possible original research. --Deathphoenix 05:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax or vanity. Megan1967 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even less notable than Derwent, Central Alberta (which is at least a real place). Denni☯ 01:31, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mike Hancock (Canadian politician)

Insufficiently notable. -- Curps 02:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, the fact that he was a mayor was mentioned only in passing in the middle of the original copyvio resumé/CV and I must have missed it, and Google on a common name like this didn't help. -- Curps 21:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Mayor of a city of 90,000 people. That's notable for me. The article needs a lot of work though. --Lee Hunter 02:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong cleanup and keep.--Centauri 03:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a copy violation[2]. I don't know if I made a faux pas by listing it for copyvio while it's on VfD, but I'm supposed to be bold. >_> I left the VfD message up as is, and replaced the content with the copyvio. The mayor does deserve an article, though. ?Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-3 03:46 Z
  • Keep iff someone writes a non-copyvio article. The topic is worthwhile. (Otherwise, delete, and let someone else have a go at the redlink.) --TenOfAllTrades 04:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a nice fresh non-copyvio piece I just wrote sitting at Mike Hancock (Canadian politician)/Temp. Keep it? Samaritan 05:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! mayors deserve their own articles! Especially mayors if large cities like Brantford. Earl Andrew 05:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new non-copyvio page -- James Teterenko (talk) 06:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep non-copyvio version. And remove copyvio from article history. Mgm|(talk) 10:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the copyvio notice and moved Samaritan's temp page to the main article title. Oh, and my vote is keep; IMO, mayors pass the notability test. Bearcat 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 04:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, putting "Mike Hancock mayor Brantford Ontario" into Google gives you several pages of legitimate hits. But I am not convinved this is the point. I have made the point elsewhere that just serving as an elected official in some two-bit town (sorry, Brantford, I'm sure you are all lovely people -- but just 90,000 of you) cannot possibly entitle someone to an encyclopedic entry, or we will end up with millions (yes, millions) of them. Look -- how many Indian towns are there with 90,000+ inhabitants and a mayor. What about Indonesia, Brazil, or the USA? If the time comes that Mr. Hancock achieves some fame or notoriety (e.g. he serves more terms than any other Canadian mayor, he bankrupts Brantford by siphoning off city funds into his car dealership, or whatever) then give him his entry. But not just for being a mayor (and for only two years so far). Delete HowardB 06:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually no, you wouldn't wind up with millions of articles. If the planet had one million cities with more than 90,000 people the population of the earth would be 90 billion.--Lee Hunter 12:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, quite possibly. Note I said "elected officials". People are putting in aldermen, councillors, etc. Living, and dead. So let's go back over the last 100 years or so -- many officials only serve one term -- say 4 years or so? I don't what to get pedantic about this, but the point is, there will just be too many. HowardB 13:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 8 / Delete 1 / Merge and redirect 2: Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

C'tan

This is details of an old role playing game. Wikipedia is not a fan site. The same goes for all the articles in Category:Warhammer 40,000 species. --151.204.6.44 02:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Necron. I don't see too much problem with the playable races, but I don't think each piece of Warhammer 40000's, expansive, background merits its own article. --Rje 03:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as suggested by Rje. Fan material of this nature is notable enough, but probably not enough to warrant its own article. --Deathphoenix 05:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeep. Eventually yes, each piece of any fictional universe will have its place on Wikipedia. Sure, creating few words stubs for fictonal minor things is rather pointless, but this article is longer then a stub. Basically, if an article about fictional thing is a stub, then merge it. If not, keep it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Unless cultural significance beyond this game can be shown, this is non-notable on its own. Martg76 00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article provides important information, why delete it? --Jonus 13:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as long as its identified as fictional, what's the problem?--Dzimmer6 22:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this. Yuckfoo 01:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Warhammer 40,000 is neither old nor a roleplaying game. -- Necrothesp 04:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of other parts of fiction settings (including characters/places/animals/races from Games, Books, Comics, Movies, Mythology) are included in Wikipedia as long as style is kept encylopedic and article is identified as belonging to a particular fictional setting. I think it's great you can look up all sorts of info about different fictional settings. --Waza 00:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand what the person who reccomended this for deletion was talking about. C'tan plays an important part in certain aspects of the game, and it is not outdated.
  • Delete. Obviously this is going to be kept. However, this is far too low level a detail from a fictional universe -- one that is not even all that popular -- to merit a separate article in a general encyclopedia. It wouldn't even make it into an Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. --BM 14:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 17:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although merger with the Necron page might be a good compromise The IP 04:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shelly Kagan

Non-notable? Bart133 (t) 03:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: About ten minutes after the VfD notice, the original author tried to blank this article, and about ten minutes after the revert, the original author tried to blank it again. I don't know if this means it's a candidate for speedy deletion, but FWIW, "Shelly Kagan" gets about 850 Google hits, most of which appear to be about a Professor at Yale University. --Deathphoenix 05:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Lean towards keep. Probably pretty notable, though the current article doesn't say why. He used to be on the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh, which is in the running for being the top philosophy department in the US. He left there because he is married to a midwife, who couldn't practice in Pennsylvania at that time. Then he was at University of Illinois at Chicago before taking his current endowed chair at Yale. To be honest, I don't know his work, but I went to college with him (Wesleyan University) and he was one of the sharpest people I knew as an undergrad. Given that and that his career trajectory has been duly impressive, I'd be surprised if a little research would not demonstrate notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually couldn't find that much biographical information on the web, and could substantiate only the UIC connection and not even the Pittsburgh one. Anyway, forgot to vote, so keep. JuntungWu 09:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I can attest to that from personal acquaintance -- I visited him there -- but I don't have written sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Clearly very notable. A five-minute look at JSTOR brought up several journal articles (not just reviews) written on aspects of his work, and even a "mini symposium" on Kagan's The Limits of Morality consisting of three papers published together in the journal Ethics in 1994. However, the present article reads just like an entry in a university directory, and I can't see the value of keeping it unless it is expanded. OTOH it was slapped with the VfD-notice two minutes after creation, which may have frustrated and confused some newbie planning to do just that. I don't like subsubstubs like this, but it should probably have been given a chance for a few days before being VfDed. I wish there were a way to suspend voting in a case like this, to make the author understand that keeping the article is entirely a matter of filling it with content and that the work is not going to be wasted if it is done. / up+land 07:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. No worse now than lots of other stubs, and there is no doubt that Kagan deserves an article. /up+land 16:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try cleanup. JuntungWu 07:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Holding an endowed chair at an Ivy on its own clears the average professor test, exceeding most university presidents, politicians, executives, athletes, actors... Definite keep and expand. Samaritan 07:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This philosophy professor at Yale is well-known. It is too bad we can't remove the VfD tag now, and let the person who was going to write the article get on with it. Biographies need to establish notability, but lets not swoop in with the VfD tag minutes after an article is started, unless there is good reason to think the author is up to no good. Assume good faith. --BM 15:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this highly notable individual. —RaD Man (talk) 20:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable philosopher with a couple of significant books to his credit. Capitalistroadster 08:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep'. notable. Yuckfoo 01:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andrusia

Hoax. Thue | talk 03:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense. There is a Lake Andrusia, and a few people with that surname, but no Kingdom of Andrusia. --Deathphoenix 05:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. Xezbeth 06:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. jni 17:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test (clear majority of hits not related to the Kingdom of Andrusia, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense hoax. Bart133 (t) 02:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn hoax. GRider\talk 17:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Myra lymba

Hoax, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrusia. Thue | talk 04:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

NCOR

Anarchist workshops and films meeting. Looks like vanity to me -- Chris 73 Talk 04:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems to be another non-notable event at a university (American University in Washington D.C.) --Deathphoenix 05:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody can prove notability. Last year, you could hardly tell they were here, and my freshman year, I missed them completely. Doesn't seem like a significant event. Meelar (talk) 06:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 17:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity page. Bart133 (t) 02:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • don't delete, this is a really important event despite having smaller turnouts in the last couple of years. (User:66.195.209.200)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Calling (song)

Certainly a notable song by a notable band, but this article says nothing. Anyone doing a search will type "London Calling" and get the album, which gives them more information. An easy keep if anything consequential is said about it, but until then it's useless. I'm all for articles on songs when they're notable and say something useful and interesting (I wrote Rock the Casbah, and would love to see this article approach that one) but if Wikipedia is going to be home to 100,000 articles that say "X is a song by Y" then I'd like to nip this in the bud. Yes, I know, "VfD is not cleanup/expand". I could put a request for expansion on this and wait for something to happen, but an "expand or die" ultimatum might actually get the ball rolling, and if it doesn't we'll get rid of a useless article and hope thousands more don't pop up. I will gladly change my vote if this becomes a real article. -R. fiend 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • As promised I too am now voting keep. Good job to all who expanded wrote this brand new article. And this is no more abuse of VfD than creating a useless substub and forcing others to write your article for you is an abuse of the Requested Articles process. -R. fiend 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll second delete unless it says something. Kappa 05:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK it does say something now, keep. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, you don't pull up the sapling on the grounds that it's not grown yet. You've got to start with something sometime. I was going to try to articulate the song's meaning, but actually I'm not exactly sure about it. Everyking 05:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a clear abuse of the vfd process, the poster even admits this. While I sypathise with the good intentions, vfd is too clogged already to become an extended cleanup forum. 213.206.33.82 05:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is why the stub and sub-stub tags were created. Isn't there a song-stub tag floating around? 23skidoo 05:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Putting tags on this thing (as it was, "X is a song by Y") is basically asking someone to create a new article from scratch. Let people expand things which have some useful information already. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Szyslak 06:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Repeat of sentiment of fellow editors. JuntungWu 07:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A stub for something the potential nominator considers both notable and expandible should not be on VfD. Put on a {{song-stub}} or other appropriate tag, take it to Talk:The Clash, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, etc. Keep. Samaritan 07:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added info on lyrics, recording, chart success and critical impact so that it is no longer a stub but a fully fledged article. #15 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs of all time list.Capitalistroadster 09:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bogus VFD. Lack of content is not a reason to delete. It is an opportunity to add content.--Centauri 11:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because it has been expanded. If it had remained as a useless substub, I'd have been quite happy to say delete and list on requested articles, as I would rather there was a redlink than a link to an article that tells you nothing. Average Earthman 11:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with what Kappa and Average Earthman said. Whether you're an inclusionist or deletionist, attacking someone for nominating an article that currently has no useful content whatsoever for deletion is uncalled for. —Korath (Talk) 15:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ditto Average Earthman, Kappa, and Korath. --BM 16:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I ditto that ditto and I believe kudos and not censure are in order for "R. fiend" for being bold enough to bring the problem of factual but woefully inadequate nanostubs to light. While this might not be a cleanup page per se, countless excellent articles have resulted from substandard articles that were listed here. Oh, and someone shoot a Barnstar over to Capitalistroadster, OK? - Lucky 6.9 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I am inclined to agree that having an article on every song is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Xadai 02:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all notable songs by notable bands. —RaD Man (talk) 22:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though the song sucks. Da 'Sco Mon 01:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for notability and kick-assness, would have voted delete for the original version Tuf-Kat 16:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite notable, though it looks like another vote is hardly needed at this point. Antandrus 16:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator went to some length to explain his reasons, but it was still a misuse of votes for deletion. Philip 05:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and guess what... VfD is not cleanup. GRider\talk 17:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ...but it is a fuckload more effective. -R. fiend 23:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compression error; deletion pending. Joyous 01:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Rodenbaugh

A coder at ForumPlanet. Significant only within the Gamespy community, where he has achieved 'cult status among a few select users'. Not otherwise notable, as far as I can tell. --TenOfAllTrades 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable, possible vanity article. --Deathphoenix 05:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 18:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 02:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_3&oldid=9904938"